[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#751079: marked as done (reportbug: newer version alert even when only for a different architecture)

Your message dated Fri, 15 Apr 2022 19:43:54 +0200
with message-id <2fd13024-c2b3-938b-58d6-eaf4c602a5e9@web.de>
and subject line Re: reportbug: newer version alert even when only for a different architecture
has caused the Debian Bug report #751079,
regarding reportbug: newer version alert even when only for a different architecture
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.)


-- 
751079: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=751079
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: reportbug
Version: 6.5.0
Severity: normal

Dear Maintainer,

*** Reporter, please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***

   * What led up to the situation?

A report on icedove on i386. reportbug announced that there was a newer
version in unstable, but checking packages.debian.org showed that it was
only available on other architectures.

   * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
     ineffective)?
   * What was the outcome of this action?
   * What outcome did you expect instead?

reportbug could have said that there was a newer version in a different
architecture, therefore a newer version *may* become available soon.


*** End of the template - remove these template lines ***


-- Package-specific info:
** Environment settings:
INTERFACE="text"

** /home/amarsh04/.reportbugrc:
reportbug_version "3.5"
mode standard
ui text
realname "Arthur Marsh"
email "arthur.marsh@internode.on.net"

-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (500, 'oldstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.15.0-rc8+ (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_AU.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_AU.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages reportbug depends on:
ii  apt               1.0.3
ii  python            2.7.6-2
ii  python-reportbug  6.5.0

reportbug recommends no packages.

Versions of packages reportbug suggests:
pn  claws-mail                                 <none>
ii  debconf-utils                              1.5.53
ii  debsums                                    2.0.52+nmu2
pn  dlocate                                    <none>
ii  emacs23-bin-common                         23.4+1-4.1+b1
ii  exim4                                      4.82.1-1
ii  exim4-daemon-light [mail-transport-agent]  4.82.1-1+b1
ii  file                                       1:5.18-1
ii  gnupg                                      1.4.16-1.1
ii  python-gtk2                                2.24.0-3+b1
ii  python-gtkspell                            2.25.3-13
pn  python-urwid                               <none>
ii  python-vte                                 1:0.28.2-5
ii  xdg-utils                                  1.1.0~rc1+git20111210-7.1

Versions of packages python-reportbug depends on:
ii  apt               1.0.3
ii  python            2.7.6-2
ii  python-debian     0.1.21+nmu3
ii  python-debianbts  1.11
ii  python-support    1.0.15

python-reportbug suggests no packages.

-- debconf-show failed

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 11.1.0

On 10 Jun 2014 Arthur Marsh wrote:
> A report on icedove on i386. reportbug announced that there was a newer
> version in unstable, but checking packages.debian.org showed that it was
> only available on other architectures.

The problem was that reportbug was also counting the version of the
source package. This has been fixed a few months ago in
8fd32804e6a697e2d636110e018b732a093c836a

--- End Message ---
Reply to: