Your message dated Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:32:12 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#392130: fixed in lsb-build-cc2 2.1.1-6
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: lsb-appchk2
Version: 2.1.0-5
Severity: minor
Hi!
Just for the record right ahead, the same applies to lsb-appchk3,
lsb-build-base2 and lsb-build-base3.
The description isn't really helpful - the only difference is in
the package name. But to what does the 2 and 3 apply? To the version
of the package? Like release or a rewrite? But why isn't it not
packaged as lsb-appchk and lsb-build-base only, then? Do I need to use
both of them for better checking, does lsb-appchk3 not offer all the
things lsb-appchk2 do? If so, that should be noted clearly.
If it applies to the LSB Standard version, why isn't that written as
part of the long description? So it is clear that lsb-appchk2 checks
against LSBv2 and lsb-appchk3 against LSBv3? Please be a bit more
verbose in the long description so the people considering installing the
package are aware beforehand what they can expect.
On a side node, "tools" is a plural, so you need to use "are" instead
of "is" in the long description.
So long,
Alfie
P.S.: I hope it's not needed to create seperate bug reports against the
three other packages too. If you prefer that please notify me and
I'll clone the bugreport three times.
--
<Rotty> _moshez: *üing*
<Oskuro> Rotty: is that a new protocol? :)
<Rotty> s/ü/i/ - just gotten up
<Rotty> s/i/p/ - just gotten up -- #debian-devel
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: lsb-build-cc2
Source-Version: 2.1.1-6
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
lsb-build-cc2, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
lsb-build-cc2_2.1.1-6.diff.gz
to pool/main/l/lsb-build-cc2/lsb-build-cc2_2.1.1-6.diff.gz
lsb-build-cc2_2.1.1-6.dsc
to pool/main/l/lsb-build-cc2/lsb-build-cc2_2.1.1-6.dsc
lsb-build-cc2_2.1.1-6_i386.deb
to pool/main/l/lsb-build-cc2/lsb-build-cc2_2.1.1-6_i386.deb
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.
Stuart R. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated lsb-build-cc2
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: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:45:48 -0400
Source: lsb-build-cc2
Binary: lsb-build-cc2
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.1.1-6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Stuart R. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Stuart R. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description:
lsb-build-cc2 - LSB v2.x Development environment lsbcc package
Closes: 392130
Changes:
lsb-build-cc2 (2.1.1-6) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Improve the description (Closes: #392130)
Files:
986bbca694dc4d3f23e80517c3480a88 595 libs optional lsb-build-cc2_2.1.1-6.dsc
32687eec820a129d744aabfc6cc26bc2 3080 libs optional
lsb-build-cc2_2.1.1-6.diff.gz
9671a1056a0b1f10650b1b4e04ba20fd 11688 devel optional
lsb-build-cc2_2.1.1-6_i386.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFQCoHHk9mSeopF4URAjkjAKDED4c10I3AyahEYfy8qKw2EovJ2ACgsusp
fdooUe7SKxiwjss+rjXGATI=
=dNJA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- End Message ---
