Bug#657077: transition: php5 5.4
I'm pretty sure something like that was done for python. Â I don't think perl breaks source level compatibility to anywhere near the same extent (could be wrong, though). http://wiki.debian.org/PHP/54Transition The links to packages with an epoch'ed version are broken. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1bda4b3121df2a1a468e3d03e709bdfb.squir...@wm.kinkhorst.nl
Bug#657077: transition: php5 5.4
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 09:09, Thijs Kinkhorst th...@debian.org wrote: I'm pretty sure something like that was done for python. I don't think perl breaks source level compatibility to anywhere near the same extent (could be wrong, though). http://wiki.debian.org/PHP/54Transition The links to packages with an epoch'ed version are broken. Fixed, thanks. Also added text/plain for .log files, so it opens in browser. O. -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CALjhHG_gUGX8=NS5-HKw7Sb7C2n2�zpggotabzejo5659...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#657077: transition: php5 5.4
On 06/02/12 23:21, Ondřej Surý wrote: On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 22:14, Ondřej Surýond...@sury.org wrote: I'm pretty sure something like that was done for python. I don't think perl breaks source level compatibility to anywhere near the same extent (could be wrong, though). http://wiki.debian.org/PHP/54Transition All those NEED-CHECK has been checked by me that there are no regressions from 5.3 to 5.4, but there are some errors anyway which should be checked by maintainer. It's NEED-VERIFY fwiw. And what means there are no regressions but there are some errors? Can you be more specific? Regards, -- Mehdi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f30e6e5.8050...@debian.org
what to do about waf bugs in squeeze?
Dear Alexander, I wrote you a ping a month ago to remind you about what to do with the Doesn't contain source for waf binary code release critical bugreports for squeeze. You told me you don't think they need to get fixed for squeeze, but yet they still are in the list of outstanding release critical bugreports for stable. I guess you have simply forgot, see this as a kind reminder. I still wonder what would be the proper tagging for them, because to me, tagging them + wheezy sid seems not correct, the issue is also present in squeeze. I do not think the ftpmaster team should/can say that a bug does not affect a certain release, this should be up to the release team, so squeeze-ignore sounds appropriate to me -- but that has to be discussed with the release team. Hope we can get those off the list soonish, and thanks so far, Rhonda -- Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los | Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los| Wir sind Helden Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120207085831.ga20...@anguilla.debian.or.at
Bug#657077: transition: php5 5.4
2012/2/7 Mehdi Dogguy me...@debian.org: On 06/02/12 23:21, Ondřej Surý wrote: On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 22:14, Ondřej Surýond...@sury.org wrote: I'm pretty sure something like that was done for python. I don't think perl breaks source level compatibility to anywhere near the same extent (could be wrong, though). http://wiki.debian.org/PHP/54Transition All those NEED-CHECK has been checked by me that there are no regressions from 5.3 to 5.4, but there are some errors anyway which should be checked by maintainer. It's NEED-VERIFY fwiw. Ok, changed. And what means there are no regressions but there are some errors? Can you be more specific? This means some files were already broken in PHP 5.3, so there are same errors in 5.3 and in 5.4. For example docbookwiki: php 5.3: -- cut here -- PHP Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_VARIABLE in /docbookwiki-0.9.2-2/usr/share/php/web_app/session/sample/test.Session.php on line 56 Errors parsing /docbookwiki-0.9.2-2/usr/share/php/web_app/session/sample/test.Session.php PHP Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_STRING in /docbookwiki-0.9.2-2/usr/share/docbookwiki/upload.php on line 31 Errors parsing /docbookwiki-0.9.2-2/usr/share/docbookwiki/upload.php -- cut here -- php 5.4: -- cut here -- PHP Parse error: syntax error, unexpected '$SESSION_VARS' (T_VARIABLE) in /docbookwiki-0.9.2-2/usr/share/php/web_app/session/sample/test.Session.php on line 56 Errors parsing /docbookwiki-0.9.2-2/usr/share/php/web_app/session/sample/test.Session.php PHP Parse error: syntax error, unexpected 'set_locale' (T_STRING) in /docbookwiki-0.9.2-2/usr/share/docbookwiki/upload.php on line 31 Errors parsing /docbookwiki-0.9.2-2/usr/share/docbookwiki/upload.php -- cut here -- The only difference is name of the variable in the error log. -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CALjhHG9Ti5nRuXC_6jNCdP=oydlnrskycgcgwja23icftfr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: what to do about waf bugs in squeeze?
