Your message dated Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:08:59 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line propose new virtual package: libxaw-dev
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
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:16:18 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [Followups set.]
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 09:00:03PM -0500, Craig P. Steffen wrote:
>> I am prospective DD; as one of my opening packages, I intend to
>> adopt the sound file editor xwave. One of the bugs against i
[Followups set.]
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 09:00:03PM -0500, Craig P. Steffen wrote:
> I am prospective DD; as one of my opening packages, I intend to adopt the
> sound file editor xwave. One of the bugs against it, 170005, says that
> depending on the virtual package "libxaw-dev" is wrong.
>
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 09:11:19PM -0500, Craig P. Steffen wrote:
> I am prospective DD; as one of my opening packages, I intend to adopt the
> sound file editor xwave. One of the bugs against it, 170005, says that
> depending on the virtual package "libxaw-dev" is wrong.
>
> However, reading the
Hi, Craig P. Steffen wrote:
> However, reading the debian policy manual sections 3.6 and 7.4, it seems to
> me to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The real packages libxaw6-dev
> and libxaw7-dev exist, and are listed as Providing libxaw-dev.
The problem is that there's no way for the autobu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.0
Severity: wishlist
I am prospective DD; as one of my opening packages, I intend to adopt the
sound file editor xwave. One of the bugs against it, 170005, says that
depending on the virtual package "libxaw-dev"
6 matches
Mail list logo
