Your message dated Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:56:56 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Grave bug is still open
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)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: jed
Version: 0.99.16-5
Severity: serious
Tags: patch
When trying to build 'jed' in a clean 'unstable' chroot,
I get the following error:
# apt-get build-dep jed
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
E: Build-Depends dependency for jed cannot be satisfied because no available
versions of package slang1-dev can satisfy version requirements
Please change the Build-Depends to use 'libslang1-dev'
instead of 'slang1-dev'.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
diff -urN ../tmp-orig/jed-0.99.16/debian/control ./debian/control
--- ../tmp-orig/jed-0.99.16/debian/control 2005-08-25 07:49:37.000000000
+0000
+++ ./debian/control 2005-08-25 07:49:24.000000000 +0000
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Debian JED Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Standards-Version: 3.6.1
-Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 4), hevea, libgpmg1-dev (>= 1.17.8-18)
[!hurd-i386], perl (>= 5.004.05-1.1), perl-base (>= 5.004.05-1.1), slang1-dev
(>= 1.3.11), xlibs-dev (>= 4.0.1-10), libfreetype6-dev (>= 2.0.1-1),
libxft-dev, dpatch
+Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 4), hevea, libgpmg1-dev (>= 1.17.8-18)
[!hurd-i386], perl (>= 5.004.05-1.1), perl-base (>= 5.004.05-1.1),
libslang1-dev, xlibs-dev (>= 4.0.1-10), libfreetype6-dev (>= 2.0.1-1),
libxft-dev, dpatch
Package: jed
Architecture: any
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
* Jörg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-07 01:53]:
> has someone an explanation why #324982 is not marked as resolved?
> Did we forget to re???close it in 0.99.16-6? I'm not very familiar with
> NMUs, but the NMU in 0.99.16-3.[12] were closed a second time in
> 0.99.16-4.
It has been probably overseen.
> What can we do now? Can we close it via e???mail?
Yes, in the way am doing with this reply (see the Cc:).
--
Rafael
--- End Message ---
