dpkg_1.13.23_alpha.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: dpkg_1.13.23_alpha.deb to pool/main/d/dpkg/dpkg_1.13.23_alpha.deb dselect_1.13.23_alpha.deb to pool/main/d/dpkg/dselect_1.13.23_alpha.deb Override entries for your package: dpkg_1.13.23_alpha.deb - required admin dselect_1.13.23_alpha.deb - required admin Thank you for your cont

dpkg_1.13.23_mips.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: dpkg_1.13.23_mips.deb to pool/main/d/dpkg/dpkg_1.13.23_mips.deb dselect_1.13.23_mips.deb to pool/main/d/dpkg/dselect_1.13.23_mips.deb Override entries for your package: dpkg_1.13.23_mips.deb - required admin dselect_1.13.23_mips.deb - required admin Thank you for your contributi

dpkg_1.13.23_mipsel.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: dpkg_1.13.23_mipsel.deb to pool/main/d/dpkg/dpkg_1.13.23_mipsel.deb dselect_1.13.23_mipsel.deb to pool/main/d/dpkg/dselect_1.13.23_mipsel.deb Override entries for your package: dpkg_1.13.23_mipsel.deb - required admin dselect_1.13.23_mipsel.deb - required admin Thank you for you

dpkg_1.13.23_powerpc.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: dpkg_1.13.23_powerpc.deb to pool/main/d/dpkg/dpkg_1.13.23_powerpc.deb dselect_1.13.23_powerpc.deb to pool/main/d/dpkg/dselect_1.13.23_powerpc.deb Override entries for your package: dpkg_1.13.23_powerpc.deb - required admin dselect_1.13.23_powerpc.deb - required admin Thank you f

Upload of dpkg 1.13.23 (Was: Re: How are things going?)

On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 21:58:39 +0300, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 22:35:33 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Carry on :-) > > Ok, there has been one last commit to svn, and I'd like approval > before the planned upload for today. Attached the diff. And here's > both changelogs entr

Accepted dpkg 1.13.23 (source i386 all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 02:56:09 +0300 Source: dpkg Binary: dpkg dselect dpkg-dev Architecture: source i386 all Version: 1.13.23 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Dpkg Developers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Changed-By: Guillem Jover <[

Dpkg testing framework and Ubuntu's automated testing (was: Re: Dpkg testing framework, take 5)

Hi, On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 06:09:32PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > [...] > If the tests do not take an inordinate time to run (as a rule of > thumb, if they're not more time-consuming than the build itself) then > you should run them automatically as part of the build. Otherwise > they should be

Testing (was: Re: dpkg 2.0?)

Hi, On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 06:20:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > [...] > I think I have generally less of a high opinion of testing in areas > where we have high levels of expertise. > > My experience as upstream maintainer for adns (which has a pretty > comprehensive regression test suite) doe

Re: dpkg 2.0?

I'd like to offer an opinion on the subject of dpkg and package management in general. If this has already been mentioned elsewhere, then so be it - I just didn't know where or when. Now granted, this has nothing to do with the current state of dpkg 2.0, which I'm sure will continue in its curren