Hi! Am 07.02.2012 09:58, schrieb Gerfried Fuchs: I wrote you a ping a month ago to remind you about what to do with the Doesn't contain source for waf binary code release critical bugreports for squeeze. You told me you don't think they need to get fixed for squeeze, but yet they still are in the list of outstanding release critical bugreports for stable. I guess you have simply forgot, see this as a kind reminder. I still wonder what would be the proper tagging for them, because to me, tagging them + wheezy sid seems not correct, the issue is also present in squeeze. I do not think the ftpmaster team should/can say that a bug does not affect a certain release, this should be up to the release team, so squeeze-ignore sounds appropriate to me -- but that has to be discussed with the release team. Hope we can get those off the list soonish, and thanks so far, Rhonda Well, back than I wrote [1]. Sorry, seems I forgot to CC you on that mail. FTP team came to the conclusion, that it is possible to distribute packages using the waf binaries. They just don't satisfy the DFSG. That's all the FTP team has to decide. So it's up to the SRMs to decide, whether they should be fixed in Squeeze or may be tagged squeeze-ignore. (I now agree that tagging them squeeze-ignore would be a better solution than tagging them wheezy sid.) IMHO it would be okay to ignore them in squeeze, but that's not my decision to take. Best regards, Alexander Links: 1: http://lists.debian.org/20120109125238.gz7...@melusine.alphascorpii.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f30eb1b.1050...@debian.org
Bug#657077: transition: php5 5.4
On Tue, February 7, 2012 09:37, OndÅej Surý wrote: On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 09:09, Thijs Kinkhorst th...@debian.org wrote: I'm pretty sure something like that was done for python.  I don't think perl breaks source level compatibility to anywhere near the same extent (could be wrong, though). http://wiki.debian.org/PHP/54Transition The links to packages with an epoch'ed version are broken. Fixed, thanks. Also added text/plain for .log files, so it opens in browser. Thanks, but it doesn't work for me yet (e.g. mediawiki). https://www.sury.org/php-check/5.3/mediawiki-1:1.15.5-7.log 404 Not Found Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/fdeafb6e2b0867c5243655f18316ac72.squir...@wm.kinkhorst.nl
Bug#657077: transition: php5 5.4
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 13:52, Thijs Kinkhorst th...@debian.org wrote: Thanks, but it doesn't work for me yet (e.g. mediawiki). https://www.sury.org/php-check/5.3/mediawiki-1:1.15.5-7.log 404 Not Found Sorry, I have fixed something else. Just try without epoch. I have removed it from the wiki as well. O. -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CALjhHG96+MSs8mBC4XTuuEJKS_Bb4PyFcUvH=s9u59z=q42...@mail.gmail.com
Re: what to do about waf bugs in squeeze?
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 10:12:59AM +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: So it's up to the SRMs to decide, whether they should be fixed in Squeeze or may be tagged squeeze-ignore. (I now agree that tagging them squeeze-ignore would be a better solution than tagging them wheezy sid.) Feel free to tag them squeeze-ignore. We won't tackle them for squeeze. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- .''`. Philipp KernDebian Developer : :' : http://philkern.de Stable Release Manager `. `' xmpp:p...@0x539.de Wanna-Build Admin `-finger pkern/k...@db.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: what to do about waf bugs in squeeze?
Hi! Am 07.02.2012 16:19, schrieb Philipp Kern: So it's up to the SRMs to decide, whether they should be fixed in Squeeze or may be tagged squeeze-ignore. (I now agree that tagging them squeeze-ignore would be a better solution than tagging them wheezy sid.) Feel free to tag them squeeze-ignore. We won't tackle them for squeeze. Thanks, done. Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f31449d.7040...@debian.org
Bug#631019: HDF5 transition, the return!
