Your message dated Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:05:56 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line xslide has been removed from Debian, closing #369696
has caused the Debian Bug report #369696,
regarding xslide seems to "kidnap" .fonts.conf
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)
--
369696: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=369696
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: xslide
Version: 0.2.2-4
Severity: normal
When I have xslide mode installed and open ~/.fonts.conf, it gets
opened in xsl-mode. Surely it should be opened in xml-mode (which I
also have installed)?
I'm not sure by what mechanism Emacs is choosing xsl-mode here: I
can't see anything in the site-start.d file for the mode, and I
haven't any local settings to make it do this (or to make it do
anything else).
If I open a file with extension .xml, it is opened in xml-mode as
expected.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Versions of packages xslide depends on:
ii emacs21 21.4a-3 The GNU Emacs editor
Versions of packages xslide recommends:
ii xalan 1.10-3 XSLT processor
ii xsltproc 1.1.16-2 XSLT command line processor
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 0.2.2-4+rm
The xslide package has been removed from Debian testing, unstable and
experimental, so I am now closing the bugs that were still opened
against it.
For more information about this package's removal, read
http://bugs.debian.org/476426 . That bug might give the reasons why
this package was removed, and suggestions of possible replacements.
Don't hesitate to reply to this mail if you have any question.
Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
--
Marco Rodrigues
http://Marco.Tondela.org
--- End Message ---
