On Wed, March 16, 2005 03:14, luna said:
Let us see what is exactly the proposal.
Right, this is exactly my view of the proposal: it isn't unreasonable for
an arch to meet the requirements (except from the stated N2/by-new ones
which are controversial). With luna's clarifications I definately
luna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|* To: debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org
|* Subject: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
|* From: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|* Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:45:09 -0800
We all have seen this proposal for dropping
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:02:20 +0100, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
luna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|* To: debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org
|* Subject: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
|* From: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|* Date: Sun, 13
I demand that Marc Haber may or may not have written...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:02:20 +0100, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
luna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We all have seen this proposal for dropping architecture and a lot of
us are crying because their favourite pet architecture will be
|* To: debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org
|* Subject: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
|* From: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|* Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:45:09 -0800
We all have seen this proposal for dropping architecture and a lot
of us are crying
5 matches
Mail list logo
