Your message dated Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:02:46 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#420356: Package not binNMU-able 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: cyrus-sasl2 Severity: serious Hi Maintainers, thank you for your work on the cyrus-sasl2 packages. However, your package is not binNMU safe because of wrong used depends declarations. There are two proper ways of handling it correctly: 0. Old-school: foo (>= ${Source-Version}) 1. New-school: foo (= ${Source:Version}) or (= ${Binary:Version}) depending on the package type/relation. but you use a wrong one, namely foo (= ${Source-Version}). That has the effect, that e.g. the libsasl2 transitional package doesn't work if a binNMU was scheduled, which is atm the case: ---snip--- The following packages have unmet dependencies: libsasl2: Depends: libsasl2-2 (= 2.1.22.dfsg1-8+b1) but 2.1.22.dfsg1-9 is to be installed ---snap--- Please use *either* old-school *or* new-school, but *not* current one. Thanks, Daniel -- Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---* Daniel Baumann [Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:55:45 +0200]: > Package: cyrus-sasl2 > Severity: serious Two comments: - non-binNMUability does not warrant a serious bug. > but you use a wrong one, namely foo (= ${Source-Version}). That has the > effect, that e.g. the libsasl2 transitional package doesn't work if a > binNMU was scheduled, which is atm the case: > ---snip--- > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > libsasl2: Depends: libsasl2-2 (= 2.1.22.dfsg1-8+b1) but 2.1.22.dfsg1-9 > is to be installed > ---snap--- - your explanation is wrong. What is happening here is that libsasl2 was dropped in the -9 upload; you should remove it (it's a transitional package). HTH, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org - I'm sorry for laughing. I'd explain if I could. - It's a double entendre. I've been in this country 20 years. I get things. -- Mrs. Kim and Lorelai Gilmore
--- End Message ---
