Your message dated Sun, 2 Oct 2005 00:08:21 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#331179: should not provide libfam0c102
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 submit) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Oct 2005 06:52:05 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 01 23:52:05 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from ns1.jhcomp.cz (jhcinternet.jhcomp.cz) [212.158.130.218]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1ELxhd-0000Jn-00; Sat, 01 Oct 2005 23:52:05 -0700
Received: from penguin.localdomain ([172.16.119.16])
by jhcinternet.jhcomp.cz (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j926pTap022877
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 2 Oct 2005 08:51:30 +0200
Received: by penguin.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id D0DADA59; Sun, 2 Oct 2005 08:51:29 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Marcel Sebek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: should not provide libfam0c102
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.17
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 08:51:29 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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=-5.2 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,
HAS_PACKAGE,UPPERCASE_25_50 autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Package: libfam0
Version: 2.7.0-8
Severity: critical
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Package libfam0 provides libfam0c102 but it doesn't reflect reality.
Look at some text where C++ ABI translation is described
(somewhere in debian-devel-announce archive).
- -- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.13-ck6
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDP4Nxi2PKBl+Ic14RAoFYAKDyb9TvasElrXhqmBbfvynG9boxhQCgrfVf
j6pruN/yjZxGZbiwZLOYw5s=
=kraJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 331179-done) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Oct 2005 07:08:22 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 02 00:08:22 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from dsl093-039-086.pdx1.dsl.speakeasy.net (tennyson.dodds.net)
[66.93.39.86]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1ELxxO-00060J-00; Sun, 02 Oct 2005 00:08:22 -0700
Received: by tennyson.dodds.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id EBEA87014; Sun, 2 Oct 2005 00:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 00:08:21 -0700
From: Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Marcel Sebek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#331179: should not provide libfam0c102
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2iBwrppp/7QCDedR"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
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
--2iBwrppp/7QCDedR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 08:51:29AM +0200, Marcel Sebek wrote:
> Package libfam0 provides libfam0c102 but it doesn't reflect reality.
Yes, it does.
--=20
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--2iBwrppp/7QCDedR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDP4dlKN6ufymYLloRApOaAJ0SibwH/a0aYzeX8vDhLfHSo8sCvQCgh2YI
iBXgo/vBa5ExEXa4U4W1OM4=
=6CIs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--2iBwrppp/7QCDedR--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
