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

Bug#310044: marked as done (ITP: proguard -- java class file shrinker, optimizer, and obfuscator)

Your message dated Thu, 02 Jun 2005 18:18:18 -0400
with message-id <E1Ddy14-0008TP-00@newraff.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#310044: fixed in proguard 3.2-1
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; 21 May 2005 09:19:54 +0000
>From samo@debian.org Sat May 21 02:19:54 2005
Return-path: <samo@debian.org>
Received: from dsl093-138-198.sfo4.dsl.speakeasy.net (shadowfax.superduper.net) [] 
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1DZQ99-00037S-00; Sat, 21 May 2005 02:19:51 -0700
Received: from [] (helo=localhost)
	by shadowfax.superduper.net with asmtp (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA:16)
	(Exim 4.34)
	id 1DZQR0-0005mX-Mh; Sat, 21 May 2005 02:38:20 -0700
Received: from sam by localhost with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DZQ91-0002Ho-IG; Sat, 21 May 2005 10:19:43 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Sam Clegg <samo@debian.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: ITP: proguard -- java class file shrinker, optimizer, and obfuscator
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.11
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 10:19:42 +0100
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Message-Id: <E1DZQ91-0002Ho-IG@localhost>
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-11.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE,
	X_DEBBUGS_CC autolearn=ham version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sam Clegg <samo@debian.org>

* Package name    : proguard
  Version         : 3.2
  Upstream Author : Eric Lafortune <eric@graphics.cornell.edu
* URL             : http://proguard.sourceforge.net/
* License         : GPL
  Description     : java class file shrinker, optimizer, and obfuscator

 ProGuard is a free Java class file shrinker, optimizer, and
 obfuscator.  It can detect and remove unused classes, fields,
 methods, and attributes. It can then optimize bytecode and remove
 unused instructions. Finally, it can rename the remaining classes,
 fields, and methods using short meaningless names. The resulting jars
 are smaller and harder to reverse-engineer.

This package builds just with jikes-classpath and runs with kaffe
which are both in main.

My provisional packages are available here:


There is an archived ITP for proguard from over a year ago and
I have checked with the original filer that he is no longer
interested in this package.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.11
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)

Received: (at 310044-close) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Jun 2005 22:21:31 +0000
>From joerg@newraff.debian.org Thu Jun 02 15:21:30 2005
Return-path: <joerg@newraff.debian.org>
Received: from newraff.debian.org [] (mail)
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1Ddy4A-00023z-00; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:21:30 -0700
Received: from joerg by newraff.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1Ddy14-0008TP-00; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 18:18:18 -0400
From: Sam Clegg <samo@debian.org>
To: 310044-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: lisa $Revision: 1.30 $
Subject: Bug#310044: fixed in proguard 3.2-1
Message-Id: <E1Ddy14-0008TP-00@newraff.debian.org>
Sender: Joerg Jaspert <joerg@newraff.debian.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 18:18:18 -0400
Delivered-To: 310044-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER 
	autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02

Source: proguard
Source-Version: 3.2-1

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

  to pool/main/p/proguard/proguard_3.2-1.diff.gz
  to pool/main/p/proguard/proguard_3.2-1.dsc
  to pool/main/p/proguard/proguard_3.2-1_i386.deb
  to pool/main/p/proguard/proguard_3.2.orig.tar.gz

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

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 310044@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
Sam Clegg <samo@debian.org> (supplier of updated proguard 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)

Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Thu,  2 Jun 2005 17:01:06 +0100
Source: proguard
Binary: proguard
Architecture: source i386
Version: 3.2-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Sam Clegg <samo@debian.org>
Changed-By: Sam Clegg <samo@debian.org>
 proguard   - java class file shrinker, optimizer, and obfuscator
Closes: 310044
 proguard (3.2-1) unstable; urgency=low
   * Initial Release (Closes: #310044).
 0b2d2b91e822bb82d4b9773b38442db8 592 devel optional proguard_3.2-1.dsc
 062c292a7bbef2603eb94f5ae2208897 726285 devel optional proguard_3.2.orig.tar.gz
 6834e8e04637fcbed89c9e8e74ec3026 1729 devel optional proguard_3.2-1.diff.gz
 baaeffc577d19cb1b9125552775cbb89 810322 devel optional proguard_3.2-1_i386.deb

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: