Your message dated Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:02:11 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#331834: fixed in getmail4 4.3.12-1
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 maintonly) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Oct 2005 23:41:54 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 04 16:41:54 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from kitenet.net [64.62.161.42] (postfix)
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
        id 1EMwPy-0004a4-00; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:41:54 -0700
Received: by kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 500)
        id 65DB017F72; Tue,  4 Oct 2005 23:41:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: getmail4 depends on debconf without | debconf-2.0 alternate; blocks 
cdebconf transition
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue,  4 Oct 2005 23:41:54 +0000 (GMT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
        (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE 
        autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02

Package: getmail4

This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0

Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and very hard to impossible to install cdebconf at all.

debconf-2.0 was added to policy as a virtual package in 2002 and has been
provided by debconf since 2003. In early 2004, dh_installdebconf began
automatically adding it as an alternate to debconf in dependencies it
generates for packages using debhelper. So if you're using a current
version of debhelper you should only need to rebuild your package and
review it. If you are not using debhelper, make sure the dependency is
modified to allow debconf-2.0 to satisfy it.

This bug report was filed by semiautomated means after a trio of posts to
the debian-devel mailing list, and you have probably also received a bcced
mail about the issue before. If your package's dependencies are correct and
it really has some valid reason to depend on debconf alone, please reassign
this bug report to cdebconf with an explanation of what debconf feature
your package depends on, so it can be reimplemented in cdebconf.

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 331834-close) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Oct 2005 07:08:06 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 14 00:08:03 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
        id 1EQJZz-0007Am-00; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:02:11 -0700
From: Fredrik Steen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $
Subject: Bug#331834: fixed in getmail4 4.3.12-1
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:02:11 -0700
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
        (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER 
        autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 2

Source: getmail4
Source-Version: 4.3.12-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
getmail4, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

getmail4_4.3.12-1.diff.gz
  to pool/main/g/getmail4/getmail4_4.3.12-1.diff.gz
getmail4_4.3.12-1.dsc
  to pool/main/g/getmail4/getmail4_4.3.12-1.dsc
getmail4_4.3.12-1_all.deb
  to pool/main/g/getmail4/getmail4_4.3.12-1_all.deb
getmail4_4.3.12.orig.tar.gz
  to pool/main/g/getmail4/getmail4_4.3.12.orig.tar.gz



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Fredrik Steen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated getmail4 package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED])


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:40:11 +0200
Source: getmail4
Binary: getmail4
Architecture: source all
Version: 4.3.12-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Fredrik Steen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Fredrik Steen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: 
 getmail4   - mail retriever with support for POP3, IMAP4 and SDPS
Closes: 310383 331834
Changes: 
 getmail4 (4.3.12-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * New upstream release
   * Fix for wrong handling of <> in return path header (Closes:#310383)
   * Removed dependency on debconf (Closes:#331834)
Files: 
 2db1f27d6d4dfcb59a275e0a1a5d3d0d 591 mail optional getmail4_4.3.12-1.dsc
 eddd7ab72d002df6f164f0230e8ea98a 133178 mail optional 
getmail4_4.3.12.orig.tar.gz
 e689f3a6f8beb1180f540f82cab75f78 3165 mail optional getmail4_4.3.12-1.diff.gz
 c268b62ba4c46383e8da5b8bb51a80fa 142136 mail optional getmail4_4.3.12-1_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDT1Th2pHue6WOFk8RAgN8AKCe6Vw5EZQ0CLrZgtAKd6LRLisePQCfVzpB
Dn/S6RD9OEg+2LCb8kIlpO0=
=RbPl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to