-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
Can anyone please let me know about the unblock request?
Is more information needed, more time in unstable, etc?
Regards,
Daniel
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681387
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/10/12 09:48, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 13:06:14 +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
--- these changes update the sipdialer binary package only,
making it use the config file parser classes. This means it now
uses the same
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/10/12 10:09, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 13:06:14 +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Do you need any more detail from me?
The build-dep change isn't documented in the changelog, care to
explain it?
I think you are
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 13:06:14 +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
--- these changes update the sipdialer binary package only, making it
use the config file parser classes. This means it now uses the same
config format as repro and reTurnServer
What does that mean for existing configuration
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 13:06:14 +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Do you need any more detail from me?
The build-dep change isn't documented in the changelog, care to explain
it?
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi Cyril,
Killian made the upload and a month has passed... do you think it is now
OK to unblock?
The packages run on various production servers already. If you need
extra evidence of testing, there was a live demo of installing this
package on the FreeSWITCH webcast/weekly call (also
Hi,
and sorry for the lag.
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au (08/08/2012):
On 08/08/12 00:24, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
I think I won't be against having 1.8.4 in unstable, and see what
happens on the bug reports front after an extended period of time
(say 20 days).
It would have been nice
On 19/08/12 11:08, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
20 days is fine - we've already had some feedback on 1.8.4 and now
there is a 1.8.5 release
Would you be happy to accept 1.8.5 on the same terms?
I attach a debdiff and SVN log output (1.8.4 vs. 1.8.5)
Anyway, please upload 1.8.5 to unstable
Hello,
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk (04/08/2012):
It'd still really want someone from the team to be happy with the
changes before unblocking them however.
I think I won't be against having 1.8.4 in unstable, and see what
happens on the bug reports front after an extended period of
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 20:16 +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 27/07/12 18:11, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Sorry for not getting back to you yet. We're still wading through
requests, and those which aren't an obvious quick yes/no often take a
little while longer to deal with.
Would it help if an
On 27/07/12 18:11, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 13:06 +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
I'm just following up on the previous reply I sent you
Sorry for not getting back to you yet. We're still wading through
requests, and those which aren't an obvious quick yes/no often take a
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 13:06 +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
I'm just following up on the previous reply I sent you
Sorry for not getting back to you yet. We're still wading through
requests, and those which aren't an obvious quick yes/no often take a
little while longer to deal with.
Do you need
Hi Adam,
I'm just following up on the previous reply I sent you
Do you need any more detail from me?
I've attached some more comments about the diff below, showing which
files impact which of the binary packages.
Regards,
Daniel
$ grep ^diff debdiff1-dsc.txt
--- these changes update
13 matches
Mail list logo
