Your message dated Sat, 25 Dec 2010 13:11:03 -0800
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#607719: release-notes: Spelling error
has caused the Debian Bug report #607719,
regarding release-notes: Spelling error
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.)
--
607719: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607719
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release-notes
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
Found a minor spelling error in upgrading.dbk, under section 4.11 (Obsolete
packages.) I suspect this is supposed to be "than for thousand", rather than
"thanfor thousand."
1896c1896
< thanfor thousand old packages that were in &oldreleasename;. It provides no
upgrade path
---
> than four thousand old packages that were in &oldreleasename;. It provides
> no upgrade path
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (600, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_AU.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_AU.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:14:44PM +1100, Mathew Meins wrote:
> Package: release-notes
> Severity: minor
> Tags: patch
> Found a minor spelling error in upgrading.dbk, under section 4.11 (Obsolete
> packages.) I suspect this is supposed to be "than for thousand", rather than
> "thanfor thousand."
Fixed in svn, thanks!
> 1896c1896
> < thanfor thousand old packages that were in &oldreleasename;. It provides
> no upgrade path
> ---
> > than four thousand old packages that were in &oldreleasename;. It provides
> > no upgrade path
Please note that the standard diff format used in Debian is unified diff
(diff -u); old-style diffs like this one don't stand up very well to changes
to the surrounding contents of the file, so in general it would be worth
your while to submit unified diffs instead. (In this case it hardly
mattered, I applied the diff by hand anyway. :)
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
[email protected] [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
