Your message dated Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:52:23 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#395922: RM: oprofile-source -- please remove obsolete
package
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: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
Starting with etch, the Linux kernel will default to 2.6 versions.
This package only has use with 2.4 kernels, and little or no time
is spent upstream on maintaining it since this functionality has
moved into the 2.6 kernel source upstream.
This package derives from the oprofile source package; do NOT
remove oprofile -- it is still highly useful. Only this part of
the results of building oprofile need to be removed. I will be
uploading a new version of oprofile soon that reflects this change
in the source package.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-1-686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 21:54 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 14:39 -0600, Al Stone wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 21:26 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > Once the new source package has been uploaded, the obsolete binary
> > > package will be removed semi-automagically. Since the current source
> > > package in unstable still builds the package, it won't get removed until
> > > the new source is in the archive.
> [...]
> > Thanks for the clarification. The developer's reference was not
> > explicit in this regard; it was inferred, but not explicit.
>
> Better documentation is on my to-do list. :)
>
> > Should I just close/retract this bug then?
>
> It doesn't make a huge amount of difference either way imho; if it stays
> open it'll get closed once I notice that the old package has been
> removed. Conversely since no specific action needs to be taken, there's
> also no reason not to close it now.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adam
Closing this bug. A new oprofile package has been uploaded that does
not generate this package and it will automagically removed someday.
Also sent in another patch for bug#365993 to help with the update to
the Developer's Reference.
--
Ciao,
al
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Stone Alter Ego:
Open Source and Linux R&D Debian Developer
Hewlett-Packard Company http://www.debian.org
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- End Message ---
