On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Firstly, thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote. (Thanks
> also for Sam for his helpful perspective.)
>
>
> Stepping back a bit, and firmly putting my `user' hat on:
>
> My aim was to share my experience, because I guess the point of
>
://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2018/07/msg00021.html
...I switched to linux-image-4.9-amd64 in Jessie, and I haven't even
been thinking about what happened to linux-base in that process until today.
> Rhonda D'Vine writes ("Re: Removal of linux-base from jessie-backports broke
&
then of course next time I can not write it up as a learning
opportunity for Debian. I can just work around it instead.
Rhonda D'Vine writes ("Re: Removal of linux-base from jessie-backports broke
Xen upstream CI"):
> On 2/13/19 1:09 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 1. Packages should not
> "Rhonda" == Rhonda D'Vine writes:
>> installer image to have the jessie-backports kernel and modules,
>> but that is not relevant to this tale.)
Rhonda> I don't really follow - you now can get rid of that special
Rhonda> casing (which had to be added specifically) and
Hi,
On 2/13/19 1:09 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I would like to recount a situation. I'm not sure where, if anywhere,
> the root bug(s) lie, but I am inclined to say that a big part of the
> problem was a change to the contents of jessie-backports. I would be
> interested to hear what the
On February 13, 2019 4:07:45 PM UTC, Ansgar wrote:
>More importantly Jessie has reached end-of-life[1]. Please do not
>expect related suites (such as -security, -backports, -proposed-
>updates, -updates) to continue working after this.
-security and -updates are part of the LTS sources.list
Ansgar writes ("Re: Removal of linux-base from jessie-backports broke Xen
upstream CI"):
> More importantly Jessie has reached end-of-life[1]. Please do not
> expect related suites (such as -security, -backports, -proposed-
> updates, -updates) to continue working after
On Wed, 2019-02-13 at 12:46 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Alexander Wirt writes ("Re: Removal of linux-base from jessie-backports broke
> Xen upstream CI"):
> > Jessie backports doesn't exist anymore. For some time now. It is already on
> > its way to archive.d.o.
>
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Alexander Wirt writes ("Re: Removal of linux-base from jessie-backports broke
> Xen upstream CI"):
> > Jessie backports doesn't exist anymore. For some time now. It is already on
> > its way to archive.d.o.
>
> Thanks
Alexander Wirt writes ("Re: Removal of linux-base from jessie-backports broke
Xen upstream CI"):
> Jessie backports doesn't exist anymore. For some time now. It is already on
> its way to archive.d.o.
Thanks are due to to folks on #debian-uk who pointed out this
announcement (fr
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Introduction
>
>
> I would like to recount a situation. I'm not sure where, if anywhere,
> the root bug(s) lie, but I am inclined to say that a big part of the
> problem was a change to the contents of jessie-backports. I would be
>
Introduction
I would like to recount a situation. I'm not sure where, if anywhere,
the root bug(s) lie, but I am inclined to say that a big part of the
problem was a change to the contents of jessie-backports. I would be
interested to hear what the backports team and ftpmaster have
12 matches
Mail list logo
