Bug#944227: marked as done (transition: prompt-toolkit)
On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 09:16:42PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Control: reopen -1
>
> Hi Gordon,
>
> On 06-01-2020 16:39, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > Your message dated Mon, 06 Jan 2020 15:37:55 +0000
> > with message-id <E1ioUS3-0002az-5g@fasolo.debian.org>
> > and subject line Bug#944227: fixed in prompt-toolkit 2.0.10-2
> > has caused the Debian Bug report #944227,
> > regarding transition: prompt-toolkit
> > to be marked as done.
> >
> > This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
> > If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
> > Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
> >
> > (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
> > message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
> > misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
> > immediately.)
>
> It is very uncommon that a transition bug is closed by an upload to
> unstable, as transitions are only finished when the required pieces have
> migrated to testing (or have been removed if not transitioning).
>
Ack, sorry. Thanks for keeping an eye on it.
The transition (as per my original ben file) still lists ipython as
depending on python-prompt-toolkit; this has been dealt with for the
time being by forking the relevant source packages since this package
still has a lot of rdepends, so is no longer relevant for this
transition.
> Hence, I reopen the bug.
>
> I notice that python-softlayer needs to be updated for your package to
> migrate, but I am not aware that the maintainer has been warned about
> it. ginggs asked you to file the bug, but I didn't spot it. Please do so
> ASAP and mark it blocking this bug.
Opened (#948397). As noted in the bug, a previous uploader for
python-softlayer had been involved in the discussions about starting
this transition, so I assumed that they were aware of it; however it
appears that the uploader list for the package has changed in the
meanwhile.
>
> Paul
>
Reply to: