Bug#34205: marked as done (cucipop should restore state)
Your message dated Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:57:15 +1000
with message-id <19990703105715.A31589@rising.com.au>
and subject line [hamish@debian.org: Installed cucipop 1.31-8 (source i386)]
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'm
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs database)
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Mar 1999 17:58:17 +0000
Received: (qmail 397 invoked from network); 7 Mar 1999 17:58:16 -0000
Received: from gimli.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (134.106.1.10)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 7 Mar 1999 17:58:16 -0000
Received: from finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE ([134.106.121.3])
by gimli.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE (Smail3.1.29.1)
id <m10Jhoe-0003NXC>; Sun, 7 Mar 99 18:58 CET
Received: at Infodrom Oldenburg (/\##/\ Smail-3.2.0.102 1998-Aug-2 #2)
by finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE
via sendmail from stdin
id <m10JhoZ-000anXC@finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE>
for submit@bugs.debian.org; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 18:58:11 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <m10JhoZ-000anXC@finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 18:58:11 +0100 (CET)
From: joey@finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE (Martin Schulze)
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Header: dpkg-bug-report 1.31-6
Subject: cucipop should restore state
Bcc:
Reply-To: joey@infodrom.north.de (Martin Schulze)
Package: cucipop
Version: 1.31-6
It is a very bad behaviour that I have to tell cucipop in which mode
it has to run (standalone or inetd) again and again after upgrading
the package.
Please store this state before unpacking the new package and restore
it afterwards.
Thanks,
Joey
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Reply to: