[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1027033: marked as done (transition: libsecp256k1)



Your message dated Wed, 4 Jan 2023 19:40:25 +0100
with message-id <Y7XIGRzo0+sIAECl@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1027033: transition: libsecp256k1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1027033,
regarding transition: libsecp256k1
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 owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1027033: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027033
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

libsecp256k1 has a SONAME bump in 0.2.0-1 (experimental).
The only reverse dependency that needs a fix for the transition is electrum (already uploaded to experimental).
The other reverse dependencies bitcoin and ring FTBFS currently due to other issues.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2022-12-27 12:27:16 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
> 
> Hi Bastian
> 
> On 2022-12-26 19:54:59 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: transition
> > 
> > libsecp256k1 has a SONAME bump in 0.2.0-1 (experimental).
> > The only reverse dependency that needs a fix for the transition is electrum (already uploaded to experimental).
> > The other reverse dependencies bitcoin and ring FTBFS currently due to other issues.
> 
> Please go ahead.

The old binaries got removed from testing. Closing

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

--- End Message ---

Reply to: