Your message dated Wed, 16 Jun 2004 15:33:50 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line rdoc is included in ruby-defaults now
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)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 8 May 2004 12:52:33 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat May 08 05:52:33 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from colo.snowman.net [66.111.39.130]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BMRJh-00043W-01; Sat, 08 May 2004 05:52:33 -0700
Received: from colo.snowman.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by colo.snowman.net (8.12.11.Beta0/8.12.11.Beta0/Debian-1.3) with ESMTP
id i48Cm1Tu021450
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 8 May 2004 08:48:01 -0400
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by colo.snowman.net (8.12.11.Beta0/8.12.11.Beta0/Debian-1.3) id
i48CjSCM021382
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 8 May 2004 08:45:28 -0400
Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 08:45:28 -0400
From: Brian Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: O: rdoc -- Generate documentation from ruby source files
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 1
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I no longer use this package and am ill-equipped to maintain it.
Brian
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 247989-done) by bugs.debian.org; 16 Jun 2004 13:34:16 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jun 16 06:34:16 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail.gmx.de (mail.gmx.net) [213.165.64.20]
by spohr.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BaaYS-0004sK-00; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 06:34:16 -0700
Received: (qmail 11847 invoked by uid 65534); 16 Jun 2004 13:33:40 -0000
Received: from c153057.adsl.hansenet.de (EHLO homer) (213.39.163.57)
by mail.gmx.net (mp016) with SMTP; 16 Jun 2004 15:33:40 +0200
X-Authenticated: #7842102
From: Tobias Toedter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: rdoc is included in ruby-defaults now
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 15:33:50 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
Cc: debian-ruby@lists.debian.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_01 autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 23:14:46 +0200, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 01:10:04PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > Is there still a point to keeping the rdoc package around? It looks like
> > it depends on Ruby 1.8, so it's equivalent to the rdoc1.8 package. If
> > this is the case, I would suggest just removing rdoc and maybe renaming
> > rdoc1.8 to rdoc.
>=20
> Well as I exspect ri to drag ri1.8 along, and ruby ruby1.8 because it's
> just the current version, I was already confused that there was not
> an rdoc virtual package.
>=20
> So I would suggest to make this the same as all other ruby related
> binary packages. A rdoc dummy package depending on rdoc1.8.
> I believe this isn't mentioned in the Ruby Policy though, only for
> modules.
It looks like this is accomplished in version 1.8.1-7 of ruby-defaults,=20
which entered unstable on May, 22. In the meantime, that version of=20
ruby-defaults has gone into testing, therefore I'm closing this bug.
If anybody feels this is inappropriate, please do not hesitate to reopen it=
=20
again.
Cheers,
=2D --=20
Tobias
Bigamy is having one spouse too many. Monogamy is the same.
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFA0Ew+CqqEJ0Fs8twRAtNzAJkB/urNtnXRsfQPj2r3dna/Q6NwHACeIIUq
p5rItYeYx6lM43TqGOop8Ww=3D
=3DBooC
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
