Bug#211310: marked as done (O: libmail-bulkmail-perl -- Platform independent mailing list module)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:56:22 -0500
with message-id <E1AhyQY-00038v-00@auric.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#211310: fixed in libmail-bulkmail-perl 3.12-1
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; 16 Sep 2003 23:19:21 +0000
>From jaldhar@braincells.com Tue Sep 16 18:19:20 2003
Return-path: <jaldhar@braincells.com>
Received: from samadhi.braincells.com (mail.braincells.com) [216.162.42.100]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19zP6N-0007ny-00; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:19:19 -0500
Received: by mail.braincells.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
id 1A72D7F53; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 19:19:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar@debian.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: O: libmail-bulkmail-perl
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.50
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 19:19:21 -0400
Message-Id: <20030916231921.1A72D7F53@mail.braincells.com>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_30,HAS_PACKAGE,RCVD_IN_ORBS,SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_9_16
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_9_16 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-09-16
Severity: normal
I've uploaded a package for upstream version 3.09 and set the maintainer
to the QA group. If you were thinking of picking it up, be aware it is
non-free now. A prospective new maintainer should ideally be willing to
try and convince the upstream author to make it free again.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 211310-close) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Jan 2004 22:44:20 +0000
>From katie@auric.debian.org Sat Jan 17 14:44:20 2004
Return-path: <katie@auric.debian.org>
Received: from auric.debian.org [206.246.226.45] (mail)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AhzAy-0004MB-00; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:44:20 -0800
Received: from katie by auric.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AhyQY-00038v-00; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:56:22 -0500
From: Marc Brockschmidt <marc@dch-faq.de>
To: 211310-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.43 $
Subject: Bug#211310: fixed in libmail-bulkmail-perl 3.12-1
Message-Id: <E1AhyQY-00038v-00@auric.debian.org>
Sender: Archive Administrator <katie@auric.debian.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:56:22 -0500
Delivered-To: 211310-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_01_14
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_01_14
X-Spam-Level:
Source: libmail-bulkmail-perl
Source-Version: 3.12-1
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
libmail-bulkmail-perl, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
libmail-bulkmail-perl_3.12-1.diff.gz
to pool/main/libm/libmail-bulkmail-perl/libmail-bulkmail-perl_3.12-1.diff.gz
libmail-bulkmail-perl_3.12-1.dsc
to pool/main/libm/libmail-bulkmail-perl/libmail-bulkmail-perl_3.12-1.dsc
libmail-bulkmail-perl_3.12-1_all.deb
to pool/main/libm/libmail-bulkmail-perl/libmail-bulkmail-perl_3.12-1_all.deb
libmail-bulkmail-perl_3.12.orig.tar.gz
to pool/main/libm/libmail-bulkmail-perl/libmail-bulkmail-perl_3.12.orig.tar.gz
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 211310@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Marc Brockschmidt <marc@dch-faq.de> (supplier of updated libmail-bulkmail-perl 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: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:34:58 +0100
Source: libmail-bulkmail-perl
Binary: libmail-bulkmail-perl
Architecture: source all
Version: 3.12-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Perl Group <pkg-perl-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Marc Brockschmidt <marc@dch-faq.de>
Description:
libmail-bulkmail-perl - Platform independent mailing list module
Closes: 211310
Changes:
libmail-bulkmail-perl (3.12-1) unstable; urgency=low
.
* New maintainer (Debian Perl Group) (Closes: #211310)
* New upstream version:
- Mail::Bulkmail::Object was relicensed, the whole thing is free software
now.
* debian/ dir:
- watch: Fixed.
- rules: Used one of my standard debian/rules files.
- control:
+ Changed section from non-free/perl to perl
+ Bumped Standards-Version to 3.6.1 (no changes)
+ Set Maintainer field to "Debian Perl Group"
+ Added perl dependency to Build-Depends-Indep (we need MakeMaker)
+ debhelper dependency now includes >= 4.
- copyright: Reflect the relicensing.
- changelog: Removed user variables at end of file
Files:
fe37099ba97efabf79c968a3cdc9a19d 766 perl optional libmail-bulkmail-perl_3.12-1.dsc
6e0ac735649f6b36f35b570b50e4dbbc 71069 perl optional libmail-bulkmail-perl_3.12.orig.tar.gz
6fa4686f32b3bbca46d2b097f63f1048 3451 perl optional libmail-bulkmail-perl_3.12-1.diff.gz
b036db9373bd600ab82e95fed6c28194 132708 perl optional libmail-bulkmail-perl_3.12-1_all.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFACYlt9ijrk0dDIGwRAjE3AKCn9P7CVhwOzsd1eq28C2cVa2vj7QCcDgyG
48r/OzqQXRJD2IDTyTp/EBo=
=gS7r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: