Hi Leo, [Please note that submitters don't get replies to the mail by default, only when they are subscribed. I think Christoph in the other bug may have missed your question.]
On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 01:40:13 +0000 "Singer, Leo P. (GSFC-6610)" <[email protected]> wrote: > There was another issue > (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=995832) that the fixed > soname caused a conflict with the old libhealpix-cxx2 package in unstable. > I'm currently attempting to verify that I fixed that correctly. I am aware of that bug. I'm also aware of the soname trouble as can be seen by my block hint: https://release.debian.org/britney/hints/elbrus. > Why was this bug marked as done on October 14? I wrote this in my original bug report: """ I have immediately closed this bug with the version in unstable, so if that version or a later version migrates, this bug will no longer affect testing. """ If that's unclear, *this* bug is *only* about the version of your package in testing. This bug doesn't really "care" about the root cause, just the fact that the package is out-of-sync. And as the version in unstable *by design* is not affected, I've closed the bug immediately, which has the effect that if nobody ever looks at it again, the moment a version of you package migrates, or your package is removed from testing, this bug is totally fixed. Paul
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
