Juliusz,
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:44:13AM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Where can I find a summary of the freeze policy for sarge?
Are you subscribed to debian-devel-announce?
The latest update on the freeze status is here:
Enrique,
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:39:15AM -0400, Enrique Robledo Arnuncio wrote:
[Please Cc: me in replies to the list]
I guess it is too late now, but I will ask, just in case...
The latest rosegarden4 upload was made shortly before the last
low-urgency uploads call (and shortly after
Package: qt-x11-free
Version: 3:3.3.3-4
Severity: serious
[please don't reassign yet, let's evaluate it first; this is the
package that most people would expect to find a report]
when building on arm-linux, uic enters an infinite loop building
pixmapfunction.h. It's not the first uic invocation
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 03:10:49PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 08:01:13PM +0200, Guido Guenther wrote:
[..snip..]
If not, have they been tested with the modutils from woody?
At least 2.4.22 works with the modutils from woody (haven't checked a
newer version yet).
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:25:56PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
thy libgnutls11-dev(=1.0.16-7) libgnutls11-dev is frozen, TODO: ?
That looks like a bug in thy, with an unnecessarily strict build-dep.
Either a strict build-dep, or adding a bunch of indirect build-deps. I'm
more comfortable
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem in the general case is that someone needs to make a decision
whether out-of-date binaries for a package should be removed, or if they
represent buginess in the newest package that should be fixed before
it's allowed into a release. I'm not
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 07:47:54AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Hi,
Please, reintroduce this package in the archive and make it reach
testing again.
If this guy doesn't reply soon, I'll make an upload to restore this
package in the archive. But we'll need to poke any
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 11:18:20AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem in the general case is that someone needs to make a decision
whether out-of-date binaries for a package should be removed, or if they
represent buginess in the newest
Kilian Krause wrote:
Hi Martin,
according to
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?pkg=gnomemeetingver=1.0.2-5arch=hppastamp=1094147124file=logas=raw
the new binutils upload seems to also require a new openh323 (and maybe
a new pwlib too). Unfortunately it's not listed which binutils was used
9 matches
Mail list logo
