Your message dated Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:02:10 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#373604: fixed in edict-fpw 1.2.1-5
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: edict-fpw
Severity: serious
Tags: patch
Justification: Policy 7.6

  Policy 7.6 says:

  The dependencies and conflicts they define must be satisfied (as
defined earlier for binary packages) in order to invoke the targets in
debian/rules, as follows:[42] 

  Build-Depends, Build-Conflicts
    The Build-Depends and Build-Conflicts fields must be satisfied when any
    of the following targets is invoked: build, clean, binary, binary-arch,
    build-arch, build-indep and binary-indep. 

  Build-Depends-Indep, Build-Conflicts-Indep
    The Build-Depends-Indep and Build-Conflicts-Indep fields must be
    satisfied when any of the following targets is invoked: build,
    build-indep, binary and binary-indep.

  meaning that build-depends that are used in your clean: target MUST be
Build-Depends.


  you need to move (at least) debhelper dpatch and freepwing to
Build-Depends resulting into:


    Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 4.0.0), dpatch, freepwing
    Build-Depends-Indep: edict (>= 2004.08.04-1), epwutil, libjcode-pm-perl

  I've not checked if it's sufficient, but it seems to


-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: edict-fpw
Source-Version: 1.2.1-5

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

edict-fpw_1.2.1-5.diff.gz
  to pool/main/e/edict-fpw/edict-fpw_1.2.1-5.diff.gz
edict-fpw_1.2.1-5.dsc
  to pool/main/e/edict-fpw/edict-fpw_1.2.1-5.dsc
edict-fpw_1.2.1-5_all.deb
  to pool/main/e/edict-fpw/edict-fpw_1.2.1-5_all.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.
Masayuki Hatta (mhatta) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated edict-fpw 
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: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:17:22 +0900
Source: edict-fpw
Binary: edict-fpw
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.2.1-5
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Masayuki Hatta (mhatta) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Masayuki Hatta (mhatta) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: 
 edict-fpw  - English / Japanese dictionary (formatted in JIS X 4081)
Closes: 318531 373604
Changes: 
 edict-fpw (1.2.1-5) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Bumped to Standards-Version: 3.7.2.
   * Acknowledged NMUs - closes: #318531, #373604
   * Support ebnetd.
Files: 
 0a1a7006086d009719eac43b9b5afe0d 669 text optional edict-fpw_1.2.1-5.dsc
 df7a0cac372f64f22245601b4cb0dcc8 7234 text optional edict-fpw_1.2.1-5.diff.gz
 d18768cc67103a3c839abf292932f547 15653332 text optional 
edict-fpw_1.2.1-5_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFMGy8y2+jQOcHWlQRAhHmAJ4iqZ0r8iFSvHEcJF+1fIHHLSFp6gCeNQt9
dNlf5080dF97NeEB6o83/Jg=
=dnD+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--- End Message ---

Reply via email to