Your message dated Sun, 26 May 2013 10:39:02 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#709802: RM: libapache-mod-random/2.1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #709802,
regarding RM: libapache-mod-random/2.1-1
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.)
--
709802: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=709802
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: [email protected]
Usertags: rm
orphaned, low popcon, dead upstream, will block Apache 2.4 transition.
Should probably be removed completely but was only orphaned a few weeks
ago, so I would let it linger in unstable some more before removing it.
Cheers,
Frank
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.6
APT prefers stable-updates
APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, 2013-05-26 at 08:11 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Am 25.05.2013 22:21 schrieb "Adam D. Barratt"
> <[email protected]>:
> >
> > On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 18:15 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > > orphaned, low popcon, dead upstream, will block Apache 2.4
> transition.
> > >
> > > Should probably be removed completely but was only orphaned a few
> weeks
> > > ago, so I would let it linger in unstable some more before
> removing it.
> >
> > It'll need an RC bug filing against it before we remove it,
> otherwise
> > britney will just let it back in on the next run.
>
> What's wrong with 666835?
Somehow I failed to spot that when I looked the first time; ah well.
Removal hint added.
Regards,
Adam
--- End Message ---
