On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:32:39AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list
can be found in the removals
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:17:26AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
- In Squeeze, using default configurations, files with .php in their name
such as foo.php.jpeg are executed as PHP scripts by the Apache web
servers
runing PHP scripts through php5-cgi.
Maybe that's because it's expected
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 01:10:57PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
On 20/08/12 08:02, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:17:26AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
- In Squeeze, using default configurations, files with .php in their
name
such as foo.php.jpeg are executed
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 03:12:14PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
On 20/08/12 14:35, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 01:10:57PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
Yes it's possible some people rely on that behaviour, e.g. serving JPEG
data from PHP scripts named like
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 06:40:54PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 20, Wouter Verhelst w...@uter.be wrote:
But some sites accept file uploads with arbitrary names, perhaps
expected to be a JPEG image, but actually named bar.php.jpeg and
containing malicious server-side PHP which
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 05:52:46PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, experimental is very likely to break, meaning, an experimental
buildd will require a lot more maintenance than an unstable one (not a
showstopper, but still an issue
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 03:49:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 06:08:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Maintaining a buildd machine involves keeping a chroot environment
relatively clean.
Yup. Probably the best way of doing this is to debootstrap a new chroot
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:11:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:04:16PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
This suggestion has been made before, but I'm not in favour of
implementing it.
That's fair. I'd only consider it appropriate if the experimental
buildding
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:39:15AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:11:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:04:16PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
This suggestion has been made before, but I'm not in favour of
implementing it.
That's
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 02:17:57AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:20:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Also, I don't see why you would want to manually specify what stuff to
take from unstable instead of experimental? Isn't build-depends meant
for that?
I don't
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 02:51:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:55:42PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 02:17:57AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:20:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Also, I don't see why you would
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 11:31:18AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 07:25:12PM +0100, Carlos Valiente wrote:
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 13:13, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Hello,
The percentage of up to date packages for sid on s390 is currently
dropping like a stone.
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 05:39:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you get to the point where almost everything's done, and the remaining
1% is impossible for various reasons, come back and explain why each
particular remaining issue (missing builds, unfixed RC bugs) can't be done
(m68k would
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 12:34:32PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
(OK, so let's try out replying via the mailing-lists links. Sorry if
this turns out bad)
Matthias Klose writes:
hmm, upload a new gcc-defaults to experimental making 3.4 the default
definitely breaks gnome builds in
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 01:04:37PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Ah, last we tried this in february or so, testing-proposed-update was
not being autobuilt,
It is (or, at least, can be made to easily).
The wanna-build db is running, and works. One of my buildd machines has
it configured (albeit at
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:01:01PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
The m68k build is in progress (gtk+2.0 and a part of gnome2.6 have been
built).
Unfortunately, in progress doesn't mean it'll work. Python-gtk2
failed on m68k:
Byte-compiling python modules...
dsextras.py
Byte-compiling python
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 06:22:56PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Le sam, 22/05/2004 à 18:09 +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:01:01PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
The m68k build is in progress (gtk+2.0 and a part of gnome2.6 have been
built
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 08:33:15PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
Can I put the package in stable-proposed-updates anyway?
I don't think that's productive. It's probably a lot more productive to use
your energy to bring the existence of www.backports.org (which
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 11:18:51PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 22:46:48 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Never the less, I think the original question (whether 7.2.4 should be
accepted for woody) is a good one.
True, though I think a better question would
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:59:24PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Hello,
I object to the Release Manager's decision of choosing a military-related
term (sarge) for the next release of Debian.
Yeah, I agree. I also object to choosing an adjective ('woody') as one
of our release names. We
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:17:55AM +0200, Robert Jordens wrote:
Hi!
liblrdf 0.3.7-2 has failed to build because of an RC bug in libraptor.
The bug is now fixed and liblrdf should be retried on
sparc, arm and m68k.
