Your message dated Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:12:58 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#685227: unblock: ztex-bmp/20120314-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #685227,
regarding unblock: ztex-bmp/20120314-1
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.)
--
685227: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=685227
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: [email protected]
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package ztex-bmp
The upload closes a FTBFS issues that appeared along the update of the
free pascal compiler. It was directly provided by upstream. The package
is not in the archive for too long and but anyway the adoption was
rather minimal http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=ztex-bmp .
Should this late update not be acceptable, I only recently got my gpg
keys back in the archive a few days ago, then I kindly ask to remove
the package from Wheezy.
unblock ztex-bmp/20120314-1
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 3.5-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 11:00 +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
> I was tired, as it seems. I'd say I had my chances on this one. The good
> thing is that due to the top part now being corrected, the FTBFS bug is
> now closed correctly
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=663674
>
> This speaks against a -3, in my view, as kind as this offer is. I feel
> bad about the buildds and the limited audience the package has, and
> about how technical that audience is, asking for the latest anyway.
> backports will be fine, feel free to remove the package from the
> distribution.
If that's your decision, then okay. I've added a removal hint. Thanks
for working on the fix anyway.
Regards,
Adam
--- End Message ---
