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

Bug#40377: marked as done (apt: HTML manual link for methods points to files docs)



Your message dated Sat, 4 Sep 1999 19:01:35 -0600 (MDT)
with message-id <Pine.LNX.3.96.990904190049.9314D-100000@Wakko.deltatee.com>
and subject line Closed
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'm
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs database)

Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 28 Jun 1999 18:55:05 +0000
Received: (qmail 3114 invoked from network); 28 Jun 1999 18:55:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO journeyhawk.sysc.pdx.edu) (root@131.252.30.168)
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 28 Jun 1999 18:55:04 -0000
Received: (from karlheg@localhost)
	by journeyhawk.sysc.pdx.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id AAA25151;
	Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:01:38 -0700
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:01:38 -0700
Message-Id: <199906270701.AAA25151@journeyhawk.sysc.pdx.edu>
From: "Karl M. Hegbloom" <karlheg@odin.cc.pdx.edu>
Subject: apt: HTML manual link for methods points to files docs
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Mailer: bug 3.2.2

Package: apt
Version: 0.3.7
Severity: normal

 Going through the http://localhost/doc/HTML URL to the APT docs, and
clicking on the link to the "Methods Interface" brings me to the files
manual.  It looks like a simple pasto error in the docs control file.

-- System Information
Debian Release: potato
Kernel Version: Linux journeyhawk 2.2.7 #4 SMP Sat May 8 14:19:14 PDT 1999 i586 unknown

Versions of the packages apt depends on:
ii  libc6           2.1.1-12       GNU C Library: Shared libraries and timezone
ii  libstdc++2.9-gl 2.91.66-2      The GNU stdc++ library (EGCS version)


Reply to: