Your message dated Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:17:03 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#328929: fixed in gjdoc 0.7.5-4
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Sep 2005 09:13:35 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Sep 18 02:13:35 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from c203233.adsl.hansenet.de (localhost.localdomain) 
[213.39.203.233] 
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
        id 1EGvEs-0000le-00; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:13:35 -0700
Received: from aj by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.52)
        id 1EGvEr-00075N-Jh; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:13:33 +0200
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Andreas Jochens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: gjdoc: FTBFS: Missing Build-Depends on 'java-gcj-compat-dev'
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:13:33 +0200
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
        (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE 
        autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02

Package: gjdoc
Version: 0.7.5-3
Severity: serious
Tags: patch

When building 'gjdoc' in a clean 'unstable' chroot,
I get the following error:

checking whether stripping libraries is possible... yes
You have no CLASSPATH, I hope it is good
checking for uudecode... no
configure: WARNING: I have to compile Test.class from scratch
checking if /usr/bin/gcj-wrapper-4.0 works... configure: error: The Java 
compiler /usr/bin/gcj-wrapper-4.0 failed (see config.log, check the CLASSPATH?)
make: *** [config.status] Error 1

Please add the missing Build-Depends on 'java-gcj-compat-dev'
to debian/control.

Regards
Andreas Jochens

diff -urN ../tmp-orig/gjdoc-0.7.5/debian/control ./debian/control
--- ../tmp-orig/gjdoc-0.7.5/debian/control      2005-09-18 09:05:02.000000000 
+0000
+++ ./debian/control    2005-09-18 09:04:58.000000000 +0000
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 Priority: optional
 Maintainer: Debian Java Maintainers 
<pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
 Uploaders: Mark Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Takashi Okamoto <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>, Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Koch <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>
-Build-Depends: debhelper (>> 4), cdbs, java-gcj-compat [!m68k !mips !mipsel], 
sablevm [m68k mips mipsel], antlr (>= 2.7.1), tetex-bin, perl
+Build-Depends: debhelper, cdbs, java-gcj-compat-dev [!m68k !mips !mipsel], 
sablevm [m68k mips mipsel], antlr (>= 2.7.1), tetex-bin, perl
 Standards-Version: 3.6.2
 
 Package: gjdoc

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 328929-close) by bugs.debian.org; 19 Sep 2005 14:18:39 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 19 07:18:39 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
        id 1EHMS7-0005bi-00; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:17:03 -0700
From: Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $
Subject: Bug#328929: fixed in gjdoc 0.7.5-4
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:17:03 -0700
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
        (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER 
        autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02

Source: gjdoc
Source-Version: 0.7.5-4

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
gjdoc, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

gjdoc_0.7.5-4.diff.gz
  to pool/main/g/gjdoc/gjdoc_0.7.5-4.diff.gz
gjdoc_0.7.5-4.dsc
  to pool/main/g/gjdoc/gjdoc_0.7.5-4.dsc
gjdoc_0.7.5-4_powerpc.deb
  to pool/main/g/gjdoc/gjdoc_0.7.5-4_powerpc.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated gjdoc package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED])


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:27:24 +0000
Source: gjdoc
Binary: gjdoc
Architecture: source powerpc
Version: 0.7.5-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Java Maintainers 
<pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: 
 gjdoc      - documentation generation framework for java source files
Closes: 328929
Changes: 
 gjdoc (0.7.5-4) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Build-Depends on libgcj6-dev, gij-4.0, fastjar instead of java-gc-compat
     and sablvm (Closes: #328929)
   * Reworked debian/rules for new Build-Depends
Files: 
 b13cf8f11c090d37550e6eaba2d55a90 801 devel optional gjdoc_0.7.5-4.dsc
 eec585c551aea7bfdd3a17180edaf915 45792 devel optional gjdoc_0.7.5-4.diff.gz
 4b203a7a20bea2046948af77b4c2b066 1322708 devel optional 
gjdoc_0.7.5-4_powerpc.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDLsZz4vzFZu62tMIRAkx3AJ925yKBWuDxYC1MPs6OMY13odT2gwCeMLFK
6fPlmdbH3zZe5wSYoTs5cAU=
=1kIS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to