On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Tom Gundersen <t...@jklm.no> wrote: > > > On Dec 3, 2011, at 10:07, Arch Website Notification <nob...@archlinux.org> > wrote: > >> === Signoff report for [testing] === >> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ >> >> There are currently: >> * 8 new packages in last 24 hours >> * 0 known bad packages >> * 0 packages not accepting signoffs >> * 8 fully signed off packages >> * 36 packages missing signoffs >> * 3 packages older than 14 days >> >> (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by >> pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one >> package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) >> >> >> == New packages in [testing] in last 24 hours (8 total) == >> >> * binutils-2.22-1 (i686) >> * gcc-4.6.2-2 (i686) >> * glibc-2.14.1-2 (i686) >> * linux-api-headers-3.1.4-1 (i686) >> * binutils-2.22-1 (x86_64) >> * gcc-4.6.2-2 (x86_64) >> * glibc-2.14.1-2 (x86_64) >> * linux-api-headers-3.1.4-1 (x86_64 > > One of these packages seem to have broken my network. I'll downgrade > one-by-one tonight to figure out which one, and create a more sensible bug > report.
I'm back home now, and unable to reproduce with my own wireless network. I guess this can be ignored then... -t
