Your message dated Sat, 01 Oct 2005 18:41:46 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#331164: libgal23: debian/control doesn't specify "oldlibs"
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 Oct 2005 00:44:34 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 01 17:44:34 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from rozz.csail.mit.edu [128.30.2.16] (mail)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1ELrxx-0007Qz-00; Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:44:33 -0700
Received: from c-24-61-30-248.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([24.61.30.248]
helo=kleph.csail.mit.edu)
by rozz.csail.mit.edu with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.50)
id 1ELrxw-0005IP-I7
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:44:32 -0400
Received: from cph by kleph.csail.mit.edu with local (Exim 4.53)
id 1ELrxw-0001YL-0z
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:44:32 -0400
From: Chris Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: libgal23: debian/control doesn't specify "oldlibs"
X-Debbugs-CC: Chris Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:44:32 -0400
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=-11.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE,
X_DEBBUGS_CC autolearn=ham version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Package: libgal23
Version: 0.24-2
Severity: normal
I'm unable to install libgal23 0.24-2 because it has override
disparities that are keeping it out of the archive. See the package
tracking page for details.
The changelog entry for this version states that debian/control.in was
changed to put libgal23 in "oldlibs", but the source in the archive
doesn't reflect this change.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (990, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.13.1-cph2
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
Versions of packages libgal23 depends on:
ii gdk-imlib1 1.9.14-16.2 imaging library for use with gtk (
ii libart2 1.4.2-21 The GNOME canvas widget - runtime
ii libaudiofile0 0.2.6-6 Open-source version of SGI's audio
ii libc6 2.3.5-6 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libdb3 3.2.9-22 Berkeley v3 Database Libraries [ru
ii libesd0 0.2.36-1 Enlightened Sound Daemon - Shared
ii libfreetype6 2.1.10-1 FreeType 2 font engine, shared lib
ii libgdk-pixbuf-gnome2 0.22.0-8 The GNOME1 Canvas pixbuf library
ii libgdk-pixbuf2 0.22.0-8 The GdkPixBuf image library, gtk+
ii libglade-gnome0 1:0.17-3 Library to load .glade files at ru
ii libglade0 1:0.17-3 Library to load .glade files at ru
ii libglib1.2 1.2.10-10 The GLib library of C routines
ii libgnome32 1.4.2-21 The GNOME libraries
ii libgnomeprint15 0.37-5 The GNOME Print architecture - run
ii libgnomesupport0 1.4.2-21 The GNOME libraries (Support libra
ii libgnomeui32 1.4.2-21 The GNOME libraries (User Interfac
ii libgtk1.2 1.2.10-17 The GIMP Toolkit set of widgets fo
ii libice6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 Inter-Client Exchange library
ii libsm6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 X Window System Session Management
ii libx11-6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 X Window System protocol client li
ii libxext6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 X Window System miscellaneous exte
ii libxi6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 X Window System Input extension li
ii libxml1 1:1.8.17-10 GNOME XML library
ii xlibs 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 X Window System client libraries m
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.3-4 compression library - runtime
Versions of packages libgal23 recommends:
hi libgal-data 0.24-1.5 G App Libs (data files)
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 331164-done) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Oct 2005 01:41:46 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 01 18:41:46 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from vp085189.reshsg.uci.edu (becket.becket.net) [128.195.85.189]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1ELsrK-0001eT-00; Sat, 01 Oct 2005 18:41:46 -0700
Received: from tb by becket.becket.net with local (Exim 4.52)
id 1ELsrK-0005l1-9n; Sat, 01 Oct 2005 18:41:46 -0700
From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Chris Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#331164: libgal23: debian/control doesn't specify "oldlibs"
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Reply-Permission: Posted or emailed replies to this message constitute
permission for an emailed response.
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 1F0A1E51 63 28 EB DA E6 44 E5 5E EC F3 04 26 4E BF 1A 92
X-Tom-Swiftie: "Eat me," was Tom's biting response
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 18:41:46 -0700
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Chris Hanson's message of "Sat, 1 Oct 2005 21:26:03 -0400")
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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
Chris Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can't install it -- it's not in the archive. But I've had
> libgal-data waiting to be upgraded for 10 days, unable to do so
> because it depends on the missing libgal23.
This is true. gal0.x has been built properly on all the archs. If
you look at
http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=libgal23&searchon=names&subword=1&version=all&release=all
you can see that it has been properly uploaded by the buildd on amd64,
arm, hppa, ia64, m68k, s390, and sparc. (powerpc is what it was
uploaded as).
I have no idea why alpha, i386, mips, and mipsel are waiting.
> I know that the override file usually wins, but I can't find any other
> reason why the package is being kept out of the archive. The buildd
> seems to have been successful. What else could cause this?
I have no idea, but it's the buildd's problem. :) I'll ask on
debian-devel.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
