Your message dated Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:29:32 -0800
with message-id <20101116212932.gr16...@teltox.donarmstrong.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#603677: closed by Julien Cristau <jcris...@debian.org>
(Re: Bug#603677: jabberd14 has incomplete dependences)
has caused the Debian Bug report #603677,
regarding jabberd14 has incomplete dependences
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.)
--
603677: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=603677
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: jabberd14
Severity: grave
Hi, Miguel!
Today I've installed jabberd14 on new host. This host has two repo in
its sources.list: lenny and squeeze and has default release - lenny
(APT::Default-Release "stable";).
When I installed jabberd14 by command
# apt-get install -t squeeze jabberd14
I got unrunnable version jabberd14:
# invoke-rc.d jabberd14 start
Starting Jabber/XMPP server: jabberd14/usr/sbin/jabberd:
/usr/lib/libidn.so.11: no version information available (required by
/usr/lib/libjabberd.so.2)
.
When I installed squeeze's version libidn11:
# apt-get install -t squeeze libidn11
jabberd began to work.
Obviously that it has incorrect depends section.
PS: Miguel! If You want, I can be a sponsor for the package again :)
--
... mpd is off
. ''`. Dmitry E. Oboukhov
: :’ : email: un...@debian.org jabber://un...@uvw.ru
`. `~’ GPGKey: 1024D / F8E26537 2006-11-21
`- 1B23 D4F8 8EC0 D902 0555 E438 AB8C 00CF F8E2 6537
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
> reopen 603677
> thanks
If a maintainer closes a bug, and after a single round of explanation,
still does not agree with reopening the bug, the bug should stay
closed.
If you disagree with the maintainer, then your choices are to either
attempt to:
1) convince the maintainer that your viewpoint is correct, preferably
by submitting a patch which fixes the perceived problem, along with
rationale as to why the patch is correct.
2) attempt to convince the technical committee that the maintainer is
incorrect, and should be overridden. This necessitates a patch as
required for #1.
In neither case should you reopen bugs that a maintainer has
closed.[1]
In this case, there's little point in this bug remaining open as is,
as the package in question has been scheduled for rebuilding, and the
only way to generate this bug is to be running squeeze's jabberd14 on
top of the lenny versions of the library, which isn't a huge concern
for upgrades to squeeze.
Don Armstrong
1: It is of course acceptable to reopen a bug in cases when the
maintainer is likely to agree with you, but that is clearly not the
case here.
--
I have no use for "before and after" pictures.
I can't remember starting, and I'm never done.
-- a softer world #221
http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=221
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--- End Message ---
