Bug#1000472: marked as done (bullseye-pu: package rustc-mozilla/1.51.0+dfsg1-1~deb11u1)
Your message dated Sat, 18 Dec 2021 20:57:56 +0000
with message-id <7c5e58422d4fd1d02cfae36eca731d5d90ba0743.camel@adam-barratt.org.uk>
and subject line Closing bugs for p-u requests included in 11.2 (part the deux)
has caused the Debian Bug report #1000472,
regarding bullseye-pu: package rustc-mozilla/1.51.0+dfsg1-1~deb11u1
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.)
--
1000472: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1000472
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: bullseye
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
SRM,
In preparing the rustc 1.51 upload/backport (to support backports of the
latest firefox-esr and thunderbird packages) it has been suggested that
to avoid some issues associated with providing a significant new version
of rustc in the rustc binary package (along with the associated library
packages), that I prepare the 1.51 rustc package with a different name.
Following the model of what was done for gcc, nasm, and nodejs, I was
considering source package rustc-mozilla with a single binary package
(also rustc-mozilla) to ensure that rdeps don't end up getting surprised
by a new rustc. Would this be considered acceptable for the bullseye
and buster uploads of rustc 1.51?
(I intend to file a separate bug for buster-pu once I receive some
direction via this bug.)
Regards,
- -Roberto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=i90C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 1000377-done@bugs.debian.org, 1000448-done@bugs.debian.org, 1000454-done@bugs.debian.org, 1000458-done@bugs.debian.org, 1000472-done@bugs.debian.org, 1000477-done@bugs.debian.org, 1000485-done@bugs.debian.org, 1000511-done@bugs.debian.org, 1000607-done@bugs.debian.org, 1000707-done@bugs.debian.org, 1000785-done@bugs.debian.org, 1000811-done@bugs.debian.org, 1000973-done@bugs.debian.org, 1001100-done@bugs.debian.org, 1001115-done@bugs.debian.org, 1001148-done@bugs.debian.org, 1001180-done@bugs.debian.org, 1001279-done@bugs.debian.org, 1001285-done@bugs.debian.org, 1001388-done@bugs.debian.org, 1001389-done@bugs.debian.org, 1001398-done@bugs.debian.org, 1001474-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Closing bugs for p-u requests included in 11.2 (part the deux)
- From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
- Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021 20:57:56 +0000
- Message-id: <7c5e58422d4fd1d02cfae36eca731d5d90ba0743.camel@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Package: release.debian.org
Version: 11.2
Hi,
Each of the updates referenced by these requests was included in
today's bullseye point release, but my original closure mail failed to
correctly handle 7-digit bug numbers. Fixing that omission now.
Regards,
Adam
--- End Message ---
Reply to: