Dear 12411,
We have an online jewelry store located at http://www.bodywings.com
We have visited your site 'debian.org' and think that the content could
be of interest to our web site visitors.
I have already placed a link to your site along with a description at
http://www.bodywings.com/nlink
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:57:54AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Anand Kumria ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060207 09:52]:
> > On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Anand Kumria ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060207 04:34]:
> > > > I also think volatile is precisely the wrong place
Author: schizo
Date: 2006-02-08 03:39:03 + (Wed, 08 Feb 2006)
New Revision: 1161
Removed:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/amd64-semtrywait-weakalias.diff
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/glibc235-alpha-divqu.diff
glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/glibc235-binutils216-ia64.diff
Last one.
> mips-bits-syscall.diff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Daniel,
On Monday, 06 Feb 2006, you wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:30:01PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > But that doesn't mean that we can issue an update to a stable package.
> >
> > Currently they are mainly done for security purposes -- but stable updates
> > should not be confined t
Martijn van Oosterhout writes ("Re: timezone data packaged separately and in
volatile?"):
> The requirements for getting into a stable release update are not
> black magic, they're quite well known:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~joey/3.1r1/
2. The package fixes a critical bug which can lead int
* Martijn van Oosterhout ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060207 14:09]:
> ISTM the d-volatile is the right place for this. However, in the mean
> time I think someone should send a message to debian-announce that
> anyone running a debian machine with an Australian (or other affected)
> timezone needs to get
2006/2/7, Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > It's not us, but the stable maintainer, that you'd have to talk to;
> > he has traditionally not been interested in these sorts of updates to
> > stable as far as I know.
>
> Well, perhaps a first start is creating the package for stable-updates;
> wo
* Anand Kumria ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060207 09:52]:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Anand Kumria ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060207 04:34]:
> > > I also think volatile is precisely the wrong place to put this kind of
> > > data -- it isn't part of the default apt.sou
[ debian-volatile dropped ]
Hi Daniel,
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:41:26PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:30:01PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > But that doesn't mean that we can issue an update to a stable package.
> >
> > Currently they are mainly done for security
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Anand Kumria ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060207 04:34]:
> > I also think volatile is precisely the wrong place to put this kind of
> > data -- it isn't part of the default apt.sources for one thing; and it
> > places an extra burden on t
* Anand Kumria ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060207 04:34]:
> I also think volatile is precisely the wrong place to put this kind of
> data -- it isn't part of the default apt.sources for one thing; and it
> places an extra burden on the maintainer(s) (who know have to track
> three different upgrade path
12 matches
Mail list logo