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 22:03:58 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: Go ahead with hdf5 1.8.8 in sid then, and I'll know who to hunt down if there's issues. Current issues: - 658310: ruby-hdfeos5 FTBFS - 657669: cdo build-depends (indirectly) on the serial and mpi versions of hdf5, which aren't co-installable - 657203: mpb FTBFS - 652315: mpi-defaults, not sure what this is about - 651452: illuminator FTBFS - 657534: tessa FTBFS - 658307: minc, same issue as cdo - 658281: adios, same issue as cdo - 657199: libgpiv FTBFS These need to get fixed (or removed). Sooner is better. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
getting Debian Edu related updates into squeeze before next point release (was Re: gosa update for squeeze-proposed-updates)
Dear Adam, dear others on the release team, On Mo 06 Feb 2012 23:06:52 CET Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 13:49 +0100, Cajus Pollmeier wrote: gosa_2.6.11-3+squeeze1 has just been uploaded. and was accepted earlier this evening; thanks. On #debian-edu IRC we have discussed and wondered lately if and if yes, how it might be possible to get the gosa update (and possibly other updates for squeeze) into squeeze, squeeze-updates resp. before point release 6.0.5. The context: we want to release Debian Edu squeeze probably before 6.0.5 point release and for this we need all the necessary (fixed) packages in squeeze or (I think) in squeeze-updates. (Holger may correct me if I see this wrong.) Is there any feasible way to achieve this? What strategy can we hook on to? Thanks+Greets, Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, dorfstr. 27, 24245 barmissen fon: +49 (4302) 281418, fax: +49 (4302) 281419 GnuPG Key ID 0xB588399B mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de freeBusy: https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb pgpeyrvtiFvna.pgp Description: Digitale PGP-Unterschrift
Re: Proposed stable update for procps
On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 21:49 +0100, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: * Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk [120112 22:41]: On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 19:44 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: [...] In that case, let's just stick with #632749 for the moment. Please feel free to upload that (which I assume is the update to gnu-kbsd-version.patch + appropriate changelog stanza). Ping? IIRC the upload happened months ago, but then nothing happened to it. I think one of us is confused. :) To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a procps upload to stable in the period since my ack above, i.e. early August; I certainly haven't seen one arrive in the p-u-NEW queue for processing. If I had, I wouldn't have pinged you about it... Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1328648199.6400.5.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Proposed stable update for procps
* Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk [120112 22:41]: On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 19:44 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 20:21 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: * Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk [110803 19:50]: I'd be happy with the fix for #632749, certainly. What's the practical impact of #635553? Particularly given that it is still open in unstable, I'm inclined to say we should skip it, at least for the moment. It's probably harmless, it will just be an extra stat() that will always fail. If future kernel versions introduce this interface, it might or might not become a problem. In that case, let's just stick with #632749 for the moment. Please feel free to upload that (which I assume is the update to gnu-kbsd-version.patch + appropriate changelog stanza). Ping? IIRC the upload happened months ago, but then nothing happened to it. -ch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120207204930.ga23...@percival.namespace.at
Bug#658424: pu: package eglibc/2.11.3-3
On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 23:11 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: eglibc 2.11.3-2 shipped in Debian Squeeze 6.0.4 suffers from a regression in the resolver code with broken DNS server not answering correctly to requests. It causes the first or sometimes more DNS resolving requests to fail. See bug#658171 for more details. [...] Would it be possible to upload it? You might actually want to wait a few days for having some feedback of the sid upload. Has there been any feedback as a result of the sid upload, whether positive or otherwise? Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1328651112.6400.8.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#658424: pu: package eglibc/2.11.3-3
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:45:12PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 23:11 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: eglibc 2.11.3-2 shipped in Debian Squeeze 6.0.4 suffers from a regression in the resolver code with broken DNS server not answering correctly to requests. It causes the first or sometimes more DNS resolving requests to fail. See bug#658171 for more details. [...] Would it be possible to upload it? You might actually want to wait a few days for having some feedback of the sid upload. Has there been any feedback as a result of the sid upload, whether positive or otherwise? Nothing so far :-( -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120207214829.gf30...@hall.aurel32.net
Re: Description-less packages file
[Trying to reach SRM via this list. To get the history of this thread please see http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2012/02/msg9.html ] On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 10:44:49PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: You have them only for suites that have this feature enabled. These are all where the following query hits (in projectb): projectb= select suite_name from suite where include_long_description is false; suite_name -- unstable proposed-updates testing-proposed-updates experimental testing Your best bet is to wait until after next release, where it will reach stable too. That's a bit unfortunate because currently UDD is not featuring *any* long_descriptions at all and I guess the problem report on debian-devel[1] is connected to this (I have no idea how packages.debian.org works but it seems probable to me, that this is connected). So with the current state of input files which are Packages.gz and Translations* which are in an inconsistent state for different releases we are certainly breaking applications using data from UDD. There are three ways to circumvent this: 1. Provide the missing information in the Packages.gz files anyway. Joerg, I have no idea how compley to implement this might be or what chances to break something might exist. 2. We move English translations from Translation-en.bz2 to the packages table making sure that all existing UDD applications will work immediately again. 