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

Bug#395764: marked as done (xterm: missing binary-indep target in debian/rules (Policy 4.9))



Your message dated Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:32:29 -0800
with message-id <E1GguHl-0005X2-0r@spohr.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#395764: fixed in xterm 222-1
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: xterm
Severity: important

Usertag: debianrulestarget

xterm's source package contains a debian/rules file which does not 
contain the binary-indep target. This target required by both the section 
4.9 of the Debian policy [1] and the Etch release standards [2].

[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules
[2] http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt


-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (x86_64)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-amd64-k8-smp
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to fr_FR.UTF-8)


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: xterm
Source-Version: 222-1

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

xterm_222-1.diff.gz
  to pool/main/x/xterm/xterm_222-1.diff.gz
xterm_222-1.dsc
  to pool/main/x/xterm/xterm_222-1.dsc
xterm_222-1_i386.deb
  to pool/main/x/xterm/xterm_222-1_i386.deb
xterm_222.orig.tar.gz
  to pool/main/x/xterm/xterm_222.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 395764@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Julien Cristau <julien.cristau@ens-lyon.org> (supplier of updated xterm 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: Sun,  5 Nov 2006 14:49:08 +0100
Source: xterm
Binary: xterm
Architecture: source i386
Version: 222-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: David Nusinow <dnusinow@debian.org>
Changed-By: Julien Cristau <julien.cristau@ens-lyon.org>
Description: 
 xterm      - X terminal emulator
Closes: 381591 384925 395764
Changes: 
 xterm (222-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * New upstream release
     + Refresh patches.
   * Acknowledge NMU (thanks, Christoph!).
   * Update KOI8RXTerm app-defaults, thanks to Thomas Dickey (closes: #384925).
   * Configure with --enable-luit, again thanks to Thomas (closes: #381591).
   * Add an empty binary-indep target in debian/rules, thanks to Aurélien Jarno
     (closes: #395764).
   * Add myself to Uploaders.
   * Bump Standards-Version to 3.7.2.
   * Use "make distclean" instead of "make clean" so that configure-generated
     files are deleted.
Files: 
 edb50789d31efd75a417ffb74d147efe 813 x11 optional xterm_222-1.dsc
 bb77882a33083632a9c6c9de004a54fb 802986 x11 optional xterm_222.orig.tar.gz
 6184f0d5f64db4f196d9479b9f4a0c7e 61347 x11 optional xterm_222-1.diff.gz
 b9dcce322f5030ddcc70aff43f20c280 404310 x11 optional xterm_222-1_i386.deb

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

iD8DBQFFTp4RyLfpNdY0ad8RApdtAJwPIfnfCO5XVBpny5fPT/MaxqgUSQCfaQfD
yFjPZlCFgY7CPdsBE+WJxNo=
=57r8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--- End Message ---

Reply to: