Revision: debian-policy--devel--3.6--patch-6
Archive: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creator: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat Jun 18 00:49:56 CDT 2005
Standard-date: 2005-06-18 05:49:56 GMT
Modified-files: ChangeLog debian/changelog
virtual-package-names-list.txt
New-patches: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Revision: debian-policy--devel--3.6--patch-5
Archive: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creator: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat Jun 18 00:21:38 CDT 2005
Standard-date: 2005-06-18 05:21:38 GMT
Modified-files: ChangeLog debian/changelog
upgrading-checklist.html
New-patches: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/debi
Your message dated Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:15:46 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Why is this a bug?
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
ATTENTION - Immediate Action Required
This is your Third and Final Notification, there now are two potential deals
for your review.
Please note that past credit history is a non-factor as long as you (or your
spouse) are still employed.
Verify your information with our secure form to ensure o
reopen 291026
severity 291026 minor
thanks
First of all, thanks for addressing the issue.
Version 3.6.2.0 of policy section 9.3.3.2 contains this code as an
example of how to test for the availability of a utility:
if which invoke-rc.d >/dev/null 2>&1; then
...
As I mentioned earlie
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 291026
Bug#291026: 9.3.3.2 "command -v" example needs tweaking
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> severity 291026 minor
Bug#291026: 9.3.3.2 "command -v" example needs tweaking
Severity set to `minor'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Pl
6 matches
Mail list logo
