On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 13:51:47 +0800, Desmond O. Chang wrote:
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 23:29, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk
wrote:
Most of his answer seemed to be about why we should accept the newer
version of cl-asdf rather than the source format change; lintian didn't
It seems that both you and Mehdi don't receive the author's mail. His
mail has been sent to debbugs. Do I need to forward it to you?
Hi, I have to confirm again. Did you receive the mails from the
author and me?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 22:54:33 +0800, Desmond O. Chang wrote:
It seems that both you and Mehdi don't receive the author's mail. His
mail has been sent to debbugs. Do I need to forward it to you?
Hi, I have to confirm again. Did you receive the mails from the
author and me?
Yes.
On Sat, 2010-12-18 at 22:54 +0800, Desmond O. Chang wrote:
It seems that both you and Mehdi don't receive the author's mail. His
mail has been sent to debbugs. Do I need to forward it to you?
Hi, I have to confirm again. Did you receive the mails from the
author and me?
Yes; I at
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 23:29, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote:
Most of his answer seemed to be about why we should accept the newer
version of cl-asdf rather than the source format change; lintian didn't
like the empty diff.gz and people on IRC told me to do it aren't the
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 10:35 +0800, Desmond O. Chang wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 05:44, Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org wrote:
On 12/06/2010 07:17 PM, Desmond O. Chang wrote:
And, it even (silently) turn the package into a source format 3.0
which isn't acceptable at this point of the
Hi Adam,
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 03:40, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 10:35 +0800, Desmond O. Chang wrote:
I will contact the author and let him decide.
Any news on that?
It seems that both you and Mehdi don't receive the author's mail. His
mail has
On 12/06/2010 07:14 AM, Desmond O. Chang wrote:
Please unblock package cl-asdf
I might have skipped something. Could you please explain why it's
important to have this version in Squeeze? and which rc-bugs does it
fix? (It looks like none but I could be wrong).
And, it even (silently) turn
Hi Mehdi,
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 17:06, Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org wrote:
I might have skipped something. Could you please explain why it's
important to have this version in Squeeze? and which rc-bugs does it
fix? (It looks like none but I could be wrong).
The upstream author uses the
On 12/06/2010 07:17 PM, Desmond O. Chang wrote:
And, it even (silently) turn the package into a source format 3.0
which isn't acceptable at this point of the freeze.
Do you mean it must be 1.0? But common-lisp-controller/7.4+nmu1 in
squeeze is 3.0 (native). Is 3.0 (native) different
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 05:44, Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org wrote:
On 12/06/2010 07:17 PM, Desmond O. Chang wrote:
And, it even (silently) turn the package into a source format 3.0
which isn't acceptable at this point of the freeze.
Do you mean it must be 1.0? But
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package cl-asdf
cl-asdf (2:2.011-1) unstable; urgency=low
* Mostly same as 2.010.9: several minor tweaks and bug fixes since 2.010.
* Will be happier: users of
12 matches
Mail list logo
