Bug#100449: marked as done (debian/control in tetex-bin)
Your message dated Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:02:01 +0100
with message-id <20010611090200.A13858@polya>
and subject line Bug#100449: debian/control in tetex-bin
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 10 Jun 2001 21:07:16 +0000
>From Eric.VanBuggenhaut@advalvas.be Sun Jun 10 16:07:16 2001
Return-path: <Eric.VanBuggenhaut@advalvas.be>
Received: from (smtp3.eresmas.com) [::ffff:62.81.160.203]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 159CQW-0004TX-00; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:07:16 -0500
Received: from femto ([62.83.46.103]) by smtp3.eresmas.com
(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id GEQFQ300.BI5 for
<submit@bugs.debian.org>; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:01:15 +0200
Received: from eric by femto with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
id 159CPh-0000M5-00
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:06:25 +0200
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:06:25 +0200
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: debian/control in tetex-bin
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20010610230625.C1341@femto.eric.ath.cx>
Reply-To: Eric.VanBuggenhaut@AdValvas.be
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
From: Eric Van Buggenhaut <eric@femto.eric.ath.cx>
X-BadReturnPath: eric@femto.eric.ath.cx rewritten as Eric.VanBuggenhaut@advalvas.be
using "Reply-To" header
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Package: tetex-bin
Version: 1.0.7+20001218
Severity: wishlist
In debian/control, we have
Replaces: tetex-base
and
Description: You need at least tetex-base with it.
Sounds contradictory.
--
Eric VAN BUGGENHAUT
Eric.VanBuggenhaut@AdValvas.be
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 100449-done) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Jun 2001 08:02:11 +0000
>From J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk Mon Jun 11 03:02:11 2001
Return-path: <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>
Received: from mserv1b.vianw.co.uk [::ffff:195.102.240.137]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 159MeJ-0007PN-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 03:02:11 -0500
Received: from [195.102.196.82] (helo=polya)
by mserv1b.vianw.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #5)
id 159MeD-0005yg-00
for 100449-done@bugs.debian.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:02:05 +0100
Received: from jdg by polya with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
id 159Me9-0003gK-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:02:01 +0100
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:02:01 +0100
From: Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>
To: 100449-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#100449: debian/control in tetex-bin
Message-ID: <20010611090200.A13858@polya>
References: <[🔎] 20010610230625.C1341@femto.eric.ath.cx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20010610230625.C1341@femto.eric.ath.cx>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Sender: Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>
Delivered-To: 100449-done@bugs.debian.org
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 11:06:25PM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> Package: tetex-bin
> Version: 1.0.7+20001218
> Severity: wishlist
>
> In debian/control, we have
>
> Replaces: tetex-base
>
> and
>
> Description: You need at least tetex-base with it.
>
> Sounds contradictory.
Please see the policy manual, section 7.5. You're right: it sounds
contradictory, but in fact isn't. It just means some of the files in
this package replace files that used to be in tetex-base.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Reply to: