Hi Adam,
On 20.06.2016 09:58, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> In this case, send a mail to cont...@bugs.debian.org, with "notfound",
>> the bug number and the version number in testing -- this will correctly
>> track the bug as unfixed in stable, but not affecting testing or
>> unstable.
> What
On 2016-06-20 4:09, Simon Richter wrote:
Hi,
On 17.06.2016 09:31, Eugene Zhukov wrote:
The package is marked for autoremoval from testing, however the RC[1]
bug is reported against version in stable (testing has a newer
version, without a bug).
In this case, send a mail to
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 17.06.2016 09:31, Eugene Zhukov wrote:
>
>> The package is marked for autoremoval from testing, however the RC[1]
>> bug is reported against version in stable (testing has a newer
>> version, without a
Hi,
On 17.06.2016 09:31, Eugene Zhukov wrote:
> The package is marked for autoremoval from testing, however the RC[1]
> bug is reported against version in stable (testing has a newer
> version, without a bug).
In this case, send a mail to cont...@bugs.debian.org, with "notfound",
the bug number
* Eugene Zhukov , 2016-06-17, 10:31:
The package is marked for autoremoval from testing, however the RC[1]
bug is reported against version in stable (testing has a newer version,
without a bug).
How autoremoval is relevant in this case?
[1] Although my question is generic,
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:31:51AM +0300, Eugene Zhukov wrote:
> The package is marked for autoremoval from testing, however the RC[1]
> bug is reported against version in stable (testing has a newer
> version, without a bug).
The BTS dows not know that. And if you look at the version
Hello,
The package is marked for autoremoval from testing, however the RC[1]
bug is reported against version in stable (testing has a newer
version, without a bug).
How autoremoval is relevant in this case?
[1] Although my question is generic, #826864 triggered this question
Thanks,
Eugene
7 matches
Mail list logo