Your message dated Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:48:31 +0100
with message-id <56b0ebef.50...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#812894: nmu: lush and tulip, oprofile, tarantool
has caused the Debian Bug report #812894,
regarding nmu: lush and tulip, oprofile, tarantool
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
812894: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=812894
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
please binNMU lush and tulip, oprofile, tarantool using binutils 2.26.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 27/01/16 17:59, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: binnmu
>
> please binNMU lush and tulip, oprofile, tarantool using binutils 2.26.
Nothing called oprofile afaics, and tulip doesn't have a strict dependency on
binutils anymore. I have binNMU'ed lush and tarantool.
Emilio
--- End Message ---
