Bug#748192: marked as done (RM: db6.0 -- ROM; AfferoGPL not compatible with many packages and we don't want to have more than 1 Berkeley DB in the archive)

Mon, 26 May 2014 04:52:26 -0700 

Your message dated Mon, 26 May 2014 11:48:58 +0000
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Bug#748192: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #748192,
regarding RM: db6.0 -- ROM; AfferoGPL not compatible with many packages and we 
don't want to have more than 1 Berkeley DB in the archive
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.)


-- 
748192: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=748192
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi,

I hereby request the package to be remove due the license change that
is incompatible with many packages that use Berkeley DB library.  And
I certainly don't want to have more than one Berkeley DB package in
the archive due the database format incompatibility.

Thus please remove the package and never allow it back, unless there's
a package it requires Berkeley DB 6.0+ (in that case I would suggest
to add agpl into library name...  something like this libdb-6.0-agpl).

Ccing to ftpmaster, so they can make the notes when accepting/rejecting
packages.

Ondrej

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=jTLa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following
package(s) have been removed from unstable:

     db6.0 |   6.0.19-1 | source
     db6.0 |   6.0.19-3 | source
 db6.0-doc |   6.0.19-1 | all
 db6.0-doc |   6.0.19-3 | all
db6.0-sql-util |   6.0.19-3 | amd64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, 
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x, sparc
db6.0-util |   6.0.19-3 | amd64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, 
kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x, sparc
  libdb6.0 |   6.0.19-3 | amd64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, 
kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x, sparc
libdb6.0++ |   6.0.19-3 | amd64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, 
kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x, sparc
libdb6.0++-dev |   6.0.19-3 | amd64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, 
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x, sparc
libdb6.0-dbg |   6.0.19-3 | amd64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, 
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x, sparc
libdb6.0-dev |   6.0.19-3 | amd64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, 
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x, sparc
libdb6.0-java |   6.0.19-1 | all
libdb6.0-java |   6.0.19-3 | all
libdb6.0-java-dev |   6.0.19-3 | amd64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, 
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x, sparc
libdb6.0-java-gcj |   6.0.19-1 | mips, sparc
libdb6.0-java-gcj |   6.0.19-3 | amd64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, 
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mipsel, powerpc, s390x
libdb6.0-java-jni |   6.0.19-3 | amd64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, 
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x, sparc
libdb6.0-sql |   6.0.19-3 | amd64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, 
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x, sparc
libdb6.0-sql-dev |   6.0.19-3 | amd64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, 
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x, sparc
libdb6.0-stl |   6.0.19-3 | amd64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, 
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x, sparc
libdb6.0-stl-dev |   6.0.19-3 | amd64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, 
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x, sparc
libdb6.0-tcl |   6.0.19-3 | amd64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, 
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x, sparc

------------------- Reason -------------------
ROM; AfferoGPL not compatible with many packages and we don't want to have more 
than 1 Berkeley DB in the archive
----------------------------------------------

Note that the package(s) have simply been removed from the tag
database and may (or may not) still be in the pool; this is not a bug.
The package(s) will be physically removed automatically when no suite
references them (and in the case of source, when no binary references
it).  Please also remember that the changes have been done on the
master archive and will not propagate to any mirrors until the next
dinstall run at the earliest.

Packages are usually not removed from testing by hand. Testing tracks
unstable and will automatically remove packages which were removed
from unstable when removing them from testing causes no dependency
problems. The release team can force a removal from testing if it is
really needed, please contact them if this should be the case.

We try to close bugs which have been reported against this package
automatically. But please check all old bugs, if they were closed
correctly or should have been re-assigned to another package.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to [email protected].

The full log for this bug can be viewed at https://bugs.debian.org/748192

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
[email protected].

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to