Your message dated Sat, 03 Sep 2005 14:47:21 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#326401: fixed in jpilot-backup 0.51-3
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)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Sep 2005 21:48:45 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Sep 02 14:48:45 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from farad.aurel32.net [82.232.2.251] 
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
        id 1EBJOv-0000WR-00; Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:48:45 -0700
Received: from hertz.aurel32.net ([2001:618:400:fc13:2e0:18ff:fea3:b80f])
        by farad.aurel32.net with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32)
        (Exim 4.50)
        id 1EBJOu-0003oM-FZ; Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:48:44 +0200
Received: from aurel32 by hertz.aurel32.net with local (Exim 4.52)
        id 1EBJOd-0006PL-26; Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:48:27 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: jpilot-backup(GNU/k*BSD): FTBFS: out of date libtool scripts
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.17
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:48:26 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
        (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,
        HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02

Package: jpilot-backup
Version: 0.51-1
Severity: important

Hello,


The current version of jpilot-backup fails to build on
GNU/kFreeBSD, because of outdated libtool.

The version of libtool in jpilot-backup is too old to correctly 
support Debian GNU/k*BSD.  libtool 1.5.2-1 or later is need.

Here is how to update the libtool in your package (Make sure you are
using libtool 1.5.2-1 or later):
  libtoolize -c -f
  aclocal (-Im4 might be needed if there's an "m4" template dir)
  autoconf

Note that you should probably use the same version of aclocal (from 
the packages automake*) than the one used in the package. You could 
determine it by looking at the first line of Makefile.in.

It would also be nice if you can ask upstream to update libtool 
in their next release.


Thanks for your cooperation.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: kfreebsd-i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: GNU/kFreeBSD 5.3-1
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 326401-close) by bugs.debian.org; 3 Sep 2005 21:48:58 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 03 14:48:58 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
        id 1EBfr7-0002Ni-00; Sat, 03 Sep 2005 14:47:21 -0700
From: Ludovic Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $
Subject: Bug#326401: fixed in jpilot-backup 0.51-3
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 14:47:21 -0700
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
        (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER 
        autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02

Source: jpilot-backup
Source-Version: 0.51-3

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

jpilot-backup_0.51-3.diff.gz
  to pool/main/j/jpilot-backup/jpilot-backup_0.51-3.diff.gz
jpilot-backup_0.51-3.dsc
  to pool/main/j/jpilot-backup/jpilot-backup_0.51-3.dsc
jpilot-backup_0.51-3_i386.deb
  to pool/main/j/jpilot-backup/jpilot-backup_0.51-3_i386.deb



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 [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Ludovic Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated jpilot-backup 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED])


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Sat,  3 Sep 2005 22:58:29 +0200
Source: jpilot-backup
Binary: jpilot-backup
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.51-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Ludovic Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Ludovic Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: 
 jpilot-backup - Backup plugin for J-Pilot
Closes: 326401
Changes: 
 jpilot-backup (0.51-3) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * debian/patches/00list: add 2_libtool.dpatch to the list of patches
     I hope it is correct this time,  closes: #326401
Files: 
 416caf72db9b65998bafe6e9b8059868 655 otherosfs extra jpilot-backup_0.51-3.dsc
 1079c690382635409567ecdc4828812b 307528 otherosfs extra 
jpilot-backup_0.51-3.diff.gz
 0d96768a550b997fe9cd3472d20614ae 21350 otherosfs extra 
jpilot-backup_0.51-3_i386.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDGhayP0qKj+B/HPkRAlU/AJ9tO1qj+MFrM6m8lsEQmuFwbCyGxwCfTKjS
LVoikUG2P8uTLV24rkTWfZ4=
=AohK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to