Re: Add a hint to discover1 and discover1-data to testing

Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Otavio Salvador wrote: Would be good to allow discover1 and discover1-data to testing since it solve some important problems and also update its database with more entries. The new discover1 packages are working fine of course, but we currently have

tcm source package

Hello, I did a upload fixing the arm building of tcm source package and now should be ok. I forgot to set the priority of upload as medium since it's need to be ready for C++ transition. Please, change it if possible. Thanks in advance, -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R

Re: X Strike Force X.Org X11 SVN commit: r385 - trunk/debian

David Martínez Moreno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I tend to think in testing as in the next stable, so maybe my feelings about stability are heading my way. Sorry if this clashes with the general interest. Sure but it won't be release until november or december of 2006, probably.

Re: 2.6.12 kernel packaging

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Jun 20, Jurij Smakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a related note, I've heard on irc that kernels = 2.6.12 require a newer version of udev, which is not in sid yet (as I understood). I am CC'ing Marco d'Itri, udev maintainer, hoping that he can

Re: taking over ICU, library/C++ transition issues

Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This at last makes sense to me. What all the rest of people thinks about it? don't do it. You'll have to upload each package twice. And you'll packages uninstallable for a longer time frame. Why you'll have it uninstallable if he use the different

Re: Release Team meeting minutes - 2005-06-18

aurelien == Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: aurelien Andreas Barth a crit : release blockers: - toolchain transition - xorg - sorting out docs-in-main vs. the DFSG - SCC; amd64 as an official arch aurelien So SCC is now a fact, not a proposal anymore? I think

Re: To block GNOME 2.10 or not

josselin == Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: josselin Le vendredi 17 juin 2005 11:57 +0200, Daniel Kobras a josselin crit : Why don't you upload gnome-vfs with the call to fadvise removed, and turn it back on once glibc is fixed? It's just a performance

Please consider gartoon 0.5-1 for testing

Hello, This source package is included on sid without bugs for a long time and it's new version is very improved if compared with the current testing one. Please consider to approve it for sarge. Thanks, -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R -

Re: freezing source packages that produce udebs

|| On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 17:58:05 -0800 || Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: jh I've added packages to the base freeze that produce udebs in addition to jh debs. This is to avoid propigation of udeb sources to testing if the d-i jh release schedule does not allow the udeb to also propigate. As has

Re: Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (III)

|| On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:06:13 +0100 || Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ms Santiago Vila wrote: Not directly related to 3.0r4, but while we are at it: Would be possible to remove packages in security.debian.org which are already part of 3.0r3? ms What would we gain from this? ms

zip sarge's package vulnerable to CAN-2004-1010

Hello, Current CAN-2004-1010 was fixed on zip 2.30-8 but current sarge version still vulnerable. This package need to be included on sarge to solve it. Thanks in advance, Otavio -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Missed urgency on hal package

Hello, hal package was upload to solve a RC bug not reported bug and it was uploda with wrong urgency. Current version on sarge doesn't install and sid version fixes it. Please, move it ASAP. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail:

Remove debpartial-mirror from sarge

Hello, I'm one of developers of debpartial-mirror. I want to remove it from sarge since we are rewritting it and current released version is not supported anymore (only bugfixes). Thanks, Otavio Salvador -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E

<    1   2   3   4   5   6