Your message dated Tue, 6 Oct 2026 14:45:22 +0200 with message-id <[email protected]> and subject line fonts-oldstandard: version string should be 2.2really2.02-$DEBIAN_REVISION has caused the Debian Bug report #801720, regarding fonts-oldstandard: version string should be 2.2really2.02-$DEBIAN_REVISION 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.) -- 801720: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=801720 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Source: fonts-oldstandard Version: 2.2really-3 Severity: wishlist Hi, Shouldn't the version of this package have the form: 2.2really2.02-$DEBIAN_REVISION eg. 2.2really2.02-3 instead of 2.2really-3? I'm getting the 2.02 bit from the debian/changelog entry for 2.2really-1: * New upstream release (real 2.2 as the former Debian packages has 2.02). Closes: #628394 If this is not the case then I think it should be clarified. (The whole "really" version hack--whilst not having a de jure specification--does seem to have a de facto intepretation of "foo-but-its-actually-earlier", but fonts-oldstandard violates this). Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` [email protected] / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Version: 2.7b+ds-1
--- End Message ---
