Your message dated Fri, 11 May 2012 00:59:46 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#672416: nmu: mercurial_2.2.1-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #672416,
regarding nmu: mercurial_2.2.1-2
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.)
--
672416: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=672416
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: [email protected]
Usertags: binnmu
gb mercurial_2.2.1-2 . kfreebsd-amd64
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/6 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=es_ES.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=es_ES.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Javi,
Javi Merino <[email protected]> (10/05/2012):
> gb mercurial_2.2.1-2 . kfreebsd-amd64
you didn't mean “nmu”, which is for triggering “binNMUs”, meaning a
re*build* of an already successfully built package against a new set of
packages. The release team is the right entry point for that.
You actually want a give back (hence “gb”, as you wrote), meaning a
re*try* of a failed build. The buildd maintainers ([email protected])
or the wanna-build team ([email protected]) are the right entry
points for those.
Anyway, given back.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
