Re: Processed: block 680670 with 688793, tagging 680670

2012-09-30 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sun, 2012-09-30 at 03:30 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: block 680670 with 688793 Bug #680670 {Done: Gaudenz Steinlin gaud...@debian.org} [obnam] obnam: add_key doesn't encrypt symmetric key with new key 680670 was not blocked

Re: Processed: block 680670 with 688793, tagging 680670

2012-09-30 Thread Antoine Beaupré
On 2012-09-30, Adam D. Barratt wrote: How is the unblock request blocking the fixing of the bug? The bug is already fixed and it's not even blocking the transition of the fix, given that the unblock was added. True, it doesn't. However, there was nothing in the bug report here refering to the

Re: Processed: block 680670 with 688793, tagging 680670

2012-09-30 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sun, 2012-09-30 at 09:56 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote: On 2012-09-30, Adam D. Barratt wrote: How is the unblock request blocking the fixing of the bug? The bug is already fixed and it's not even blocking the transition of the fix, given that the unblock was added. True, it doesn't.

Processed: block 680670 with 688793, tagging 680670

2012-09-29 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: block 680670 with 688793 Bug #680670 {Done: Gaudenz Steinlin gaud...@debian.org} [obnam] obnam: add_key doesn't encrypt symmetric key with new key 680670 was not blocked by any bugs. 680670 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of