On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 01:21:14PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
>I hope this is a joke.
Emtpy in the sense that they are not the real thing. They will have a
bunch of symbolic links in them to files/directories in other packages.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debia
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:19:08PM +1100, AnÃbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:58:21AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>On 22.03.2012 11:21, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>>On 22.03.2012 11:00, AnÃbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
So, the message is to move away from libpng 1.2 in De
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 23:19:08 +1100, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> libpng3-dev is an empty package that hasn't been removed yet, but can be
> kept if you wish so. It was requiered for a previous transition. We
> could make empty packages "libpng12{,-0}-dev" depending on libpng15-15
> and lib
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:58:21AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>On 22.03.2012 11:21, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>On 22.03.2012 11:00, AnÃbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
>>>So, the message is to move away from libpng 1.2 in Debian as
>>>soon as we can.
>>
>>In that case, maybe someone could address some
On 22.03.2012 11:21, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On 22.03.2012 11:00, AnÃÂbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
So, the message is to move away from libpng 1.2 in Debian as soon as
we
can.
In that case, maybe someone could address some of the issues we
raised when the transition was first proposed? e.g.
On 22.03.2012 11:44, AnÃbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:21:36AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
We don't just not start transitions for our own amusement, and the
implication that the transition is primarily being blocked from our
side is not really appreciated.
I would l
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:21:36AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>We don't just not start transitions for our own amusement, and the
>implication that the transition is primarily being blocked from our
>side is not really appreciated.
I would like to apologise. It wasn't my intention to imply tha
On 22.03.2012 11:00, AnÃbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
The message above is part of a discussion in the libpng development
mailing list about the *lack* of security of libpng 1.2, after the
last
vulnerability was discovered by the chrome folks.
For more details see
http://sourceforge.net/mailarc
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:42:34PM -0800, jbow...@acm.org wrote:
>There are a lot of negatives in the following sentence, bear with me,
>or believe me and take note of the final sentence before my signature
>in this message.
>
>Glenn has pointed out to me that even though libpng 1.2.46 never
>assig
9 matches
Mail list logo
