On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 02:21:48PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 21 August 2006 13:20, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
# This should serve as a collection of permanent hints
# to keep unsupported kernel packages out of etch.
# I don't know if these are all 'ready to go' yet, but
# eventually
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:52:29AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
would you please add a hint to ltsp 0.93debian1 to allow it to move into
etch?
Hinted.
i believe it is held up because of a the ltsp-client-builder udeb.
Correct.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever
Hi,
in private Steve and I discussed some release issues, and we both
agreed that (a) our output is public and (b) it should happen in
public, so here it is dragged into the public.
Steve wrote:
Broad categories of release-critical bugs that exist today:
- packages that FTBFS
- security
viewcvs is currently one of the big blocker for python to become
python2.4 in etch. I've seen that you did a viewvc upload to
experimental 2 weeks ago, that address (among many other) that peculiar
issue.
is that package suitable for unstable or does the current viewcvs needs
to be converted
Sorry Frans, but any current use of these packages is well overdue to be
fixed. Given that kernel-source-2.4.27 is RC-buggy, I'm now working through
getting its reverse-dependency tree removed from testing.
Frans being on holiday until Sept 10th, I guess that any question
requiring some
Hi debian-release,
It looks like we'll have a new ocaml transition soon.
Cheers,
Samuel.
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:31:05PM +0200, Samuel Mimram wrote:
Get prepared for a new full rebuild!
Can you post this to debian-release, i am banned from it, and i think it is
Steve Langasek wrote:
Sorry Frans, but any current use of these packages is well overdue to be
fixed. Given that kernel-source-2.4.27 is RC-buggy, I'm now working through
getting its reverse-dependency tree removed from testing.
Are there still architectures using 2.4 in d-i as of beta3?
* Martin Schulze:
When there is no cups for amd64 in the release, it does not matter
whether it FTBFS on amd64 or not, for example.
I believe that such FTBFS bugs are already deemed important; they
are not release-critical. A lot of porters who file FTBFS bugs
disagree, but this doesn't make
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 03:28:59PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Sorry Frans, but any current use of these packages is well overdue to be
fixed. Given that kernel-source-2.4.27 is RC-buggy, I'm now working through
getting its reverse-dependency tree removed from testing.
Hi,
Sorry, I forgot to reply to this message.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:32:56PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
We, the Ruby Extras Team, have a package (ruby-pkg-tools) with some CDBS
classes and other build-related tools. Usually Ruby library packages
Build-Depend on
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 03:28:59PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Sorry Frans, but any current use of these packages is well overdue to be
fixed. Given that kernel-source-2.4.27 is RC-buggy, I'm now working through
getting its reverse-dependency tree removed from testing.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 02:50:19PM +0200, Samuel Mimram wrote:
It looks like we'll have a new ocaml transition soon.
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:31:05PM +0200, Samuel Mimram wrote:
Get prepared for a new full rebuild!
Can you post this to debian-release, i am banned
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:08:27PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 07:44:27AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
These bugs are at least to be investigated and maybe resolved in a
rather pragmatic way:
- packages that FTBFS
. on which
Steve Langasek wrote:
Another transition that today is in an earlier stage is the
mozilla-xulrunner transition. I've asked on #debian-release what people
thought should be done if seamonkey isn't packaged in time for etch --
should mozilla and all its reverse-deps be dropped because it's not
14 matches
Mail list logo
