Your message dated Thu, 4 Apr 2013 19:38:38 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#704473: RM: gnutls28 -- ROM; should not be shipped in
wheezy
has caused the Debian Bug report #704473,
regarding RM: gnutls28 -- ROM; should not be shipped in wheezy
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
704473: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=704473
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
Hello,
please remove gnutls28 3.0.22-3 from unstable but keep the version in
experimental.
We currently intend to drop gnutls28 from wheezy, since it is a leaf
package and creates non-neglible unnecessary work for
Debian-security.
gnutls26 will provide the binary packages gnutls-bin and guile-gnutls
again (they are currently built from gnutls28.) I would like to do
this transition via unstable and therefore ask you to remove gnutls28
3.0.22-3 (source and binary) from unstable. This is is necessary since
unstable has a newer version of gnutls28 than testing.
See http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.release/64871
for details.
tia, cu andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2013-04-04 Ansgar Burchardt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 19:51, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> On 2013-04-02 Ansgar Burchardt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> +binary-makedeb/gnutls-bin:: DEB_DH_GENCONTROL_ARGS := --
>>> -v3.0.20-3+really$(DEB_VERSION)
>>> That would make version number in unstable go backwards. We really don't
>>> want this.
>>> Is there any reason not to use "3.0.22-3+really$(something-else)"? That
>>> would be higher than the version in unstable.
> [...]
>> Afaiui if I used 3.0.22-3+really... there would be no need at all to
>> remove gnutls28 from unstable. - Can you confirm this?
> Unless I miss something, I think that should be the case, yes.
Hello,
I have followed your suggestion and used an 3.0.22-3+really. The
package was just accepted. I am closing the RM bug since it is
superfluous.
cu andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
--- End Message ---
