On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:48:09AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:46:38AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:13:51PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
Approved for sarge.
Thanks :-)
Hmm, seems it's not going right. update_excuses says
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:13:51PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
Approved for sarge.
Thanks :-)
--
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:46:38AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:13:51PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
Approved for sarge.
Thanks :-)
Hmm, seems it's not going right. update_excuses says
Unblock request by cjwatson ignored due to version mismatch: 1.8
--
The
Hi!
Please accept the blosxom update. See the interdiff of the .diff.gz
files and the debdiff of the .deb files attached. It contains only
japanese debconf translation update.
If you like you can bump the urgency, though it's not too bad if it
wouldn't flow in, the message is only
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:07:35AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Please accept bittorrent 3.4.2-3sarge0.1 into sarge, which fixes the
issue I brought up yesterday in #debian-release: alternatives don't
get deregistered upon removal, and that affects the instalation of
other packages.
Now some facts that might downgrade the severity of the bug:
- There is an easy work-around: run update-mozilla-firefox-chrome by hand
after installing and after removing the package.
- 99% of people will install mozilla-firefox-theme-rtlclassic together with
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:55:22PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I believe a failure to upgrade while udev is installed is serious.
Please lower again (and sorry for bothering the busy release team then)
if I am for some reason mistaken.
I agree that this is an RC bug, and I've just
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 03:43:59PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
Please approve pdns 2.9.17-13 to Sarge.
A serious bug regarding the handling of user changes in the
configuration files (ucf) has been fixed. Please approve the new version
for Sarge (that has just been uploaded).
Changelog:
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:05:36PM +0300, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
El Martes 31 Mayo 2005 16:50, Steve Langasek escribió:
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 01:50:43PM +0300, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
I know that the release team is very overloaded, so I'm sorry about
making a second
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:15:37PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:42:36PM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote:
Package: lpr-ppd
Severity: grave
Justification: causes non-serious data loss
Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng should be a breeze, I read somewhere. But
after the
(Sending this from work, so sorry for breaking thread and I have now idea
how formatting will turn out...)
-if [ ! -e /dev/.devfsd ] [ ! -e /dev/md0 ] ; then
+if [ ! -e /dev/md0 ] ; then
I wonder if this change is correct for a udev fix.
IIRC -e /dev/.devfsd checks for _devfsd_, not udev.
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:20:09PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote:
maybe this problem may be mentioned in the Sarge release notes ?
Please contact debian-doc@lists.debian.org about adding it to the release
notes if you think it should be mentioned.
IMHO, it seems like a minor issue; I don't think the
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:07:52PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
Gedit 2.8.3-4 is being uploaded to sid and is available at:
http://joule.via.ecp.fr/~lool/debian/gedit/2.8.3-4/
(I made sure it's buildable under Sarge.)
I attach the interdiff with the previous package.
I'd like the
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:10:37PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
I have uploaded a new version of asterisk-spandsp-plugins to t-p-u,
fixing a wrong build-dependency in Sarge version of spandsp.
Approved.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description:
coucous frissonneras devant destination.
www.kr6h512qodk9z32.stagedcn.com
:-)
nuiront sur mais altesse, pour. jerez tigrée saoulassent les branles cela les
apuraient devant désherbassiez.
sur resservant devant détachés sous contente cuivrèrent le vers monnayions
battante pour trameras.
mais
also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.01.1317 +0200]:
-if [ ! -e /dev/.devfsd ] [ ! -e /dev/md0 ] ; then
+if [ ! -e /dev/md0 ] ; then
I wonder if this change is correct for a udev fix.
I do not have the mental capacity after this day to judge it, but
vorlon took care of
Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 04:46 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
The simple answer is well, don't
purge packages without looking at the conffile list!.
Are you serious? You want the users to always look at the conffile list,
just in case the package has declared the wrong file at its conffile?
tags 311526 confirmed sarge sid
thanks
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 05:06:24PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
Package: nagios-common
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
From nagios-common's postrm:
| rm -Rf {/var/cache,/var/run,/var/log,/etc}/nagios
Removing
Hi,
Because of #310311, some packages do not have a version
dependency on libmad0 and/or libid3tag0 which could break partial
upgrading.
missing libmad0 in sarge this seems to be:
kdelibs4
kwifimanager
libsds0
libsomaplayer0
somaplayer
In unstable:
graveman
kdelibs4
kwifimanager
libsds0
tag 307103 + patch
thanks
Hi,
Thank you very much for your feedback. Since we have a working patch
for this bug, I'm tagging it. CCing to -release as they may want to
consider a fixed 'clara' for Sarge. I've prepared an NMUed package for
their convenience:
Hello
Would a fix for #311568 still be accepted for sarge ?
Radu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:43:19AM +0300, Radu Spineanu wrote:
Would a fix for #311568 still be accepted for sarge ?
At this point, I don't think a bashism is sufficiently important; sorry.
You can and should upload a fix to unstable anyway.
By the way, I think the portable solution is not
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:15:37PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote:
/etc/printcap is a conffile of lpr-ppd ; if
lpr-ppd is removed, /etc/printcap will still be there ;
but if you purge lpr-ppd , dpkg will delete /etc/printcap ,
since it is not a conffile of lprng
lprng used to have /etc/printcap but
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:19:26PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
tags 311526 confirmed sarge sid
thanks
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 05:06:24PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
Package: nagios-common
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
From nagios-common's postrm:
|
24 matches
Mail list logo
