Your message dated Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:01:36 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Fixed in doc-debian 6.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #615473,
regarding doc-debian: unarchive explanation should be updated
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.)
--
615473: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=615473
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: doc-debian
Version: 4.0.2
Severity: wishlist
Hi!
/usr/share/doc/debian/bug-maint-mailcontrol.txt states, in part:
| unarchive bugnumber
| Unarchives a bug that was previously archived. Unarchival should
| generally be coupled with reopen and found/fixed as appropriate.
| Bugs that have been unarchived can be archived using archive
| assuming the non-time based archival requirements are met.
However, http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#unarchive seems
to have a more detailed explanation:
| unarchive bugnumber
| Unarchives a bug that was previously archived. Unarchival should
| generally be coupled with reopen and found/fixed as appropriate.
| Bugs that have been unarchived can be archived using archive
| assuming the non-time based archival requirements are met. You
| should not be using unarchive to make trivial changes to archived
| bugs, such as changing the submitter; its primary purpose is to
| allow for the reopening of bugs which have been archived without
| the intervention of BTS administrators.
Please update the explanation in the package, so that other people who
(like me) take a look at /usr/share/doc/debian/bug-maint-mailcontrol.txt
without reading the web documentation too, avoid doing things that are
recommended against... :-(
Thanks for your time.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (800, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
doc-debian depends on no packages.
Versions of packages doc-debian recommends:
ii debian-faq 4.0.4+nmu1 The Debian FAQ
Versions of packages doc-debian suggests:
ii epiphany-browser [www-brow 2.30.6-1 Intuitive GNOME web browser
ii galeon [www-browser] 2.0.7-2.1+b1 GNOME web browser for advanced use
ii ghostscript [postscript-vi 8.71~dfsg2-10 The GPL Ghostscript PostScript/PDF
ii gv [postscript-viewer] 1:3.7.1-1 PostScript and PDF viewer for X
ii iceweasel [www-browser] 3.5.16-4 Web browser based on Firefox
ii w3m [www-browser] 0.5.3-1 WWW browsable pager with excellent
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 6.0
This bug is fixed in the latest release of doc-debian, thus I'm closing it.
Sorry for not notifying the fix earlier,
Regards
Javier
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
