On tiisdei 27 Jannewaris 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
I did this on the simple assumption that what was good before would be good
later until the next deadline, which is D-I RC2, as in the previous updates
I made nobody told me anything about this kind of issue. Also, I did not
expect this
Le Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:42:08AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
I'm sorry, I still don't understand it. It has no user-visible effects.
According to you it changes nothing to the binary packages. The best case is
that everything remains the same. I'm puzzled then why you decided to make
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org (28/01/2009):
The advantage is normalisation. I prefer to use the latest Debhelper
version if possible. We have more than 100 packages in our repository,
and if some carry on some legacy versions from upgrade to upgrade,
each time one will work on the packate,
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 07:09:31PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
http://people.debian.org/~naoliv/misc/debian-med/biofox_diff.txt
* New upstream release, compatible with Firefox 3 (Closes: #512371).
* Updated debian/watch.
Both ok.
* Use Debhelper 7 (idebian/co{ntrol,mpat}.
Not
Hi Neil, thanks for your review.
Le Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:45:30AM +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
* Use Debhelper 7 (idebian/co{ntrol,mpat}.
Not ok.
What's wrong, Debhelper or the typo? Most freeze exemptions I got so far (from
other release managers) included a Debhelper update.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 07:53:53PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Hi Neil, thanks for your review.
Le Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:45:30AM +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
* Use Debhelper 7 (idebian/co{ntrol,mpat}.
Not ok.
What's wrong, Debhelper or the typo? Most freeze exemptions I
Le Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:36:54AM +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 07:53:53PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
The debhelper change, at this very very late stage in the release. Your
previous request was about a month and a half ago.
Is there a precise concern? Some
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 08:56:29PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:36:54AM +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 07:53:53PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
The debhelper change, at this very very late stage in the release. Your
previous request was
On Tue, January 27, 2009 14:55, Charles Plessy wrote:
I was thinking that changes like the one I made would be accepted until
Deep freeze, since this is the only planned change of unblock policy
that was announced:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/12/msg6.html
Perhaps
Hi Thijs
Le Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 03:11:04PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
On Tue, January 27, 2009 14:55, Charles Plessy wrote:
I was thinking that changes like the one I made would be accepted until
Deep freeze, since this is the only planned change of unblock policy
that was
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
As I understand it the best gain this change in the debhelper
compatibility level at this point could bring us, is that the package
builds just as well as with the existing level. So why did you do that now
instead of after the freeze?
Well, there
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 01:17:15PM +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
Changing to a new version of a build system really isn't something
that's garunteed to be 100% trouble free. Your other packages will have
had more than a month, and I'd like to shin
Dear release team,
bioFOX 1.1.4 was so old that it did not work with Firefox 3. I updated it to
1.1.5 in Sid; we missed this release as Upstream changed the location of its
uploads.
bioFOX is a mozilla extension that contains most of its files in a .jar, so a
debdiff would not be very
13 matches
Mail list logo