3. We drop long_description field from packages table now and *calculate* the md5 sums from long_escription for those releases where it is missing and keep all long_descriptions inside the ddtp table. Its a 100% sure that 1 wont happen for Lenny. That one is going away pretty soon. I would give it a 5% chance to happen for Squeeze. But the actual people you want to discuss a change like that with are the SRMs. Not me. Could somebody from the release team please give a statement whether there is any chance to inject description_md5 fields into the packages files from Squeeze (and Wheezy). And the state is not inconsistent, its just on a move from old to new... I do not see any need to debate the wording - I hope it somehow becomes clear that we in some way need to provide the relevant data in a consistent way inside UDD. (Oh, and no, packages.d.o is NOT using UDD) Thanks for the clarification. Ubuntu: An ancient african word meaning I can't configure Debian LOL. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120207215925.gl12...@an3as.eu
Re: Proposed stable update for procps
* Adam D. Barratt [Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 08:56:39PM +]: On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 21:49 +0100, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: * Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk [120112 22:41]: On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 19:44 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: In that case, let's just stick with #632749 for the moment. Please feel free to upload that (which I assume is the update to gnu-kbsd-version.patch + appropriate changelog stanza). Ping? IIRC the upload happened months ago, but then nothing happened to it. I think one of us is confused. :) To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a procps upload to stable in the period since my ack above, i.e. early August; I certainly haven't seen one arrive in the p-u-NEW queue for processing. If I had, I wouldn't have pinged you about it... Uh, I think it's me who is responsible for not uploading Christian's work targeted towards the ACKed version for stable. IIRC there was an open question regarding how to proceed WRT to the version for unstable and I was waiting for a response from Craig (being the maintainer of procps). Sorry, my fault. I'll take care of the procps upload for stable. regards, -mika- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Description-less packages file
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 22:59:25 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: Could somebody from the release team please give a statement whether there is any chance to inject description_md5 fields into the packages files from Squeeze (and Wheezy). It seems extremely unlikely to get any change like that into squeeze. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Description-less packages file
On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 23:26 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 22:59:25 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: Could somebody from the release team please give a statement whether there is any chance to inject description_md5 fields into the packages files from Squeeze (and Wheezy). It seems extremely unlikely to get any change like that into squeeze. Also, what exactly do you believe is missing for wheezy? Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1328653790.6400.10.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Description-less packages file
On 12749 March 1977, Andreas Tille wrote: Could somebody from the release team please give a statement whether there is any chance to inject description_md5 fields into the packages files from Squeeze (and Wheezy). Learn to read: In the last mails, cited many times, my sql query, the result. Wheezy has it. -- bye, Joerg Homer no function beer well without. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8739ame02v@gkar.ganneff.de
Bug#639645: opu: package xpdf/3.02-1.4+lenny4
tag 639645 + pending thanks On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 18:59 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 10:48 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote: DSA 2388 appears to have resolved all of those issues, so I guess we could look at an update containing just the insecure tempfile change? Yes, that's correct. I'll ready a new package. Please review the attached patch that addresses this issue. Thanks. Please go ahead. This finally got uploaded, and has just been accepted; thanks. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1328655760.6400.11.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Processed: Re: Bug#639645: opu: package xpdf/3.02-1.4+lenny4
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tag 639645 + pending Bug #639645 [release.debian.org] opu: package xpdf/3.02-1.4+lenny4 Added tag(s) pending. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 639645: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639645 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.132865581811804.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
NEW changes in oldproposedupdates
Processing changes file: xpdf_3.02-1.4+lenny4_amd64.changes ACCEPT -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1ruu33-00058e...@franck.debian.org
Re: Description-less packages file
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 10:29:50PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 23:26 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 22:59:25 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: Could somebody from the release team please give a statement whether there is any chance to inject description_md5 fields into the packages files from Squeeze (and Wheezy). It seems extremely unlikely to get any change like that into squeeze. Also, what exactly do you believe is missing for wheezy? tille@samosa:/srv/mirrors$ zgrep -l ^Description-md5: ftp.debian.org/ftp/dists/*/main/binary-all/Packages.gz ftp.debian.org/ftp/dists/experimental/main/binary-all/Packages.gz ftp.debian.org/ftp/dists/proposed-updates/main/binary-all/Packages.gz ftp.debian.org/ftp/dists/rc-buggy/main/binary-all/Packages.gz ftp.debian.org/ftp/dists/sid/main/binary-all/Packages.gz ftp.debian.org/ftp/dists/squeeze-proposed-updates/main/binary-all/Packages.gz ftp.debian.org/ftp/dists/stable-proposed-updates/main/binary-all/Packages.gz ftp.debian.org/ftp/dists/testing/main/binary-all/Packages.gz ftp.debian.org/ftp/dists/unstable/main/binary-all/Packages.gz ftp.debian.org/ftp/dists/wheezy/main/binary-all/Packages.gz So sorry for blaming wheezy for a lack of missing fields (I was working only on a partial mirror when testing). Regarding squeeze: Could somebody give some reasons for refusing an additional field in the Packages files? It is hard to cope with it is unlikely. A yes or no would be more helpful to find a reasonable decision for the UDD importer. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120208073047.ga9...@an3as.eu
