On 10/21/2016 02:42 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 10/21/2016 02:21 PM, Thierry Vignaud wrote:
Might also be a different fakechroot version...
Nope, both are using 2.18.
I'm actually using 2.16 because on my work laptop, because with
fakechroot 2.18 from Fedora practically everything fails.
On 21 October 2016 at 11:33, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>> Ah, I did run the test-suite but not from the created tarball. One more
>>> thing to remember when cutting releases. Or rather *cough* to document
>>> *cough*.
>>>
>>> Applied (with a slightly expanded comments).
>>
>>
On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 12:33 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 10/21/2016 12:09 PM, Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> > On 21 October 2016 at 08:51, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >
> Please test and report any anomalies. From rc2 to final only regression
> fixes will be allowed.
On 10/21/2016 12:09 PM, Thierry Vignaud wrote:
On 21 October 2016 at 08:51, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Please test and report any anomalies. From rc2 to final only regression fixes
will be allowed. Unless of course something really strange comes up, you never
know. Or I
On 10/21/2016 03:42 AM, Thierry Vignaud wrote:
On 20 October 2016 at 15:32, Panu Matilainen wrote:
After couple of weeks of headache from trying to sort this out somehow, here
comes 4.13.0 rc2.
As explained earlier [1], in order to get the release train back on track,
On 20 October 2016 at 15:32, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> After couple of weeks of headache from trying to sort this out somehow, here
> comes 4.13.0 rc2.
>
> As explained earlier [1], in order to get the release train back on track,
> pronto, this is mostly just a collection
After couple of weeks of headache from trying to sort this out somehow,
here comes 4.13.0 rc2.
As explained earlier [1], in order to get the release train back on
track, pronto, this is mostly just a collection of backports that
distros have actually been running in the meanwhile rather