Your message dated Wed, 7 Aug 2013 11:15:37 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#718928: Bug#718928: please change
suggests to libgraphite2-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #718928,
regarding please change suggests to libgraphite2-3
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.)
--
718928: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=718928
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: fonts-sil-padauk
Version: 2.80-1
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
I've no idea why a font package needs to suggest this but please change
your graphite2 suggests to the new SONAME of 1.2.1 which was uploaded
to unstable already.
old: libgraphite-2.0.0
new: libgraphite2-3
(libgraphite2-3 Provides: the old one too for seamless upgrades of it's
Depends as they ARE ABI-compatible, but it might make sense to update it
anyways)
Regards,
Rene
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
fonts-sil-padauk depends on no packages.
fonts-sil-padauk recommends no packages.
Versions of packages fonts-sil-padauk suggests:
ii libgraphite2-3 [libgraphite2-2.0.0] 1.2.1-2
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2.80-2
Quoting Fabian Greffrath ([email protected]):
> Am Montag, den 06.05.2013, 22:11 +0200 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
> > I've no idea why a font package needs to suggest this but please change
>
> This is most probably wrong.
Well, when I investigated #707120, there was a valid reason for that
(IIRC some complex rendering stuff).
Anyway, #718928 is a duplicate of #707120. Strangely, René sent it
back in May, but it made its way to the BTS only yesterday...
So, closing the bug the same way #707120 was closed.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
