Your message dated Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:15:04 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#87159: explanation of Build-Depends et. al. is unclear
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.)

Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 23 Feb 2001 00:43:54 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Feb 22 18:43:54 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail.valinux.com [::ffff:198.186.202.175] 
        by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
        id 14W6Kw-0007Xj-00; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:43:54 -0600
Received: from geisha.engr.valinux.com ([10.12.3.6] ident=mail)
        by mail.valinux.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
        id 14W6Kv-0005t1-00
        for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:43:53 -0800
Received: from shaleh by geisha.engr.valinux.com with local (Exim 3.22 #1 
(Debian))
        id 14W6Lz-0003Em-00; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:44:59 -0800
From: "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: explanation of Build-Depends et. al. is unclear
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.14
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.14
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:44:59 -0800
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.2.0
Severity: normal

please refer to lintian bug 86710, it asks for lintian to check the syntax of
the Build-Depends field.

Specifically, [!i386 m68k] seems like it could be valid, but seems to not be.
The archs are also whitespace separated, some people are using commas.  Perhaps
an exmple with multiple arches would be good.

-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux geisha 2.2.18pre11 #1 SMP Mon Oct 2 17:40:32 PDT 2000 i686

Versions of packages debian-policy depends on:
ii  fileutils                     4.0.37-1   GNU file management utilities.    


---------------------------------------
Received: (at 87159-done) by bugs.debian.org; 30 Apr 2001 20:18:17 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 30 15:18:17 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mserv1c.vianw.co.uk [195.102.240.33] 
        by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
        id 14uK7c-0005XO-00; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:18:17 -0500
Received: from [195.102.197.212] (helo=polya)
        by mserv1c.vianw.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #5)
        id 14uK7V-0002xB-00
        for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:18:10 +0100
Received: from jdg by polya with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
        id 14uK4W-0000Pg-00; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:15:04 +0100
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:15:04 +0100
From: Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#87159: explanation of Build-Depends et. al. is unclear
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 
at 04:44:59PM -0800
Sender: Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:44:59PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.2.0
> Severity: normal
> 
> please refer to lintian bug 86710, it asks for lintian to check the syntax of
> the Build-Depends field.
> 
> Specifically, [!i386 m68k] seems like it could be valid, but seems to not be.
> The archs are also whitespace separated, some people are using commas.  
> Perhaps
> an exmple with multiple arches would be good.

This example is now expressly forbidden:

       Exclamation marks may be prepended to each of the names.
       (It is not permitted for some names to be prepended with
       exclamation marks and others not.)

This was done in policy version 3.5.3.0.

So I'm closing this bug report.

   Julian

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

         Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
       Debian GNU/Linux Developer,  see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
  Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/

Reply via email to