Your message dated Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:30:02 -0600 (MDT)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#388550: mimms: Please ship upstream changelog.
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 ---
Package: mimms
Version: 2.0.1-1
Severity: normal
Please include the upstream changelog in the package, as Debian policy 12.7
requests.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (x86_64)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=pl_PL.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Versions of packages mimms depends on:
ii libc6 2.3.6.ds1-4 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii libgcc1 1:4.1.1-13 GCC support library
ii libmms0 0.2-7 MMS stream protocol library
ii libqt4-core 4.1.4-1.1 Qt 4 core non-GUI functionality ru
ii libstdc++6 4.1.1-13 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
ii wget 1.10.2-2 retrieves files from the web
mimms recommends no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
> Please include the upstream changelog in the package, as Debian policy
> 12.7
> requests.
Thanks for your input, but actually this isn't a bug[1].
The changelog in the version of the package you are referring to was left
out on purpose because the changelog in the release upstream tarball is
worse than useless[2] and was only included in the release by mistake.
Future versions of MiMMS will have a more sane changelog, which will be
included in the Debian package. =)
[1] I can state this with authority because I am both the packager and the
upstream. ;)
[2] Because it is terribly misleading and doesn't reflect developments
made in the initial SVN 2.x development repository. The only detailed
change information about the discontinued 1.x series.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- End Message ---
