Your message dated Fri, 08 Feb 2019 08:31:37 -0500
with message-id <5721058.sNtcik8ioV@kitterma-e6430>
and subject line Re: olive-editor: Upgrade path from old package not provided
has caused the Debian Bug report #921728,
regarding olive-editor: Upgrade path from old package not provided
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 ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
921728: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=921728
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: olive-editor
Version: 20181223-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 7.6
Because olive-editor doesn't provide a olive binary transitional package
(which would depend on olive-editor), the proper upgrade path is not provided.
Please add a transitional package so that users will end up with the correct
package installed.
Scott K
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 08 Feb 2019 08:27:26 -0500 Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com>
wrote:
> Package: olive-editor
> Version: 20181223-1
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 7.6
>
> Because olive-editor doesn't provide a olive binary transitional package
> (which would depend on olive-editor), the proper upgrade path is not
provided.
>
> Please add a transitional package so that users will end up with the correct
> package installed.
Actually, I'm wrong.
Because this fixing the name hijack, we actually don't want this.
Scott K
--- End Message ---