Done, but note that (as listed on www.d.o/ports/m68k) the m68k porters'
list
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 06:25:20PM +0100, Paul Martin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:43:00PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
gcc-3.0 isn't available in sid/sarge on m68k. Suppose that your package
FTBFS's on m68k in sarge (I'm not saying it does, but it could easily be
the case as at
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 02:52:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
This issue warrants opening an RC bug against logrotate, that should be
addressed before sarge. There will probably be someone on debian-68k
(cc:ed) who can verify for us whether logrotate does build with gcc-3.4,
Actually, you
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:51:17PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 06:25:20PM +0100, Paul Martin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:43:00PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
gcc-3.0 isn't available in sid/sarge on m68k. Suppose that your package
FTBFS's on m68k
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:58:57AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2004-08-03 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:51:17PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
I'm preparing to perform a build with gcc-3.4 on another m68k host,
running unstable; I'll
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 10:25:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:58:57AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2004-08-03 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:51:17PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
I'm preparing to perform
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 02:06:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It's not realistic to expect the ftpmasters to prioritize package name
changes above other tasks that are critical for the release.
Except that the GNUstep packages have been critized over and over again
for polluting the package
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:24:03AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:39:46AM +0200, Giuseppe Sacco wrote:
I am waiting fot hylafax to migrate into testing. The grep-excuses says
that it is not compiled in Alpha, while it has been compiled by buildd 4
days ago.
May
Also,
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 08:50:16AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
The problem seem mostly to be missing m68k binaries for openh323
(built but not uploaded yet).
Even though this was true, there was a bit of politicking going on which
resulted in the fact that the openh323 on spice
Op di, 16-11-2004 te 00:51 +0100, schreef Sven Luther:
I was also under the impression (from joeyh, but he did speak about .udebs),
that it also affected priority of the autobuilders in some way, that is
higher urgency packages get prioritized higher in the autobuilder queues.
But naturally,
Op di, 16-11-2004 te 06:44 -0600, schreef Ron Johnson:
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 13:12 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op di, 16-11-2004 te 12:57 +0100, schreef Martin Schulze:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
It is. This is a myth which orignated due to the fact that my
wanna-build documentation
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 04:13:46PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Can this not be made arch conditional ? I don't know how such alternatives
live with arch conditional things. is this :
magicdev | g-v-m [!powerpc], g-v-m | magicdev [powerpc] allowed ?
It is for build-depends, but not for
Op ma, 22-11-2004 te 10:28 -0800, schreef Clint Byrum:
If you remove MIPS, and s390, and maybe 1 or 2 other obscure and problem
ridden arches, the users will praise you, and probably those few that
needed those arches will understand.
s/probably/maybe, if we're lucky,/
still, I think it's
Op di, 28-12-2004 te 00:49 +0100, schreef Rafael Laboissiere:
* Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-12-27 16:56]:
The octave2.1 package is being held back by lack of a powerpc package. No
idea why.
I do not understand neither. The following buildd report:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:50:35AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
Eduard Bloch wrote:
Then we would have
Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
(for example), etc.pp.
Counting numbers
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 06:38:30PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
In linux.debian.devel.release Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the real problem here is gcc-4.0 especially at -O3. On m68k it ICE
instead of spewing wrong code like on i386. We are very good at spotting
ICE but poor
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 06:47:08PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 23, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the real problem here is gcc-4.0 especially at -O3. On m68k it ICE
instead of spewing wrong code like on i386. We are very good at spotting
ICE but poor at spotting
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 11:37:05AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. . .
From
http://buildd.debian.org/~jeroen/status/architecture.php?a=m68k, there are
125 packages in state Failed, 138 in state Dep-Wait, and 45 that are
Maybe-Failed; as well as
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 10:46:04AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 03:44:10PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
You can browse the build logs on buildd.debian.org.
I did. It says mpich was build (probably succesful) 2 months ago. It
does not tell me why it still hasn't
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi,
there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch. As we're heading to
freeze etch rather soon and also the RC bug count doesn't look too good,
and we
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:00:46AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060511 08:59]:
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
whether we could switch gcc to 4.1
Hi Steve,
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
So with three months remaining until the scheduled release of etch, the
release team does not believe it's possible for m68k to close the gap on
these issues.
