Your message dated Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:03:18 +0000 with message-id <[email protected]> and subject line Debian WWW CVS commit by larjona-guest fixes #671030 has caused the Debian Bug report #671030, regarding inconsistent writing of {32,64}{-, ,}bit on the ports page 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.) -- 671030: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671030 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: www.debian.org Severity: minor Hi again :) The ports page [1] tends to have the bitness (yay, word-creations) of the arches written in different ways. For example the amd64 port: First officially released with Debian 4.0. Port to the 64 bit AMD64 processors. ^^^^^^ The goal is to support both 32bit- and 64bit-userland on this architecture. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This port supports AMD's 64-bit Opteron, Athlon and Sempron processors... ^^^^^^ Regards and thanks for your work Evgeni [1] http://www.debian.org/ports/ -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 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 ---This bug was closed by larjona-guest in the webwml CVS repository: http://www.debian.org/devel/website/using_cvs Note that it might take some time until www.debian.org has been updated. CVSROOT: /cvs/webwml Module name: webwml Changes by: larjona-guest 14/07/22 07:03:17 Modified files: english/ports : index.wml Log message: Fix inconsistencies in the wording of 32-bit / 64-bits (Patch by Robinson Sathaseevan, Thanks!). Closes: #671030
--- End Message ---
