At Fri, 27 Aug 2004 02:47:34 +0200,
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
xshodo: arm ia64 powerpc s390 sparc
I built for ia64, s390 using Debian Project machine.
There is no useful sparc/sid chroot for me in Debian Project.
I built using my friend's machine.
powerpc/sid chroot (on voltaire) hasn't
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:35:16PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were noted
by
Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26 were
noted
by tbm [3].
One thing to bear in mind when making this
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 01:25:45PM +0200, Stefan Hornburg wrote:
i would like to suggest to remove sympa from testing. Looking in sympa-package
at the BSP on weekend showed me, that current upstream version is 4.1, current
Debian version is 3.4.4. Sympa in Debian has
Steve Langasek wrote:
Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring
that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from
sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep issues[4]), so I'd
like to uncover any problems with this proposal quickly.
What should/could be done to have this package hit sarge ?
Give Stefan some help in maintaining it..:-)
sympa is a complicated package which probably needs a lot of work so I
guess that team maintenance would be welcomedStefan, what's your
opinion about this ?
Unfortunately, this should
Hello,
Is there a way to get the following information :
- terse mode of this list, ie a {html,txt,*} page listing all the
packages removed from testing since the freeze.
- a regression page : list of package which were in woody but are not in
sarge.
- release (un)candidate list : list of
I'll do an wine NMU tonight, if it's not done earlier by someone
else, fixing the libcapi dependencies, so that all libcapi dependent
packages can go to testing.
Matthias
Package: debootstrap
Version: 0.2.41-0.2
Severity: normal
Hello,
One of sarge's goals was to try to get rid of libgnutls10 and use
libgnutls11 instead. However debootstrap does not install it for sarge
and therefore exim4 cannot switch.
Afaict all that is needed is
s/libgnutls10 /libgnutls10
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:53:09AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4
kernels
in sarge. The strongest arguments for 2.4.27, as opposed to 2.4.26
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:48:00PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:35:16PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4 kernels
in sarge. The
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:06:46PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring
that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from
sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep
Hi,
On Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 12:03:53 +0200, I wrote:
As you suggested, I'll try to recompile both PWLib and openh323 with
binutils_2.14.90.0.7-5 and then gnomemeeting again.
This approach works (as in successfully produces a package). However,
downgrading binutils from 2.15-1 to 2.14.90.0.7-5
Sven Luther writes:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:53:09AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
Based on discussions on the debian-kernel list[1], I'd like to propose
that we use 2.4.27 as the 2.4 kernel for all architectures with 2.4
kernels
in sarge. The strongest arguments for
Christoph Ulrich Scholler wrote:
Hi,
On Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 12:03:53 +0200, I wrote:
As you suggested, I'll try to recompile both PWLib and openh323 with
binutils_2.14.90.0.7-5 and then gnomemeeting again.
This approach works (as in successfully produces a package). However,
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:06:46PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Various tasks are in a hold pattern until this decision is made (ensuring
that d-i uses the proper kernel, removal of other kernel packages from
sarge, rebuilding of some packages to fix build-dep
Christoph Hellwig writes:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
It will be 2.6.8.
If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included
in the Debian packages? I cannot find a hint and the version number is
misleading.
Given the diff to .1
Am Fr, den 27.08.2004 schrieb Jeroen van Wolffelaar um 2:47:
lgrind: alpha arm hppa s390 sparc
For LGrind, the only fix - apart from me taking over maintainership - is
so tiny that I didn't push it. I'd be happy with different versions of
LGrind in sarge for different architectures. If that's
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:02:34PM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote:
Am Fr, den 27.08.2004 schrieb Jeroen van Wolffelaar um 2:47:
lgrind: alpha arm hppa s390 sparc
For LGrind, the only fix - apart from me taking over maintainership - is
so tiny that I didn't push it. I'd be happy with different
Sven Luther wrote:
All here who have 2.4 and 2.6 kernels on ppc should try disk speed tests
with hdparm: I found my new Athlon (well the mobo's new, CPU's not) is
30% faster with the 2.4 kernel.
Have you reported a bug report on this ? And with which 2.6 kernel was it ?
I haven't.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Christoph Hellwig writes:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
It will be 2.6.8.
If you write 2.6.8, do you mean 2.6.8.1? Or is the diff to .1 included
in the Debian packages? I cannot find
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:10:55PM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
All here who have 2.4 and 2.6 kernels on ppc should try disk speed tests
with hdparm: I found my new Athlon (well the mobo's new, CPU's not) is
30% faster with the 2.4 kernel.
Have you reported a
Sven Luther wrote:
fwiw I noticed something very like this between 2.2 and 2.4 when 2.4 was
new: 2.2 was faster on my Pentium system. I think it was a earlier
version of the same chipset.
Here are results on 2.6.7-1-k7:
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 108 MB in 3.02 seconds = 35.78
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:39:59AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Package: debootstrap
Version: 0.2.41-0.2
Severity: normal
Hello,
One of sarge's goals was to try to get rid of libgnutls10 and use
libgnutls11 instead. However debootstrap does not install it for sarge
and therefore exim4
The latest version of bsdmainutils needs to go into testing. Thanks for
your help.
bsdmainutils (6.0.15) unstable; urgency=high
* Read calendar files as the user who owns them instead of root when mailing
calendar files to the user (-a flag). This prevents users from including
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 11:33:25AM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Christoph Ulrich Scholler wrote:
Hi,
On Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 12:03:53 +0200, I wrote:
As you suggested, I'll try to recompile both PWLib and openh323 with
binutils_2.14.90.0.7-5 and then gnomemeeting again.
This
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Quoting Joey Hess:
15. Get ftp-master to remove kernel udebs for the old kernel version
from testing. This will *break* some old released install media
(floppy, netboot, not cdrom), but it's necessary before release.
Why is this necessary ? I'm a bit
* Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 01:26:37PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
* Steve Langasek wrote:
I should be able to get linux-kernel-di-alpha done and uploaded by
Monday.
I'm going to upload an updated kernel-image-2.4.26-alpha package next
weekend, please make
Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
[snip]
I'm going to upload an updated kernel-image-2.4.26-alpha package next
weekend, please make sure you're using this one, because it'll be
build against kernel-source-2.4.26 2.4.26-6, which fixes some security
issues.
... not
29 matches
Mail list logo