As a result, the bts is already ignoring m68k in
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 09:22:29PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
Even if you still think that doing this early rather than late is
necessary from your point of view, I would still like to search for
alternatives, a compromise; say, that you create a stage in between
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:42:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
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
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:43:03AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
The point is that m68k gets kicked out _before_ any alternative has been
implemented.
Well, yeah, but it's not because we weren't given a fair chance. I'm not
happy about this any more than you are, but this doesn't help. Sorry.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:00:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 09:49:50AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
Oh well...
It doesn't meet the release criteria because of the toolchain problems, that
have now been solved.
No, it hasn't. You need to be reliably abouve
Hi,
This version of belpic is waiting on SPARC to build before it can go to
testing. However, the build there failed due to issues with java (it
needs it to build a small jini library).
I don't know much about SPARC, but I'd sure as hell not like to miss the
release again with belpic. Would it
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 11:22:02AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 02:59:16PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I don't know much about SPARC, but I'd sure as hell not like to miss the
release again with belpic.
FWIW, belpic 2.5.9-4 is already in testing...
I know
a release of our own
design (maybe leaving out some tough stuff; at the very least something
you can install and then work from).
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 02:37:04AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
(c) not bother with an etch-equivalent release for m68k
I'm with Stephen on this one
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 05:55:13PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
Isn't it going to be so that we'd be able to do our own
arch-specific NMUs in both cases? Or is it in both cases going to be a
matter of deciding which package will be part of the
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 03:06:54AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
I've seen no reports for the following architectures, which is
disappointing:
alpha, arm, m68k, mips, mipsel
m68k will not make etch; we're now working on getting something for our
current users so that they can, at least, continue
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 01:46:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Wouter? Michael?
Sorry. Ack, on all this. It sounds like the best thing to do.
Now all I need is to make some time to figure out how all this is
supposed to work, and I can jump in.
--
Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the
Hi,
I just uploaded a new version of NBD. The only change was an updated
Spanish translation.
Please allow it to migrate to testing.
Thanks,
--
The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters
works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is
trying
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 03:23:55PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 09/23/2010 03:04 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Hi,
I just uploaded a new version of NBD. The only change was an updated
Spanish translation.
The diff shows:
man/Makefile| 521
Only change: updated vietnamese translation (and if any further
translators now pop up tomorrow as they did for my last two uploads,
I'll get very angry ;-) )
--
The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters
works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no
Hi,
The NBD packages are currently blocked because the package produces a
udeb. Since the version in testing has a bug that prevents the
initscript from working with the module-init-tools that are also in
testing, it would be nice if you could allow NBD to migrate.
This will have zero impact on
Hi,
This morning, when I signed the mails from voltaire and malo, I received
one response from voltaire that said that it didn't have OpenOffice.org
taken for building, but that instead it was marked as Dep-Wait.
Investigating turned up that this was manually modified by a person from
the
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 06:31:25AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
What I personally would like is that packages are generally uploaded
within 24 hours after the buildd log is sent, and also they are
generally uploaded within 3 days after the source package is uploaded
/ binNMU is requested (the
So, with the freeze now a fact, I'm a bit in dubio about what to do with
beid.
The version currently in testing, 3.5.2, works on the architectures
where it isn't fundamentally buggy (i.e., all non-64bit architectures).
But it doesn't work properly on others. There're also a few build issues
on
Hi,
nbd 2.9.16-3 closes one Severity: important bug (#591275), fixes two
regressions wrt anything = 2.9.15 (including the version currently in
lenny), and adds translation updates. Please allow it to migrate after
its 10-day delay has passed.
I have a translation deadline later this week, but
Hi,
I need to do another update for NBD. The main reason is to close
#593783, which is RC; but I would like to include fixes for #592905 and
#594140, too.
