-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/23/11 11:31 AM, Hanspeter Niederstrasser wrote:
On 9/23/2011 10:56 AM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 9/16/11 2:35 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
On 15/09/11 16:13, David R. Morrison wrote: []
But
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/16/11 2:35 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
On 15/09/11 16:13, David R. Morrison wrote: []
But there are also lots of unmaintained things in unstable, many
of them very old, so I think it would be dangerous to just dump
everything to stable. I
On 9/23/2011 10:56 AM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/16/11 2:35 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
On 15/09/11 16:13, David R. Morrison wrote: []
But there are also lots of unmaintained things in unstable, many
of them very old, so I think it would be
On 15/09/11 16:13, David R. Morrison wrote:
[]
But there are also lots of unmaintained things in unstable, many of them very
old, so I think it would be dangerous to just dump everything to stable. I
like Alexander's approach.
Why would this be more dangerous than the current situation,
Hello,
Could gcc46 be moved to 10.5/stable and 10.6/stable ? One of my package depends
on that version of the compiler, so I can't move it to stable.
A more general question: now that we've only have a stable branch in 10.7,
wouldn't it make sense to drop the unstable branches in 10.5 and 10.6
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 02:32:52PM +0200, Sébastien Maret wrote:
Hello,
Could gcc46 be moved to 10.5/stable and 10.6/stable ? One of my package
depends on that version of the compiler, so I can't move it to stable.
A more general question: now that we've only have a stable branch in 10.7,
On 9/15/11 8:32 AM, Sébastien Maret wrote:
Hello,
Could gcc46 be moved to 10.5/stable and 10.6/stable ? One of my package
depends on that version of the compiler, so I can't move it to stable.
A more general question: now that we've only have a stable branch in 10.7,
wouldn't it make
Le 15 sept. 2011 à 15:51, Alexander Hansen a écrit :
We probably don't want just to dump packages into stable without doing a
little testing to make sure they all actually work. ;-) One option would
be something like the following:
Is this really needed? In my experience, the unstable
On Sep 15, 2011, at 7:05 AM, Sébastien Maret wrote:
Le 15 sept. 2011 à 15:51, Alexander Hansen a écrit :
We probably don't want just to dump packages into stable without doing a
little testing to make sure they all actually work. ;-) One option would
be something like the following:
