Your message dated Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:47:16 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#326296: fixed in socat 1.4.3.0-1
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; 2 Sep 2005 20:39:57 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Sep 02 13:39:57 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13] (root)
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
        id 1EBIKL-0005oj-00; Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:39:57 -0700
Received: from mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [130.149.17.13])
        by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09940
        for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 2 Sep 2005 22:39:55 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC39FFD4B
        for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri,  2 Sep 2005 22:39:54 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (bueno [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10224) with ESMTP
 id 05068-29 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
 Fri,  2 Sep 2005 22:39:54 +0200 (MEST) 13927
Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.19.1])
        by mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP
        for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri,  2 Sep 2005 22:39:54 +0200 (MEST)
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
        by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.8/Submit) id j82KdsaN003565
        for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 2 Sep 2005 22:39:54 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 22:39:54 +0200 (MEST)
From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: please rebuild with libreadline5-dev as build dependency
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at cs.tu-berlin.de
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: socat

The package depends/recommends libreadline4. This version
will be removed from the archive in the near future.
Please change your build dependencies to

     libreadline5-dev | libreadline-dev

Please raise the severity of this bug report to serious,
if the package cannot be built with libreadline5-dev.

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 326296-close) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Dec 2005 19:52:23 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 07 11:52:23 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 4.50)
        id 1Ek5G0-0000y3-Q6; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:47:16 -0800
From: Thomas Seyrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.60 $
Subject: Bug#326296: fixed in socat 1.4.3.0-1
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:47:16 -0800
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: socat
Source-Version: 1.4.3.0-1

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

socat_1.4.3.0-1.diff.gz
  to pool/main/s/socat/socat_1.4.3.0-1.diff.gz
socat_1.4.3.0-1.dsc
  to pool/main/s/socat/socat_1.4.3.0-1.dsc
socat_1.4.3.0-1_i386.deb
  to pool/main/s/socat/socat_1.4.3.0-1_i386.deb
socat_1.4.3.0.orig.tar.gz
  to pool/main/s/socat/socat_1.4.3.0.orig.tar.gz



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.
Thomas Seyrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated socat 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: Wed,  7 Dec 2005 11:32:27 +0100
Source: socat
Binary: socat
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.4.3.0-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Seyrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Thomas Seyrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: 
 socat      - multipurpose relay for bidirectional data transfer
Closes: 187443 311064 326296 340557
Changes: 
 socat (1.4.3.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * New upstream release (closes: #340557)
     - manpage was fixed upstream some time ago (closes: #187443)
   * Build against libreadline5-dev (closes: #326296)
   * Fixed manpage example (closes: #311064), thanks Daniel Kahn
     Gillmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   * Bumped Standards-Version to 3.6.2
Files: 
 ed4f9490f75c4855c93ea930f8074b85 605 net extra socat_1.4.3.0-1.dsc
 cc317229fb6a42e8ad979e88e8e42873 339039 net extra socat_1.4.3.0.orig.tar.gz
 1ec2508b4b9c9eb2f91f55a00087537c 3410 net extra socat_1.4.3.0-1.diff.gz
 1551d358edea33418538ec781e6a460a 208506 net extra socat_1.4.3.0-1_i386.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDlryuG7q+HrSg3okRAsRRAJwJ/olaYPr5ltYwp+NOFWew3EN+ggCeKRWV
BIYoe7mWP0ct+bO6D7DgEp0=
=oCH1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Reply via email to