The changes I intend to make can be reviewed at
http://git.debian.org/?p=users/wouter/nbd.git;a=commitdiff;h=HEAD;hp=2.9.16-3
Would the
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 05:01:17PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 08/24/2010 03:46 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Hi,
I need to do another update for NBD. The main reason is to close
#593783, which is RC; but I would like to include fixes for #592905 and
#594140, too.
Looks fine
Hi,
As above. Changes are limited to:
* adding debian/README.Debian, explaining a few bits about how to use
the package;
* editing debian/control for documentation (really, add two packages
to Recommends:, as explained in README.Debian, and add a few lines to
a Description: to point the
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 03:03:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Translation changes only.
Eh, make that logtool 1.2.8-5. Forgot a changelog entry :)
--
Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 06:00:38PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Translation changes only.
Both unblocked.
Thanks.
However, the excuse for nbd currently says Unblock request by he
ignored due to version mismatch: 2.8.7-3. Could you have
Hi,
Subject says it all. Changes are limited to nbd-server's postinst, and
are needed to fix #406963, which is RC.
Thanks,
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Hi,
Obviously, a few days after my previous upload-with-freeze-exception got
through to experimental, someone asked me to update the french
translation, since there were some fuzzies.
logtool 1.2.8-6 defuzzies these three strings in french, and also
contains updates for other languages. Could
Hi,
I know this is going to be kinda controversial, but I'd really like to
make a case to either upload mono 1.2.3.1 to unstable (and eventually
have it migrate to etch), or to at least backport the fix for #403495 to
the version in unstable.
Justification: I filed #403495 at the severity
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 07:52:47PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
Hallo Release Team,
I've read in the release goals:
RELEASE GOALS
=
* full IPv6 support
Advocate: Martin Zobel-Helas
and wrote to Martin Zobel-Helas who redirected me here.
My experience with IPv6 in Debian
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:41:58AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Can we have a enable IPV6 yes/no question in the installer? That fixes all
problems in one go. Then tweak the system's defaults for the answer.
Sure. While we're at it, can we also have a question enable UTF-8? Oh,
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 12:24:50PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hey there, just wondering if folks have requested to debian-release
that newer nbd should be allowed into testing ?
Not me, yet.
seems like it's sat in unstable for 20+ days, and the only thing holding
it up is the .udeb ?
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 12:57:53PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
-release: please push nbd into testing (unless someone on -boot objects).
There's a .udeb which (for now) is stale; my plans are to (eventually)
write a partman-nbd to support installing to an NBD device. It's not
ready yet
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 09:15:46PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
I can remember that having apt-listchanges installed at a buildd breaks
the buildd, as the installation of files in the chroot is stuck. Is this
still the case?
Don't install it then. It's priority standard, not build-essential.
Op za, 05-03-2005 te 22:56 -0800, schreef Matt Zimmerman:
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 03:34:58PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
Security and release teams, may I have your advice about this suggestion?
As you may know, I currently act as maintainer for the shadow package,
but I'm also
Op zo, 06-03-2005 te 22:52 +1100, schreef Hamish Moffatt:
Goswin wrote:
Need-build is a good sign. http://buildd.net/ shows you are on place
37 out of 120. I suggest just waiting unless the buildd has stoped
altogether.
What is the ordering criteria on the buildds?
See
Op za, 12-03-2005 te 16:24 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Practically, buildd admins can notice a longer-than-usual queue and throw
hardware at the problem, and that seems to work well enough, and we could
reduce the rate of package inflow
Op za, 12-03-2005 te 15:19 +1100, schreef Matthew Palmer:
I'm trying to work out why package *section* matters at all.
This is simply an attempt to avoid as much
needs-build-building-dep-wait cycles as possible; packages that are
usually build-dependencies are built before packages that are
Op za, 12-03-2005 te 15:01 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
completly static order. Any changes to the queue are just packages
hiding because they are not needs-build. I
Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
sorted by:
- target suite
- previous compilation state (already built packages are prioritized
above packages never built for the target architecture)
-
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 17:59 +0100, schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
sorted by:
- target suite
- previous
Hi,
logtool 1.2.7-5 contains only translation changes (debian/po/it.po was
updated). Please push it to sarge when you deem appropriate.
