Activity log for bug #38538

Date Who What changed Old value New value Message
2006-04-07 04:56:16 Andrew Bennetts bug added bug
2006-04-07 07:03:11 Dennis Kaarsemaker coreutils: status Unconfirmed Confirmed
2006-08-11 21:11:45 Micah Cowan bug assigned to dpkg (Baltix)
2006-08-11 21:16:35 Micah Cowan bug assigned to dpkg (Ubuntu)
2006-08-11 21:40:48 Micah Cowan bug assigned to dpkg (Debian)
2006-08-14 11:15:59 Bug Watch Updater dpkg: status Unknown Unconfirmed
2006-10-03 13:49:30 Ian Jackson dpkg: assignee ijackson
2006-10-03 13:49:30 Ian Jackson dpkg: statusexplanation
2006-10-14 00:49:59 Mantas Kriaučiūnas dpkg: status Unconfirmed Rejected
2006-10-14 00:49:59 Mantas Kriaučiūnas dpkg: statusexplanation
2007-05-04 21:04:01 Phillip Susi dpkg: status Unconfirmed Confirmed
2007-05-04 21:04:01 Phillip Susi dpkg: statusexplanation Marking as confirmed. Does anyone know the reason for dpkg having its own version of install-info? And why it can't just be dropped in favor of gnu's version?
2007-05-04 21:16:59 Micah Cowan coreutils: status Confirmed Rejected
2007-05-04 21:16:59 Micah Cowan coreutils: statusexplanation Rejecting the coreutils bug, as the bug is dpkg's, and a temporary fix does not appear necessary, as Debian has announced its intentions to migrate to GNU install-info
2007-05-16 19:09:41 Micah Cowan dpkg: importance Undecided Medium
2007-05-16 19:09:41 Micah Cowan dpkg: statusexplanation Marking as confirmed. Does anyone know the reason for dpkg having its own version of install-info? And why it can't just be dropped in favor of gnu's version?
2007-10-23 16:01:40 Ian Jackson dpkg: assignee ijackson
2008-03-13 19:32:44 Christopher Yeleighton coreutils: status Invalid New
2008-08-10 06:09:26 Gabriel Ruiz coreutils: status New Confirmed
2009-03-06 18:34:50 C de-Avillez dpkg: status Confirmed Invalid
2009-03-06 18:34:50 C de-Avillez dpkg: statusexplanation I am also rejecting the dpkg tasks, since they have nothing to do with this issue.
2009-03-06 18:35:17 C de-Avillez dpkg: importance Unknown Undecided
2009-03-06 18:35:17 C de-Avillez dpkg: statusexplanation
2009-03-06 18:35:34 C de-Avillez dpkg: status New Invalid
2009-03-06 19:57:22 C de-Avillez dpkg: status Invalid Unknown
2009-03-06 19:57:22 C de-Avillez dpkg: importance Undecided Unknown
2009-03-06 19:57:22 C de-Avillez dpkg: statusexplanation Well, now that Micah corrected me, I went and looked for it. Here is what I see: hggdh@xango2:/tmp/temp $ dpkg -S /usr/bin/ginstall-info && apt-cache policy texinfo texinfo: /usr/bin/ginstall-info texinfo: Installed: 4.11.dfsg.1-4 Candidate: 4.11.dfsg.1-4 Version table: *** 4.11.dfsg.1-4 0 500 http://archive.ubuntu.com intrepid/main Packages 500 http://archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status hggdh@xango2:/tmp/temp $ dpkg -S /usr/sbin/install-info && apt-cache policy dpkg dpkg: /usr/sbin/install-info dpkg: Installed: 1.14.24ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.14.24ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.14.24ubuntu1 0 500 http://archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 1.14.20ubuntu6.1 0 500 http://archive.ubuntu.com intrepid-updates/main Packages 1.14.20ubuntu6 0 500 http://archive.ubuntu.com intrepid/main Packages hggdh@xango2:/tmp/temp $ So we are still using dpkg's install-info. As such, reopening upstream and Ubuntu's dpkg.
2009-03-06 19:57:35 C de-Avillez dpkg: status Invalid Confirmed
2009-03-06 19:57:35 C de-Avillez dpkg: statusexplanation I am also rejecting the dpkg tasks, since they have nothing to do with this issue.
2009-03-10 05:05:03 Bug Watch Updater dpkg: status Unknown New
2009-07-21 17:06:33 Micah Cowan coreutils (Ubuntu): status Confirmed Fix Released
2009-07-21 17:07:13 Micah Cowan dpkg (Ubuntu): status Confirmed Fix Committed
2009-09-07 01:30:53 Bug Watch Updater dpkg (Debian): status New Fix Released
2010-05-20 15:24:52 Colin Watson dpkg (Ubuntu): status Fix Committed Fix Released
2012-02-23 21:34:32 Kai Kasurinen removed subscriber Kai Kasurinen