On 12/09/14 16:32, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Yes, this doesn't seem like a "traditional" transition. So as long as you think
there won't be any/much breakage, and you fix the potential fallout, I think you
can go ahead with this. Of course doing the test rebuilds *before* starting this
would
On 30/10/14 23:05, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> I aged kfreebsd-kernel-headers and it just migrated to testing. Closing.
Thank you!
Regards,
--
Steven Chamberlain
ste...@pyro.eu.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 10/09/14 22:10, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> Hi Emilio,
>
> On 10/09/14 20:16, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> [...] what
>> packages are involved, what packages need rebuilds, and of those, which ones
>> currently fail.
>
> The root of this is kfreebsd-source-10.0,
Hi Emilio,
On 10/09/14 20:16, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> [...] what
> packages are involved, what packages need rebuilds, and of those, which ones
> currently fail.
The root of this is kfreebsd-source-10.0, from the kfreebsd-10 source
package.
kfreebsd-kernel-headers [kfreebsd-any] has Buil
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
On 31/08/14 23:55, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
>
> Hi, This is not a mere transition but our ambition to use kFreeBSD 10.1
> as our kernel version for jessie.
>
> This is
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi, This is not a mere transition but our ambition to use kFreeBSD 10.1
as our kernel version for jessie.
This is primarily driven by the FreeBSD 10.1 release schedule; they
have gone into a 'code slus
6 matches
Mail list logo
