Control: tags -1 + pending
On 2014-06-22 16:49, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 23:11 +0200, Christoph Martin wrote:
Am 21.06.2014 21:56, schrieb Christoph Martin:
As mentioned on IRC, the disabling of 511_gcc44.patch isn't documented.
To be
On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 21:56 +0200, Christoph Martin wrote:
Am 05.06.2014 23:50, schrieb Adam D. Barratt:
The lack of indentation in the if [ $OLD_BDB != $NEW_BDB ] block
is rather annoying, particularly when only looking at the hunks in the
diff. :(
I see what you mean. I rather
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 23:11 +0200, Christoph Martin wrote:
Am 21.06.2014 21:56, schrieb Christoph Martin:
As mentioned on IRC, the disabling of 511_gcc44.patch isn't documented.
To be entirely honest, if having the patch enabled isn't breaking
anything
Am 05.06.2014 23:50, schrieb Adam D. Barratt:
The lack of indentation in the if [ $OLD_BDB != $NEW_BDB ] block
is rather annoying, particularly when only looking at the hunks in the
diff. :(
I see what you mean. I rather would not change it now. It would make the
diff even bigger.
As
Am 21.06.2014 21:56, schrieb Christoph Martin:
As mentioned on IRC, the disabling of 511_gcc44.patch isn't documented.
To be entirely honest, if having the patch enabled isn't breaking
anything then I'd prefer leaving it enabled, on the principle of least
change; it should certainly be one
hi good release team people--
https://bugs.debian.org/748669 proposes an update for sks for wheezy.
Could we get a response from the release team about whether to go ahead
with it or not?
Regards,
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[Dropped the explicit -release CC; that's where the bug mail goes
anyway]
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 12:24 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
hi good release team people--
https://bugs.debian.org/748669 proposes an update for sks for wheezy.
It proposed it relatively recently, fwiw.
Could we get
7 matches
Mail list logo
