On Monday 16 October 2006 19:14, Frans Pop wrote:
Open season for udeb hints again...
The list below is the major migration in preparation for RC1.
General request to RMs: please do not hint any packages with udebs from
now on without checking with me.
Thanks,
FJP
pgpKOUJTZPno5.pgp
Things are finally starting to come together for RC1.
- We've found a good work-around for the bug in g-i where selected lines
in multi-select lists would not be shown. We need new versions of
some gtk packages for that, but these have now been uploaded.
Thanks especially to Loïc Minier for
Hi folks,
Open season for udeb hints again...
The list below is the major migration in preparation for RC1.
I will follow up with some more specific migrations, especially for the
graphical installer. These may need some urgent hints.
TIA,
FJP
Hints to be set by Release Managers
On Monday 16 October 2006 19:42, Stephen Gran wrote:
Just since I saw this flying by me - I just uploaded a new hdparm
(6.8-1) - there's no urgency for it to go in, but would it be a problem
for it to migrate when it's ready?
No, I will request migration for all packages producing udebs almost
retitle 363377 Inform users that HostAP is merged in recent kernels
thanks control
Hi,
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Etch will only ship a 2.6.18 kernel, please update have it.
This bug isn't actually a FTBFS, since hostap-source isn't needed in
recent kernels. The driver was merged in mainline
Hi,
currently, tetex-base is not going into testing because it has RC bugs,
and britney believes the number of RC bugs is equal in testing and sid.
This is technically true, however, all the RC bugs that have a
etch-ignore tag also have a part that actually is RC, and which has been
fixed in
Hi,
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
buildds: 19
There are 19 buildds actively uploading packages for m68k (Aug 20 to
present). This indicates that individual buildds are roughly an order of
magnitude slower than those for other architectures, which makes m68k a
limiting
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:48:32PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
As a result, the bts is already ignoring m68k in calculating a bug's
applicability for the testing distribution, at the release team's request.
As someone who has recently looked at and fixed many problems, I must say
the
Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fixes for problems are too often simply stuck in the BTS now, because in
many cases maintainer simply don't care about m68k support. I often have
to bug people to get them to release a fixed package.
Does this explain why guile-1.6 is still not
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:57:40AM -0600, Troy Heber wrote:
Please remove kernel-patch-lkcd from unstable, it is unused and will
not apply to the 2.6.18 kernel (Bug#393286). I'm also CC'ing
debian-release to request the removal from testing as well.
Tagged for removal from testing.
Thanks,
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 07:30:35PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 16 October 2006 19:14, Frans Pop wrote:
Open season for udeb hints again...
The list below is the major migration in preparation for RC1.
General request to RMs: please do not hint any packages with udebs from
now on
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:46:40PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Etch will only ship a 2.6.18 kernel, please update have it.
This bug isn't actually a FTBFS, since hostap-source isn't needed in
recent kernels. The driver was merged in mainline 2.6.14 and the
mdadm upstream is releasing 2.5.5 really soon now, and it fixes
#393314 (FTBFS on sparc/ia64/arm).
I've closely cooperated on both 2.5.4 and 2.5.5. All patches between
2.5.3 (which is currently in testing) and 2.5.5 are true bug fixes
and no drastic changes have been introduced which would affect
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fixes for problems are too often simply stuck in the BTS now, because in
many cases maintainer simply don't care about m68k support. I often have
to bug people to get them to release a fixed
Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fixes for problems are too often simply stuck in the BTS now, because in
many cases maintainer simply don't care about m68k support. I often have
to bug
Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I'm not sure what you intent with this question. The patch is not that
old yet, but it's there:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=326905
Wow, that's rich. The patch was posted to the
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 10:57:00PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:48:32PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
As a result, the bts is already ignoring m68k in calculating a bug's
applicability for the testing distribution, at the release team's request.
As someone who has
Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your message was deliberately misleading, designed to suggest that
there had been a fix in for a while (even if not that old yet), when
in fact, the patch was posted *after* my message.
What the hell is your problem? Yes, the patch is _one_ day old and
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:48:32PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
buildds: 19
There are 19 buildds actively uploading packages for m68k (Aug 20 to
present). This indicates that individual buildds are roughly an order of
magnitude
Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 10:57:00PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:48:32PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
As a result, the bts is already ignoring m68k in calculating a bug's
applicability for the testing distribution, at the release team's
Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
was your initial phrase 'Please
let the release team know how we can be of assistance to you in setting
and meeting goals for an m68k release' just a hollow phrase...
I never said anything of the kind.
If the m68k team can make the port happen without
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 04:20:56PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fixes for problems are too often simply stuck in the BTS now, because in
many cases
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I'm not sure what you intent with this question. The patch is not that
old yet, but it's there:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=326905
Wow, that's rich. The patch was posted to the bug log all of THIRTY
MINUTES
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
You claimed that it's a bad idea to drop m68k as a release candidate,
because the only way bugs will get fixed is if maintainers are forced
to include patches.
I didn't say anything about forcing, that's your conclusion.
In fact, the one
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But you attempted to trick people, by pretending that the patch was
already there before my email. You wanted to make me look bad, as if
I was bringing up an example where there was a patch in the bug-log.
Since your claim is that m68k
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
was your initial phrase 'Please
let the release team know how we can be of assistance to you in setting
and meeting goals for an m68k release' just a hollow phrase...
I never said anything of
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 10:39:26PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 10:57:00PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:48:32PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
As a result, the bts is already ignoring m68k in calculating a bug's
applicability for the testing
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 07:52:41PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 16 October 2006 19:42, Stephen Gran wrote:
Just since I saw this flying by me - I just uploaded a new hdparm
(6.8-1) - there's no urgency for it to go in, but would it be a problem
for it to migrate when it's ready?
No,
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 11:01:37AM +1000, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
Someone please queue the hppa libggi binNMU.
Steve McIntyre agrees that a binNMU is needed. Please read #39.
Best Regards,
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar
--
http://v7w.com/anibal
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 11:01:37AM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
Someone please queue the hppa libggi binNMU.
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 12:10:19AM +0200, Julien Louis wrote:
Package: libggi-target-aa
Version: 1:2.2.1-4
Severity: important
as seen on packages.debian.org [1], the
please consider hinting ltsp 0.99debian5 into etch, which is
(presumably) held up by the ltsp-client-builder udeb.
it fixes copyright issues, missing dependencies, and a few other things
needed by debian-edu (and possibly other projects).
thanks yet again!
live well,
vagrant
--
To
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a
release architecture for etch.
We have also asked about removing m68k from testing since it is not
currently a release candidate; Anthony Towns has
On Oct 16, 2006, at 12:01 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
Please start testing the installer for all architectures NOW
All udebs with functional changes have now been uploaded, so this
is an
excellent time to test different architectures
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:38:45PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
currently, tetex-base is not going into testing because it has RC bugs,
and britney believes the number of RC bugs is equal in testing and sid.
This is technically true, however, all the RC bugs that have a
etch-ignore tag also
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You did not ask Roman to provide examples of fixes are just stuck in the
BTS, you picked your own bug and then complains it is not a good example
? Is not that non-sense ?
No, what I did was I asked how his claim relates to a particular bug
in a
35 matches
Mail list logo
