On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 22:46:07 +, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Hello folks,
I have prepare some branches that has what I am intending to upload to
stable-proposed-updates. The modules I have changed are the following:
grub-installer
linux-kernel-di-sparc-2.6
tasksel
cdebconf
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:19, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 22:46:07 +, Otavio Salvador wrote:
...
Is there any chance we can update the apt-setup debconf templates to
stop talking about volatile?
I guess so. It is more a translation issue then a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
Julien Cristau wrote:
Care to explain why this is needed? And what the other changes are
about? There's no bug number, and the changelog doesn't really tell
much.
By way of summary of the original patch and a plan for what will happen to
Processing changes file: shadow_4.1.4.2+svn3283-2+squeeze1_powerpc.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: shadow_4.1.4.2+svn3283-2+squeeze1_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: shadow_4.1.4.2+svn3283-2+squeeze1_armel.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file:
Processing changes file: phpmyadmin_2.11.8.1-5+lenny8_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: ffmpeg-debian_0.svn20080206-18+lenny3_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: ffmpeg-debian_0.svn20080206-18+lenny3_alpha.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file:
Hi,
A friend reminded me about #594185, which I'd overlooked. I can't get
it to break on i386, but apparently it renders the package completely
broken on amd64. I've uploaded a fix to unstable, and I'd like to
upload this patch to stable - would that be OK?
diff -Nru
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
block 547393 by 546167
Bug #547393 [release.debian.org] transition: libjpeg8
Was not blocked by any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 547393: 546167
block 547393 by 546416
Bug #547393 [release.debian.org] transition: libjpeg8
Was blocked by: 546167
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 21:27:11 +0100, Torsten Werner wrote:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Hi,
the version 6.24-1 of the package contains important security related
bugfixes.
I would take 6.24-1 from unstable
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 14:57:19 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
block 547393 by 546167
Bug #547393 [release.debian.org] transition: libjpeg8
Was not blocked by any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 547393: 546167
paintlib was last
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 14:51:29 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Tags: moreinfo
Hi,
The git package in stable is currently based against v1.7.2.3. Junio
is conservative about not making risky changes
Hi,
Am 17.02.2011 16:21, schrieb Julien Cristau:
Do we have any idea what the new upstream releases include besides the
security related stuff? Your diff doesn't say that.
from the release notes:
- OlsonData 2010o
- Java DB 10.6.2.1
- other bug fixes: java_plugin - pogo games crashes AOL
Hi,
In order to ensure that packages marked as key for a task remain present
and installable in testing, britney uses a generated faux package which
depends on each of the packages. This approach has, with the odd minor
niggle, worked fine for some time but breaks down as soon as the set of
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
In order to ensure that packages marked as key for a task remain present
and installable in testing, britney uses a generated faux package which
depends on each of the packages. This approach has, with the odd minor
niggle, worked fine for some time but breaks down as
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Owner: glo...@debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hello,
I've prepared a small transition of some libs to new upstream
versions, to be completed before the transition to OCaml = 3.12 (not
yet planned). I've
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 04:31:51PM -, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
In order to ensure that packages marked as key for a task remain present
and installable in testing, britney uses a generated faux package which
depends on each of the packages. This approach has, with the odd minor
niggle,
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 19:42:09 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 04:31:51PM -, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
In order to ensure that packages marked as key for a task remain present
and installable in testing, britney uses a generated faux package which
depends on each of
Ciekurkalna tirgotavaa februari var iegadaties pistoli FN FNP series
Nevajag ne dokumentus, ne parakstu pasee!
Neparproti, un mekle pareizaja rajonaa: http://www.45kalibrs.info !
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 12:57 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[the gnome task depends on gdm3, the xfce and lxde tasks depend on gdm;
gdm and gdm3 conflict]
That's unfortunate. I doubt that the light desktop tasks will continue
to use gdm for too long, as it seems unlikely gdm 2
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 14:12 +, Colin Watson wrote:
A friend reminded me about #594185, which I'd overlooked. I can't get
it to break on i386, but apparently it renders the package completely
broken on amd64. I've uploaded a fix to unstable, and I'd like to
upload this patch to stable -
Processing changes file: telepathy-gabble_0.9.15-1+squeeze1_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: telepathy-gabble_0.9.15-1+squeeze1_armel.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: telepathy-gabble_0.9.15-1+squeeze1_i386.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file:
Quoting Julien Cristau (jcris...@debian.org):
Please take a look and comment on those. If you think anything is
missing please say so.
Is there any chance we can update the apt-setup debconf templates to
stop talking about volatile?
I'm afraid I can't find any good formulation that
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 21:52:53 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
In short, I know that volatile is now named squeeze-updates...but
how is it called more generically?
'Urgent bug fixes', or something to that effect?
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
[debian-devel dropped from Cc as it didn't seem relevant to the mail]
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:06 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Di, Feb 15, 2011 at 09:31:33 (CET), Reinhard Tartler wrote:
BTW, where has mehdi's excellent transition tracker gone?
It is here:
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 21:12 + schrieb Adam D. Barratt:
[debian-devel dropped from Cc as it didn't seem relevant to the mail]
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:06 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Di, Feb 15, 2011 at 09:31:33 (CET), Reinhard Tartler wrote:
BTW, where has mehdi's
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 22:21 +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 21:12 + schrieb Adam D. Barratt:
I've scheduled an initial set of packages on most architectures (not
alpha, hppa or mips due to the size of their queues); let's see how that
goes.
[...]
You don't
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
The basic implementation on the britney side exists (in my local setup)
since a few hours ago, after I tinkered with it during my lunch break.
The interesting work of extracting the information required from the
version of tasksel-data currently in unstable already
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Adam D. Barratt
a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 22:21 +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 21:12 + schrieb Adam D. Barratt:
I've scheduled an initial set of packages on most architectures (not
alpha, hppa or
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 21:02, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 21:52:53 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
In short, I know that volatile is now named squeeze-updates...but
how is it called more generically?
'Urgent bug fixes', or something to that effect?
Julien Cristau wrote:
Is there any chance we can update the apt-setup debconf templates to
stop talking about volatile?
Since squeeze-updates (volatile) vs squeeze/updates (security)
are now being seen as confusingly similar names --
And, since this thread demonstrates that we don't have an
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 00:41, Joey Hess jo...@debian.org wrote:
Julien Cristau wrote:
Is there any chance we can update the apt-setup debconf templates to
stop talking about volatile?
Since squeeze-updates (volatile) vs squeeze/updates (security)
are now being seen as confusingly similar
Le 10/02/2011 10:12, Sylvain Le Gall a écrit :
I also have a pair of packages to update (sexplib, type-conv, bin-prot,
ounit). Since some of them will break the distribution and should
trigger the need to binNMU some other packages, I am not sure how to
proceed: 1) upload new version during
Quoting Otavio Salvador (ota...@ossystems.com.br):
'Urgent bug fixes', or something to that effect?
They're not only bug fixes but also database updates and like.
Important system updates?
One might argue that they're not important as well (think about the
updates we plan to do for
32 matches
Mail list logo
