(Some comments with my external POV)
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Clint Adams wrote:
If you don't care about Debian 6.0 (codename squeeze),
please skip this release update.
Duh... everybody should care. Skip this.
Andreas Barth would like to sy that we have recently
discussed the situation of the
[Clint Adams]
Open bugs[10] still remain in the way of the Boot
Performance release goal.
This is far from the truth. The open BTS reports listed only relates
to one small part of this release goal - the dependency based boot
sequencing. Work on improving boot speed have almost stalled, we
* Clint Adams (sch...@debian.org) [100323 02:31]:
If you don't care about Debian 6.0 (codename squeeze),
please skip this release update.
Andreas Barth would like to sy that we have recently
discussed the situation of the release, and it looks
like we can pull the release off if we all do
Christoph, I made a full sdk for 3.0 in ubuntu thunderbird-dev now and managed
to move enigmail on that base ... maybe check the last upload to lucid. I would
need all those changes to make enigmail build. For questions you can find me in
debian-devel ;).
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 07:18:36PM
Hi!
Andreas Barth schrieb:
This is not adequate for sending out to d-d-a.
Actually, we should give our developers (and the press who is reading
that as well) an truthfull status quo of our activities. Also, it's
not Andreas Barth wants that, but either the release team wants it,
or we don't
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 08:11:00AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Duh... everybody should care. Skip this.
I find this offensive.
You're not a reporter that quotes what other people are saying.
This should be using we:
As in the previous case, I am writing this in my own voice. I am
not
Clint Adams sch...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 08:11:00AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Actually, we should give our developers (and the press who is reading
that as well) an truthfull status quo of our activities. Also, it's
not Andreas Barth wants that, but either the release
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 09:31:16AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
This is far from the truth. The open BTS reports listed only relates
Thanks for the clarification. I have incorporated this information, and
the WIP is (temporarily) available at
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:28:28AM +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
With as well as without my press hat I find the proposed text rather
suboptimal. Even as a developer who lurks around this list I don't know
what most of the text is supposed to tell me. I think many fellow DDs
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 03:02:43PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
I do not want *this* assistance, thanks. I think we played this charade
long enough. By now, everyone should know that you don't like the way
the release team has done its work, you have saved face and no one will
say that
Quoting Clint Adams (sch...@debian.org):
I do not want *this* assistance, thanks. I think we played this charade
long enough. By now, everyone should know that you don't like the way
the release team has done its work, you have saved face and no one will
say that you only criticize the RT
Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org writes:
I do not want *this* assistance, thanks. I think we played this charade
long enough. By now, everyone should know that you don't like the way
the release team has done its work, you have saved face and no one will
say that you only criticize the RT
hi folks,
i was going through bts.turmzimmer.net teh other day, looking for stuff
to do. i wasn't very successfull, but found a couple of packages which i
think should just be removed from testing. this is a list with a short
rational each, i have tagged all but the last one on bts.t.n as well,
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:53:20 +, Robert Lemmen wrote:
hi folks,
i was going through bts.turmzimmer.net teh other day, looking for stuff
to do. i wasn't very successfull, but found a couple of packages which i
think should just be removed from testing. this is a list with a short
rational
Am Samstag, den 20.03.2010, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt:
Manuel Prinz man...@debian.org writes:
This would enable to fix these in a timely fashion. I could start
doing that tomorrow night. How does that sound to you?
Sounds good. Sorry for my delayed answer :-/
No problem,
* Christian PERRIER (bubu...@debian.org) [100323 16:47]:
Quoting Clint Adams (sch...@debian.org):
I do not want *this* assistance, thanks. I think we played this charade
long enough. By now, everyone should know that you don't like the way
the release team has done its work, you have
* Robert Lemmen (rober...@semistable.com) [100323 17:54]:
clamav-getfiles
rc-buggy: #502751
no resolution in sight
maintainer agrees
low popcon
I think we could squeeze-ignore the bug - at least I'd be willing to
do that.
Cheers,
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 23/03/10 at 19:11 +0100, Manuel Prinz wrote:
Am Samstag, den 20.03.2010, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt:
Manuel Prinz man...@debian.org writes:
This would enable to fix these in a timely fashion. I could start
doing that tomorrow night. How does that sound to you?
Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2010, 19:30 +0100 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
Given the low number of packages that FTBFS with mpich2 as mpi-default,
I would say that this could be fixed in the failing packages' build
system, no?
Sure. It might need some severe patching, though.
Fixing that my providing
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 04:53:20PM +, Robert Lemmen wrote:
libtzinfo-ruby
rc-buggy: #503591
low popcon
not in stable
I'd like to see if we can make certain that Rails will not need to
depend on this. Incidentally, the rc-bugginess is probably debatable.
That, and
On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 02:01 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
[...]
| libfontenc
| libx11
| libxau
| libxcb
| libxcursor
| libxdmcp
| libxext
| libxfixes
| libxfont
| libxi
| libxinerama
| libxkbfile
| libxrender
[...]
| x11-xkb-utils
| xft
| xkeyboard-config
|
Hi,
I initially planned to track the ruby1.9 - ruby1.9.1 transition. But I
give up. I think that ruby1.9 should be removed from testing now,
together with the following list of packages (which are all the reverse
build-deps or depends of ruby1.9):
Debian Ruby Extras Maintainers
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 09:19:19PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Roberto C. Sanchez robe...@connexer.com
libi18n-ruby (U)
So, this package does not depend on ruby1.9 any longer. It seems as
though an NMU [0] closed #569875. However, that closure note in the
changelog never carried
On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 20:19 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 02:01 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
[...]
I can't see any of the above in britney's list of udebs, either as can
be auto-migrated or need approval from the d-i team before
migrating (presumably because they're
Hi Adam!
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Adam D. Barratt
a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote:
A couple of packages which weren't ready got removed from testing in the
process, but they should be able to go back in once they're ready.
Perfect.
Thank you a lot for helping in such smooth (if we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Release Team:
The hppa arch was dropped from distributed-net with the upload 2.9103.509-1, but
the version in testing is stuck at 2.9101.507-1. Can you help nudge
2.9105.511b-1 into testing so that it can be a candidate for Squeeze?
Thank you,
Hi,
tony mancill tmanc...@debian.org (23/03/2010):
The hppa arch was dropped from distributed-net with the upload
2.9103.509-1, but the version in testing is stuck at 2.9101.507-1.
reportbug is your friend, see details in:
http://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals
Mraw,
KiBi.
27 matches
Mail list logo
