Your message dated Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:32:06 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#331767: fixed in bpalogin 2.0.2-6
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 maintonly) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Oct 2005 23:40:42 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 16:40:42 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from kitenet.net [64.62.161.42] (postfix)
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
        id 1EMwOo-0004Od-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:40:42 -0700
Received: by kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 500)
        id B520217F72; Tue,  4 Oct 2005 23:40:42 +0000 (GMT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: bpalogin depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks 
cdebconf transition
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue,  4 Oct 2005 23:40:42 +0000 (GMT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess)
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=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE 
        autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02

Package: bpalogin

This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0

Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all.

debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been
provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began
automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it
generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current
version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and
review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is
modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it.

This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to
the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced
mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and
it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign
this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature
your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf.

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 331767-close) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Oct 2005 06:38:20 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 07 23:38:20 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
        id 1EO8Fa-0001Bg-00; Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:32:06 -0700
From: Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $
Subject: Bug#331767: fixed in bpalogin 2.0.2-6
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:32:06 -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
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 2

Source: bpalogin
Source-Version: 2.0.2-6

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

bpalogin_2.0.2-6.diff.gz
  to pool/main/b/bpalogin/bpalogin_2.0.2-6.diff.gz
bpalogin_2.0.2-6.dsc
  to pool/main/b/bpalogin/bpalogin_2.0.2-6.dsc
bpalogin_2.0.2-6_i386.deb
  to pool/main/b/bpalogin/bpalogin_2.0.2-6_i386.deb
bpalogin_2.0.2-6_sparc.deb
  to pool/main/b/bpalogin/bpalogin_2.0.2-6_sparc.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.
Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated bpalogin 
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, 08 Oct 2005 15:33:47 +1000
Source: bpalogin
Binary: bpalogin
Architecture: source i386 sparc
Version: 2.0.2-6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: 
 bpalogin   - login client for the Telstra Bigpond Cable Network (Australia)
Closes: 328179 331767
Changes: 
 bpalogin (2.0.2-6) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Fixed "bpalogin depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0
     alternate", closes: #331767.
   * Fixed "unnecessary dependency on debconf", closes: #328179.
Files: 
 f84ff7cdaeb777a1ee1da9b43c5ad9c5 574 net extra bpalogin_2.0.2-6.dsc
 1f863dd7f566b63003b4f31414f69ce8 6092 net extra bpalogin_2.0.2-6.diff.gz
 50a6e441e3b65c71b03f4e0d3efcc69c 20294 net extra bpalogin_2.0.2-6_i386.deb
 7245e58a0ce1a9142a210d6c70d488b2 20910 net extra bpalogin_2.0.2-6_sparc.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDR2YfipBneRiAKDwRAqLqAJ40GRqSOIlvwLRvDnud2K88Bw3CKQCeKOge
Zb1Du9OsT9k8oPCqMH7KFnc=
=9cFv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Reply via email to