Your message dated Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:46:24 +0000 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#350720: libecpg5: should not provide ecpg 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)
--- Begin Message --->From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 31 03:20:52 2006 Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 31 Jan 2006 11:20:52 +0000 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from p50897423.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.137.116.35] helo=bell.credativ.de) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1F3tZ6-0004lU-GR for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:20:52 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: libecpg5: should not provide ecpg Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Mailer: reportbug 3.18 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:20:43 +0100 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=-7.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE, RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Package: libecpg5 Version: 8.1.0-3 Severity: normal I don't see any justification for why this package should provide "ecpg". If any package should do so, it should be libecpg-dev, which is where the ecpg binary that most people would presumably be interested in resides.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --->From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Feb 05 11:10:28 2006 Received: (at 350720-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Feb 2006 19:10:28 +0000 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from box79162.elkhouse.de ([213.9.79.162]) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1F5pHH-0001uQ-Q8 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:10:28 -0800 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [195.227.105.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "Martin Pitt (iBook)", Issuer "piware CA" (verified OK)) by box79162.elkhouse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 000C4E349E for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 20:09:50 +0100 (CET) Received: by localhost.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 67CBC11CC5; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:46:24 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:46:24 +0000 From: Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#350720: libecpg5: should not provide ecpg Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 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=-1.2 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_06_12, HAS_BUG_NUMBER,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_SBLXBL, RCVD_IN_SBLXBL_CBL,RCVD_IN_SORBS,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Hi Peter! Peter Eisentraut [2006-01-31 12:20 +0100]: > Package: libecpg5 > Version: 8.1.0-3 > Severity: normal > > I don't see any justification for why this package should provide "ecpg". Me neither. :) > If any package should do so, it should be libecpg-dev, which is where the > ecpg binary that most people would presumably be interested in resides. And that's in fact where the ecpg binary is located: $ dpkg -c libecpg5_8.1.2-2_powerpc.deb | grep bin/ecpg $ dpkg -c libecpg-dev_8.1.2-2_powerpc.deb | grep bin/ecpg -rwxr-xr-x root/root 431276 2006-02-04 13:47:37 ./usr/bin/ecpg According to bzr annotate this has been the case forever, so I'm slightly confused how the binary could move to another package for you? Do you happen to use a locally modified build, or someting? Thanks, Martin -- Martin Pitt http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com Debian Developer http://www.debian.org
--- End Message ---