Thanks,
--
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Hi,
It's been pointed out to me that NBD 2.7.4 contains one rather important
fix in nbd-server.c, one which should, if possible, still get into
sarge.
Unfortunately, NBD 2.7.4 also contains a rather high number of code
changes on nbd-client. These are mostly code cleanups and some things
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 11:45:17PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think I would prefer an upload to t-p-u for this.
Okay. I suspected as much, but as the unstable version already exists
(and I understood from the gossip that t-p-u isn't completely void of
problems), I wanted to ask first.
The
On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 01:34:34PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
[...]
Why not ship SARGE with unrar-nonfree and provide a
[...]
Maybe in ETCH.
[...]
SARGE $USER are using now unrar-nonfree and in
[...]
ETCH we can remove the virtual-package unrar.
[...]
It's Sarge, and Etch. Please don't
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:13:51PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
Approved for sarge.
Thanks :-)
--
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:46:38AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:13:51PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
Approved for sarge.
Thanks :-)
Hmm, seems it's not going right. update_excuses says
Unblock request by cjwatson ignored due to version mismatch: 1.8
you add '-U wouter-mrvn' next time you
wanna-build packages for him? That'll make this kind of thing easier to
spot, and should avoid this kind of problems in the future. Thanks.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 12:36:09AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
severity 274272 grave
thanks
A failed purge of a package is definitely RC.
Yes, but it doesn't 'render the package useless, or mostly so'. The
right severity would be 'serious'.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR --
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:26:24PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:24:21PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
The release policy states: Packages in main cannot require any software
outside of main for execution or compilation. A recommendation is not a
requirement; I don't
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 10:12:24AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040928 18:36]:
The only package in non-US/main left over is vtun. I spoke with the
maintainer, and he wants to do a new upload as soon as the new release
of vtun happens. I specifically asked
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 10:36:55PM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote:
The Needs Build stage is not enough, as the bug was in the buildd;
If packages are listed as maybe-failed on buildd.d.o, but they're in the
needs-build list, that means some human did something. I think it's safe
to assume
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 02:30:24PM +0100, Ian Beckwith wrote:
I suspect, since the crypto-in-main move, that crypto no longer needs
to live in non-US/non-free, and could move to non-free.
No, this is not the case.
The expert restrictions which prompted the non-US archive still exist,
they have
. Thanks.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation.
So is my neck, stop it anyway!
-- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.
some RC bugs.
plea
Could we please start s/You're mad/I don't agree with you/g ?
I agree, even if in this particular case Paul is right :-)
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My
-floppies? AFAIK, the version of boot-floppies as
available in the archives, cannot be found by looking at a Packages- or
a Sources-file...
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Stop breathing down my neck. My
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:33:38AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
I think that's about it, really. The buildds are operated by humans, and
all the signatures are manual although the builds themselves aren't.
More specifically, buildd will start compiling a package fully
automatically; but it does
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:54:02PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:04:56PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:33:38AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
I think that's about it, really. The buildds are operated by humans, and
all the signatures
Hi,
partman-nbd was originally uploaded with 'Architecture: all', then
received a program written in C and was (first) changed to
'Architecture: any'. Since partman-nbd uses Linux-specific features,
however, that makes no sense, so I changed it to say 'Architecture:
linux-any' instead.
Due to
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:38:22PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Aside from that, there *aren't* any partman-nbd/kfreebsd-* packages
in testing:
$ dak ls partman-nbd -s testing
partman-nbd |0.2 | testing | source, all
Yes, sorry; I was confused (it's been a while since I last
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 03:42:03PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 15:37, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk
wrote:
partman-nbd
Not done. The files client.c, oef and opdr have all disappeared and a
chunk of code has changed in resolv.c, without any mention
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
