Your message dated Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:57:05 +0200
with message-id <20120705125705.GA22053@PC-Ale>
and subject line Re: Bug#672657: Not suitable for weezy
has caused the Debian Bug report #680133,
regarding ulatencyd: Needs to switch from luajit to lua
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.)
--
680133: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=680133
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: luajit
Version: 2.0.0~beta9+dfsg-2
Severity: grave
Tags: upstream
In accordance with the upstream, luajit will not be part of weezy, but rather
be made available via backports.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages luajit depends on:
ii libc6 2.13-32
ii libgcc1 1:4.7.0-8
ii libluajit-5.1-common 2.0.0~beta9+dfsg-2
ii multiarch-support 2.13-32
luajit recommends no packages.
luajit suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 09:40:51PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:58:30 +0200, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
>
> > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 07:26:17PM +0200, Enrico Tassi wrote:
> > > Package: luajit
> > > Version: 2.0.0~beta9+dfsg-2
> > > Severity: grave
> > > Tags: upstream
> > >
> > > In accordance with the upstream, luajit will not be part of weezy, but
> > > rather
> > > be made available via backports.
> >
> > Sooo, how is ulatencyd affected? It just lists libluajit-5.1-dev as an
> > alternative build dependency of liblua5.1-0-dev (to let people rebuild the
> > packages with luajit support without problems) but does not actually use
> > it. I
> > don't see this as a problem, am I wrong?
> >
> No, that looks fine.
Ok, closing (the correct bug) then.
Thanks
--
perl -E '$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;<inidehG ordnasselA>;eg;say~~reverse'
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
