Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
Hi
Please remove kvm from tpu so it cannot accidently migrate to testing.
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Hi.
Em Qua, 2009-12-30 às 20:36 -0200, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva escreveu:
(...)
> nmu alex_2.2-0.1 arch2darcs_1.0.13 bnfc_2.2-3.1 c2hs_0.15.1-4
> cpphs_0.7-4 darcs_2.0.2-3 darcs-buildpackage_0.5.12
> darcs-monitor_0.3.4-2 datapacker_1.0.0 dfsbuild_1.0.2.0 drift_2.2.3-2
> frown_0.6.1-9 geordi_0
Hi,
ghc6 is in lenny-proposed-updates and these packages need to be rebuilt
against it. Notice that they only need to be rebuild in 64 bits
architectures. I hope I got them right.
nmu alex_2.2-0.1 arch2darcs_1.0.13 bnfc_2.2-3.1 c2hs_0.15.1-4
cpphs_0.7-4 darcs_2.0.2-3 darcs-buildpackage_0.5.12
d
Your message dated Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:27:00 +0100
with message-id <20091230212700.gd27...@mails.so.argh.org>
and subject line binNMUs scheduled
has caused the Debian Bug report #562247,
regarding nmu: drop python2.4
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt w
Martin Pitt writes:
> Dimitri Fontaine [2009-12-30 10:52 +0100]:
>> That's why I proposed having a single binary package for any extension,
>> embedding support for more than one major version of PostgreSQL. That
>> would match how the code is maintained.
>
> That would be a major regression wrt.
Dimitri Fontaine [2009-12-30 10:52 +0100]:
> That's why I proposed having a single binary package for any extension,
> embedding support for more than one major version of PostgreSQL. That
> would match how the code is maintained.
That would be a major regression wrt. upgrades, though, since an
up
Dimitri Fontaine [2009-12-30 14:17 +0100]:
> The problem for the maintainer is having to edit a package, hence do
> some testing and QA again, when there's absolutely NO value in doing so,
> neither for the maintainer, the extension or its users.
That's only true if the change is to drop a support
* Martin Pitt (mp...@debian.org) wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine [2009-12-30 14:17 +0100]:
> > The problem for the maintainer is having to edit a package, hence do
> > some testing and QA again, when there's absolutely NO value in doing so,
> > neither for the maintainer, the extension or its users.
>
>
Hi,
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> I see your point and don't object to it in principle. It's just that
> manpower is lacking, including being able to do upstream work on the
> packages when upstream cease their support on it.
Please note, that with Dimitri and me, there are already two people
offering
Gerfried Fuchs writes:
>> If Python version changes, a binNMU is triggered on affected packages,
>> which is damn faster and more efficient than mass filling bug reports.
>> Without a line change to the modules sources.
>>
>> I do not see why this is not doable for PostgreSQL.
>
> In this case y
Dear SRMs,
#559160, "DHCP server stops with SIGPIPE when talking to LDAP server", ie is
killed basically every night, is fixed with the straightforward patch from
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=39;filename=dhcpd.diff;att=1;bug=559160
-
this bug is very important for Debian Ed
* Dimitri Fontaine [2009-12-30 15:05:37 CET]:
> Gerfried Fuchs writes:
> > This is the whole point of this thread: You won't be able to build and
> > run it just fine in Debian because the package won't be there anymore at
> > a certain point in time.
>
> The point of this thread is to *change*
* Dimitri Fontaine [2009-12-30 14:17:58 CET]:
> Roger Leigh writes:
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:52:27AM +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> > Take my postgresql-debversion extension, for example. In
> > lenny-backports and squeeze, I supported building against both 8.3
> > and 8.4 (possibly earl
Roger Leigh writes:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:52:27AM +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> That's why I proposed having a single binary package for any extension,
>> embedding support for more than one major version of PostgreSQL. That
>> would match how the code is maintained.
>
> But is this tru
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:52:27AM +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> That's why I proposed having a single binary package for any extension,
> embedding support for more than one major version of PostgreSQL. That
> would match how the code is maintained.
But is this true universally? Take my postg
Laurent Bonnaud wrote:
> Dear release managers,
>
> the enigma package is currently not installable in sid:
>
> # apt-get install enigma
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Some packages could not be installed.
Martin Pitt writes:
> I think what you have in mind is already there. Calling
> /usr/share/postgresql-common/supported-versions will print out a list
> of major versions which are supported on the current release
> (Debian/Ubuntu). I maintain that to provide correct debconf obsoletion
> messages o
Dimitri Fontaine [2009-12-28 16:22 +0100]:
> I proposed a solution and I'm willing to spend effort on it, as soon as
> Martin Pitt says it's something he wants to see happen.
>
>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-postgresql-public/2009-December/000490.html
I think what you have in
Dear release managers,
the enigma package is currently not installable in sid:
# apt-get install enigma
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an
19 matches
Mail list logo
