Your message dated Tue, 6 Jun 2006 16:57:09 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#326335: please rebuild with libreadline5-dev as build
dependency
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)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libguile9
The package depends/recommends libreadline4. This version
will be removed from the archive in the near future.
Please change your build dependencies to
libreadline5-dev | libreadline-dev
Please raise the severity of this bug report to serious,
if the package cannot be built with libreadline5-dev.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:22:53PM -0800, Rob Browning wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Er... sorry, I just noticed bug #337358, which I don't have a
> > solution for, and an NMU will break the versioned conflicts in
> > slib... so no NMU after all. The patch should still be good, but it
> > doesn't quite go far enough.
>
> Actually, I'm in the process of having Guile 1.4 (which produces
> libguile9) removed from unstable/testing..
rmadison libguile9
libguile9 | 1:1.4-24 | oldstable | alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k,
mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
libguile9 | 1:1.4-26 | stable | alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k,
mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
This is now the case, so I am closing this bug which is not relevant
to any packages in unstable/testing.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
--- End Message ---
