I'm contacting each of you because you're listed as maintaining a
package in stable, unstable, or testing that depends on libguile, and
the latest upload of libguile will probably break your packages. The
problem is that the original libguile6 contained
libqthreads.so.0*
libguilereadline.so.
Your message dated Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:01:03 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#84942: fixed in libsigc++ 1.0.2-2
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 y
Your message dated Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:08:49 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#84656: fixed in xqf 0.9.5-3
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 re
Your message dated Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:05:10 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#82832: fixed in screem 0.3.0-4
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
Your message dated Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:01:03 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#82240: fixed in libsigc++ 1.0.2-2
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 y
You sent a message to the Bug tracking system which gave (in the
Subject line or encoded into the recipient at bugs.debian.org),
the number of a nonexistent Bug report (#82157).
This may be because that Bug report has been resolved for more than 28
days, and the record of it has been expunged, or
Your message dated Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:01:03 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#81005: fixed in libsigc++ 1.0.2-2
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 y
Your message dated Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:05:10 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#72133: fixed in screem 0.3.0-4
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
Your message dated Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:05:29 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#69165: fixed in smail 3.2.0.111-6
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 y
Your message dated Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:05:29 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#66595: fixed in smail 3.2.0.111-6
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 y
Your message dated Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:05:10 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#63291: fixed in screem 0.3.0-4
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
Your message dated Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:02:11 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#63033: fixed in metamail 2.7-36
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 you
Your message dated Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:02:11 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#58614: fixed in metamail 2.7-36
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 you
Your message dated Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:02:11 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#39011: fixed in metamail 2.7-36
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 you
Installing:
xqf_0.9.5-3.dsc
to pool/main/x/xqf/xqf_0.9.5-3.dsc
xqf_0.9.5-3_i386.deb
to pool/main/x/xqf/xqf_0.9.5-3_i386.deb
xqf_0.9.5-3.diff.gz
to pool/main/x/xqf/xqf_0.9.5-3.diff.gz
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org
Closing bugs: 84656
If the override file requires edit
Installing:
libsigc++_1.0.2-2.dsc
to pool/main/libs/libsigc++/libsigc++_1.0.2-2.dsc
libsigc++-dev_1.0.2-2_i386.deb
to pool/main/libs/libsigc++/libsigc++-dev_1.0.2-2_i386.deb
libsigc++_1.0.2-2.diff.gz
to pool/main/libs/libsigc++/libsigc++_1.0.2-2.diff.gz
libsigc++0_1.0.2-2_i386.deb
to pool/
Installing:
screem_0.3.0-4_i386.deb
to pool/main/s/screem/screem_0.3.0-4_i386.deb
screem_0.3.0-4.diff.gz
to pool/main/s/screem/screem_0.3.0-4.diff.gz
screem_0.3.0-4.dsc
to pool/main/s/screem/screem_0.3.0-4.dsc
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org
Closing bugs: 63291 72133 8283
Installing:
update_2.11-2_ia64.deb
to pool/main/u/update/update_2.11-2_ia64.deb
If the override file requires editing, file a bug on ftp.debian.org.
Thank you for your contribution to Debian GNU.
18 matches
Mail list logo