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

Bug#202254: marked as done (ITP: acheck-rules -- Basic rules for acheck)



Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:04:15 -0400
with message-id <E19hLih-0001cI-00@auric.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#202254: fixed in acheck-rules 0.2
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.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 21 Jul 2003 09:27:18 +0000
>From nico.bertol@free.fr Mon Jul 21 04:27:16 2003
Return-path: <nico.bertol@free.fr>
Received: from postfix3-2.free.fr [213.228.0.169] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 19eWwu-0003E0-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 04:27:16 -0500
Received: from bertol (lns-th2-10-82-64-158-236.adsl.proxad.net [82.64.158.236])
	by postfix3-2.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF46C10E
	for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:27:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from nico by bertol with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 19eWwt-0001RC-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:27:15 +0200
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:27:14 +0200
From: Nicolas Bertolissio <nico.bertol@free.fr>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: ITP: acheck-rules -- Basic rules for acheck
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20030721092714.GA5523@free.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Reportbug-Version: 2.18
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-11.0 required=4.0
	tests=BAYES_01,HAS_PACKAGE,USER_AGENT_MUTT,X_DEBBUGS_CC
	version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)

Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-21
Severity: wishlist


* Package name    : acheck-rules
  Version         : 0.1
  Upstream Author : Nicolas Bertolissio <nico.bertol@free.fr>
* URL             : http://nico.bertol.free.fr/acheck-rules/index.html
* License         : GPL
  Description     : Basic rules for acheck

* Package name    : acheck
  Description     : Check common localisation mistakes

 This package provides basic rules to be checked by the acheck script.
 .
 It also contains the manpages for rules files.


This is already packaged at the above URL.

I am waiting for DAM approval with another package (ddtc), and I have
already found a sponsor for this one.

Other ITP acheck-rules and acheck-rules-fr are related to this one of
course.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux bertol 2.4.20 #3 SMP sam fév 15 16:58:20 CET 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=fr_FR@euro, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR@euro


-- 

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 202254-close) by bugs.debian.org; 29 Jul 2003 04:05:49 +0000
>From rdonald@auric.debian.org Mon Jul 28 23:05:49 2003
Return-path: <rdonald@auric.debian.org>
Received: from auric.debian.org [206.246.226.45] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 19hLkD-0001JV-00; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:05:49 -0500
Received: from rdonald by auric.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 19hLih-0001cI-00; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:04:15 -0400
From: Nicolas Bertolissio <nico.bertol@free.fr>
To: 202254-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: lisa $Revision: 1.23 $
Subject: Bug#202254: fixed in acheck-rules 0.2
Message-Id: <E19hLih-0001cI-00@auric.debian.org>
Sender: Randall Donald <rdonald@auric.debian.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:04:15 -0400
Delivered-To: 202254-close@bugs.debian.org

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
acheck-rules, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

acheck-rules_0.2.dsc
  to pool/main/a/acheck-rules/acheck-rules_0.2.dsc
acheck-rules_0.2.tar.gz
  to pool/main/a/acheck-rules/acheck-rules_0.2.tar.gz
acheck-rules_0.2_all.deb
  to pool/main/a/acheck-rules/acheck-rules_0.2_all.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 202254@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Nicolas Bertolissio <nico.bertol@free.fr> (supplier of updated acheck-rules package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 02:11:04 +0200
Source: acheck-rules
Binary: acheck-rules
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Nicolas Bertolissio <nico.bertol@free.fr>
Changed-By: Nicolas Bertolissio <nico.bertol@free.fr>
Description: 
 acheck-rules - Basic rules for acheck
Closes: 202254
Changes: 
 acheck-rules (0.2) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * entering Debian archive (closes: bug#202254)
   * clean `debian/' directory
     - remove empty `README.Debian'
     - add `Build-Depends-Indep: perl
     - improve description
     - clean `rules'
     thanks to Denis Barbier for all these
Files: 
 9d13e809f6b4d198497fa284ae2dc2c4 520 text optional acheck-rules_0.2.dsc
 8d51c509411c74532957950d8c2dd70c 8263 text optional acheck-rules_0.2.tar.gz
 dd637cd4874ddd1169d1bef6b8af53d9 12890 text optional acheck-rules_0.2_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/Hig98Ri1lR4WGvsRArZKAKCJ0kWvbCNCfu/vcpfXVMcwWMOaVwCeICsS
0tcU5R9UwmohJke6LIBnl0s=
=b6Bx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: