Your message dated Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:03:08 +
with message-id e1rmyao-000640...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#544546: fixed in fop 1:1.0.dfsg2-6
has caused the Debian Bug report #544546,
regarding should provide libfop-java
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
reopen 544546
thanks
No I mean we need to pay attention to the Conflict: field. The bug I
referred to has some material but I believe a 'fop' should have been
introduced without removing libfop-java, which was the acual error.
Thanks
--
Mathieu
__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's
We need to pay attention to this:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=220237
In the past we had a libfop-java package already and current fop
package is marked as conflict against this libfop-java package
--
Mathieu
__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
Your message dated Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:41:24 +0200
with message-id 20110912124124.ga4...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr
and subject line Re: Bug#544546:
has caused the Debian Bug report #544546,
regarding should provide libfop-java
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Hello,
It seems I missed this mail.
Michael Koch, le Wed 09 Sep 2009 18:39:41 +0200, a écrit :
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:06:41PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
reassign 544546 fop
retitle 544546 should provide libfop-java
Why? There is no real need to for this. Any packages can depend
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:06:41PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
reassign 544546 fop
retitle 544546 should provide libfop-java
Why? There is no real need to for this. Any packages can depend on fop
and be done. The reason why it was called fop and not libfop-java was that
it is not only a
6 matches
Mail list logo
