On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 11:57 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 16:51 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 12:33 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 17:34 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Ian, should we apply the backport from
On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 16:51 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 12:33 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 17:34 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Ian, should we apply the backport from
64141da587241301ce8638cc945f8b67853156ec to squeeze for bug #613634 et
al?
On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 17:34 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Ian, should we apply the backport from
64141da587241301ce8638cc945f8b67853156ec to squeeze for bug #613634 et
al?
It's already in SVN for 2.6.32-34, seems to be in the changelog twice
even, once closing #614400 and then again closing
On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 12:33 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 17:34 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Ian, should we apply the backport from
64141da587241301ce8638cc945f8b67853156ec to squeeze for bug #613634 et
al?
It's already in SVN for 2.6.32-34, seems to be in the changelog
Ian, should we apply the backport from
64141da587241301ce8638cc945f8b67853156ec to squeeze for bug #613634 et
al?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
5 matches
Mail list logo