Your message dated Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:33:06 +0000
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#773604: nmu: smartmontools_6.3+svn4002-2+b1
has caused the Debian Bug report #773604,
regarding nmu: smartmontools_6.3+svn4002-2+b1
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.)
--
773604: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=773604
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: [email protected]
Usertags: binnmu
nmu smartmontools_6.3+svn4002-2+b1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against new binutils
2.24.90.20141219-1 see #728529""
In order to resolve #728529, #728113, a binNMU on smartmontools_6.3+svn4002-2
was performed before. However, that binNMU was performed using an old version
of binutils (ex:- 2.24.90.20141128-1 on amd64). So the bug in #728113 is still
present.
More info on the previous binNMU is at #772798.
Could you please schedule another binNMU for smartmontools in Sid using the
latest version of binutils (in Sid) 2.24.90.20141219-1 ?
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 3.14-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 12:48:45PM -0500, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote:
> nmu smartmontools_6.3+svn4002-2+b1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against new binutils
> 2.24.90.20141219-1 see #728529""
>
> In order to resolve #728529, #728113, a binNMU on smartmontools_6.3+svn4002-2
> was performed before. However, that binNMU was performed using an old version
> of binutils (ex:- 2.24.90.20141128-1 on amd64). So the bug in #728113 is still
> present.
Scheduled, with an attempt at the right extra-depends syntax to ensure the
right version is used this time.
--
Jonathan Wiltshire [email protected]
Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw
4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
