Dear release team,
since I must go on vacaction for several weeks, and I'm unsure whether
there is enough (wo)manpower on debian-tetex-maint to resolve this
bug, I recommend that you keep a close look at it.
All my activities so far are recorded in the bug log. I have tried to
contact the
Le Mercredi 6 Avril 2005 00:22, Frans Pop a crit:
Is the release team aware of this issue?
Will migration to testing of the new vim be blocked automatically
until this is solved?
the problem is known, and already addressed (see #303266)
in fact, the bug is already closed in the current svn
Hi Steve,
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 16:54, Steve Langasek wrote:
To reiterate our discussion on IRC, I don't think this addresses my
concerns, which are that:
- Nothing in the package (binary or source) uniquely identifies the
kernel-source patchlevel used (including the added ABI name, since
Hi Joey,
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 18:26, Martin Schulze wrote:
Howto handle security fixes for fai-kernels
---
fai-kernels uses the kernel-source-2.4.27 and kernel-source-2.6.8
packages. If these packages get updated with a security fix,
Here is a summary of the important changes I'm planning for libpng in
etch.
* Removal of the entire libpng source package: libpng2, libpng2-dev,
libpng10-0, libpng10-dev. All applications currently linking to libpng
1.0 will have to be rebuilt against libpng 1.2. As sarge's libpng
packages
Holger Levsen wrote:
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 12:42, Martin Schulze wrote:
Hmmm... the only mail address for stable security support on
http://www.debian.org/intro/organization is [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] didnt seem appropriate to me.
What's wrong with that address?
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 04:09:08PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I just looked at upgrading a server from woody to sarge and the result
was, well, interesting. The output from apt-get -o
Debug::pkgProblemResolver=true dist-upgrade starts off with:
Investigating perl
Package perl has broken
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Removal of the libpng3 binary package, as only 2 packages in sarge
still depend on this one. Maybe we can keep it, though, as some
third-party binaries could require libpng.so.3.
I get rather a longer list from apt-get rdepends; which two are you
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 11:26 am, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
- It is a apt-get bug only, aptitude handles the same situation just
fine. But both apt-get from woody and sarge bail out.
That's really weird, because aptitude does nearly the same thing as apt-get
when calculating upgrades.
Hi,
btw, no need to cc: me, i'm subscribed to release, the bug and the package :-)
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 16:54, Steve Langasek wrote:
- Nothing in the package (binary or source) uniquely identifies the
kernel-source patchlevel used (including the added ABI name, since ABI name
!=
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
- It is a apt-get bug only, aptitude handles the same situation just
fine. But both apt-get from woody and sarge bail out.
Is apt-get a supported upgrade route from Woody to Sarge?
The release notes [1] recommend using aptitude instead.
[1]
resent as I go the debian-security-private-address wrong, please follow
reploy-to:
Hi,
btw, no need to cc: me, i'm subscribed to release, the bug and the package :-)
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 16:54, Steve Langasek wrote:
- Nothing in the package (binary or source) uniquely identifies the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andre Lehovich wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
- It is a apt-get bug only, aptitude handles the same situation just
fine. But both apt-get from woody and sarge bail out.
Is apt-get a supported upgrade route from Woody to
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:22:41PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andre Lehovich wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
- It is a apt-get bug only, aptitude handles the same situation just
fine. But both apt-get from woody and sarge
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:18:06PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 16:54, Steve Langasek wrote:
- Nothing in the package (binary or source) uniquely identifies the
kernel-source patchlevel used (including the added ABI name, since ABI name
!= patchlevel)
as we now
reassign 302827 jadetex
thanks
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:10:28AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
since I must go on vacaction for several weeks, and I'm unsure whether
there is enough (wo)manpower on debian-tetex-maint to resolve this
bug, I recommend that you keep a close look at it.
All my
16 matches
Mail list logo
