On 2013-03-01 18:35 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2013-03-01 17:56:33 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> Apparently this file should not have been in -minimal in the first
>> place, and on i386 (and other architectures, it seems) it has been in
>> python2.7 even in version 2.7.3-6. But on amd64, it has been in
>> python2.7-minimal which I find quite inexplicable.
>
> Was the amd64 version built under the same conditions?
Only the maintainer can know that, since he built that version.
> BTW, I haven't received any of your two mail messages, neither
> directly from you (as my address was in the To/Cc field), nor
> via the 702005.bugs.debian.org list (as I'm subscribed to this
> bug). There isn't any trace of connection for these two messages
> in the logs of my mail server. I've just received the "Processed:"
> mail via the 702005.bugs.debian.org list. I'm replying by using
> "bts show --mbox 702005".
I received error messages from GMX that the mails could not be
delivered, but unfortunately have deleted them already. :-(
If the problem persists, I'll forward it to the bug.
Cheers,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
