Hi,
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:52:04 +0100
Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> Hmmm... I had started to fix these dependencies ages ago in the SVN,
> but for some reason I didn't upload them. Funny. But I hadn't spotted
> all of them, so thanks for you report.
>
> I didn't actually use your patch as such,
Hello,
Kobayashi Noritada wrote:
> First of all, sorry for making a fuss by reporting an RC bug.
No problems - anyway, it's in experimental, so impact on releasability
is relatively minor...
> Although fop switched to use openjdk-6-jdk instead of
> java-gcj-compat-dev and also changed some
Vincent,
Thanks for enlightenment. I am not very familiar with BTS. :-)
Onkar
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
notfound 508485 1:0.94.dfsg-2
thanks
Onkar Shinde wrote:
> Why is this RC bug?
Sorry ?
This is a RC bug. That it does affect testing or not is irrelevant
with respect to its gravity. But if it does not affect testing, then the
best way to make sure it is understood by the BTS is to tell him
Why is this RC bug? The version you have specified is in experimental.
testing has 1:0.94.dfsg-2. AFAIK, that version is not affected by this
bug.
Onkar
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.deb
Package: fop
Version: 1:0.95.dfsg-1
Severity: grave
Tags: patch
Justification: renders package unusable
Hi,
First of all, sorry for making a fuss by reporting an RC bug.
Although fop switched to use openjdk-6-jdk instead of
java-gcj-compat-dev and also changed some more dependencies in version
6 matches
Mail list logo
