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

Bug#368452: marked as done (ITP: libgeo-postcode-perl -- UK Postcode validation and location)

Your message dated Wed, 25 Oct 2006 05:30:54 -0700
with message-id <E1GchuI-0004DT-5T@spohr.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#368452: fixed in libgeo-postcode-perl 0.15.dfsg.1-1
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)
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li>

* Package name    : libgeo-postcode-perl
  Version         : 0.15
  Upstream Author : William Ross <wross@cpan.org>
* URL             : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Geo-Postcode/
* License         : Dual GPL/Artistic
  Description     : UK Postcode validation and location

Geo::Postcode will accept full or partial UK postcodes, validate them
against the official spec, separate them into their significant parts,
translate them into map references or co-ordinates and calculate
distances between them. Some of these functions require paid-for
databases to be useful.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Source: libgeo-postcode-perl
Source-Version: 0.15.dfsg.1-1

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

libgeo-postcode-perl_0.15.dfsg.1-1.diff.gz
  to pool/main/libg/libgeo-postcode-perl/libgeo-postcode-perl_0.15.dfsg.1-1.diff.gz
libgeo-postcode-perl_0.15.dfsg.1-1.dsc
  to pool/main/libg/libgeo-postcode-perl/libgeo-postcode-perl_0.15.dfsg.1-1.dsc
libgeo-postcode-perl_0.15.dfsg.1-1_all.deb
  to pool/main/libg/libgeo-postcode-perl/libgeo-postcode-perl_0.15.dfsg.1-1_all.deb
libgeo-postcode-perl_0.15.dfsg.1.orig.tar.gz
  to pool/main/libg/libgeo-postcode-perl/libgeo-postcode-perl_0.15.dfsg.1.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 368452@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li> (supplier of updated libgeo-postcode-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: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:19:08 +0100
Source: libgeo-postcode-perl
Binary: libgeo-postcode-perl
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.15.dfsg.1-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li>
Changed-By: Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li>
Description: 
 libgeo-postcode-perl - UK Postcode validation and location
Closes: 368452
Changes: 
 libgeo-postcode-perl (0.15.dfsg.1-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Remove dubious postcode data
   * Upload targetted at Debian (closes: #368452)
   * Fix broken Build-Depends-Indep on perl
Files: 
 8649838546b9c081821a328fb982ef89 669 perl optional libgeo-postcode-perl_0.15.dfsg.1-1.dsc
 b0770db7d95ae68b561334f13435b3d1 12226 perl optional libgeo-postcode-perl_0.15.dfsg.1.orig.tar.gz
 d4606cec20574016f8f7ef6f1205babd 3373 perl optional libgeo-postcode-perl_0.15.dfsg.1-1.diff.gz
 2058c56c66b5c02a10d1ccd9b53f95f8 24420 perl optional libgeo-postcode-perl_0.15.dfsg.1-1_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFLLdfYzuFKFF44qURAtisAJ0c5D7Q5LrcT+45Q5uDxWPWXB6MqgCgzqYW
CUAqW0IjWWkCOF7k6eTVgeE=
=h3Y0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- End Message ---
Reply to: