Re: Realizing Good Ideas with Debian Money
On 5/31/2019 11:04 PM, Luca Filipozzi wrote: > Before you ask: an insecure hypervisor is an insecure buildd. Are we then looking more closely at AMD-based machines given that those had less problems around speculative attacks? Kind regards Philipp Kern
Upcoming Point Releases
Hi, we finally got target dates for the next point releases of both Lenny and Squeeze. Lenny should get 5.0.9 on October 1st; Squeeze will follow on October 8th with 6.0.3. NEW for Lenny will be closed on the weekend of September 24th; NEW for Squeeze on the weekend of October 1st. The upload of debian-installer for Lenny should happen on the closing weekend at the latest; the middle of week 38 would be appreciated, so that we have everything together on the 24th. For Squeeze it would be cool to have the kernel in for testing end of next week (16/17th). The d-i upload should be there the middle of week 39, October 1st at the latest. base-files can be uploaded now, as it will be held in NEW until closing time anyway. Kind regards and thanks for your efforts Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question regarding Debian and CGL 5.0
On 2011-04-28, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: Alex (karl exceed) Decker alex.dec...@gmail.com writes: Just out of curiosity, I noticed that Debian has not been registered as CGL compliant since the 2.0 standard. Is there any plan on working toward CGL 5.0 compliance? I understand that it's a bit above and beyond normal usage, but a proven 5-nine uptime is something to brag about... This is the first time I've ever heard anyone even mention the existence of CGL, and I work professionally as a systems administrator for critical services (on Linux, even). Does anyone actually care about this specification? Often this sort of thing ends up being essentially a marketing tactic by the vendors involved in developing the specification rather than being something useful for improving technical quality. It seems that mainly tagging a list is the main part and reporting back what's still missing would cut it. You can download the tag lists from the already (self-)evaluated distributions and it looked somewhat useful/sane to have all those parts in the distro to be there when you need it. But yeah, sure, it would mainly be marketing for those sysadmins who try to sell Debian as the best since sliced bread for routers and firewalls[1]. ;-) And if something's missing and subsequently added it would be helpful for others, too. Kind regards Philipp Kern [1] Maybe less for routers but more so for firewalls. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnirrk30.ct4.tr...@kelgar.0x539.de
Meeting Minutes for the IRC Release Team Meeting on August 23, 2010
Hi there, those are the minutes of Monday's IRC meeting at #debian-release. 1) What will be the release architectures for squeeze? - sparc will be kept as a release architecture for now. The gcc code generation code which moved to v9/32bit has taken place in Nov 2009. There will be rebuilds of all packages that haven't been rebuilt since. The exact details of this still need to be sketched out. [assignee: pkern] - mips*: #519006 is hurting us badly. GCC upstream was pinged, Loongson and Codesourcery will be contacted about a backport to gcc-4.4 if there's no answer. [assignee: aurel32] - mips: a possible toolchain issue popped up on openjdk-6, which needs investigation [assignee: aurel32] - mipsel: another Loongson machine will be shipped to aba for use as a porter box [assignees: zobel, aba] - hppa: HPPA will be dropped as a release architecture for squeeze. Details on a possible squeeze-hppa release need to be discussed with the hppa porters. [assignee: ?] - kfreebsd-*: We consider a released kfreebsd-* package set as a technology preview, that might not be up to the full Debian standards. We will try to keep it in the same infrastructure set (i.e. as normal architectures) for squeeze, but this can be reviewed later. 2) Which transitions are left for squeeze? What's their current state? - gnustep: RC bug on hppa, fix pending upload. Looks good otherwise. - opencv: one FTBFS on hppa - ace: FTBFS on armel and kfreebsd, not a blocker - php: No transition removing deprecated features. - mono: mail to debian-release@ to be sent [assignee: meebey] - apt: transition can be started in unstable [assignee: mvo] - xapian: ditto [assignee: olly] 3) Release Team meeting 2-3 October in Paris: Who's going? - Negotiations about times, crashing space and travel sponsorship need to be done with zack. [assignee: faw] - mehdi, jcristau, luk, adsb, aba and pkern can probably make it; HE: unsure; faw: relying on the availabilty of overseas travel sponsorship, if not possible following remotely - Maulkin cannot make it. 4) What's the state of the Release Notes? - timeline: 4 weeks to get them ready, 2 weeks of string freeze, 1 week of fixes and final week for translations (i.e. 2 months) [assignee: faw] - upgrade-reports to be prepared and solicited [assignee: vorlon] 5) Any other business? - This item was not called as the time budget was exceeded. A full log is available on [1] (text-only version on [2]). Action and info items are also available as extracted bits on [3]. Kind regards, Philipp Kern on behalf of the Debian Release Team [1] http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-release/2010/debian-release.2010-08-23-20.02.log.html [2] http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-release/2010/debian-release.2010-08-23-20.02.log.txt [3] http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-release/2010/debian-release.2010-08-23-20.02.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using project resources for blends and non-free
On 2010-01-11, Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote: In other words: Debian-edu use non-ftpmaster-verified stuff. Which afaik is also true for volatile... afaik volatile has different=20 ftpmasters then Debian main/contrib/non-free. just like Debian edu :-)=20 (Which currently has its own dak instance and which I'd like to move to=20 ftp-master.d.o) The latter also being the plan for volatile. It's just that there's no progress towards that goal for quite some time. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian money
On 2009-09-10, Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote: On Thursday 10 September 2009, Steve McIntyre wrote: 5 Pay people to do stuff we don't/can't/won't: g website redesign and restructuring This is something we seem unable to make any progress at and that is very much overdue. Especially the restructuring part would involve loads of tedious work and some compensation for that would IMO be in order. Of course we would need to agree on requirements first. There's a website redesign pending. When I conclude from my own expiriences from webwml it's mostly a fear to overload/disappoint translators that blocks huge updates from happening. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Switching the default startup method
On 2009-08-24, Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org wrote: That's granted but it's easier to say from your place instead of petter's place... I for one appreciate the work that he has put in all this and I would highly prefer that you help him instead of complaining about his work. *sigh* If we all had the time to push everything we could release in two months. Your mails would have been even better accepted if you said: Petter has been working on doing X, unfortunately some problems have been discovered, it would be nice if some people could jump in and help Petter achieve our goal. I appreciate that you're working on improving the experience of our users during startup, e.g. by adding dependency information to the init scripts. I think that will in the long run be good for Debians users. We agree that it's nice what he's doing, we disagree about the sudden breaking of other packages without prior consensus. And adding packages to the (quasi-)essential set without prior consultation is wrong, too. Think how it was discussed to switch to dash and how to do it properly. I wonder if it was always the case that when you switch to upstart you get to say 'Yes, I know I'll break my system, dpkg, please do it anyway.'. It's at least the case now with hard dependencies on init stuff. (And yes, I do use upstart with insserv.) Because you're giving away the message that you don't care very much of Petter's work and that you prefer staying with the old system instead of fixing the new system to suit your needs, and that's backwards. We do care and he told you. I find it very sad that you're bashing the messenger now. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Switching the default startup method
On 2009-08-24, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote: Julien Cristau wrote: On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:22:28 +, Philipp Kern wrote: I wonder if it was always the case that when you switch to upstart you get to say 'Yes, I know I'll break my system, dpkg, please do it anyway.'. Yes. upstart conflicts with the essential sysvinit package… Did anybody check if upstart and runit still work with insserv? Apart from the conflicting of upstart against an essential package it just works fine. upstart still does the majority of the booting looking at /etc/rc*.d, for compatibility reasons. insserv reorders them and the result just works. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Synchronising with Ubuntu
On 2009-08-11, Anthony Towns a...@erisian.com.au wrote: (NB: denyhosts 2.6-1etch1 and dircproxy 1.0.5-5etch1 were included in 4.0r3, but didn't have a security.d.o upload, afaics. This is effectively considering someone who has a DVD of etch r0 and otherwise only updates =66rom security.d.o) Sorry, but the contradicts current practise of the security team to not pull a full DSA for minor security issues (at the discretion of the security team) but push them through proposed-updates instead. Apparently the DSA process is too time consuming for those and the security team wants to spend the time on other issues. (Of course the DSA process might need some helper scripts and a reliable buildd infrastructure to consume less.) Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: To whom it may concern [was Re: Bug#541013: O: at -- Delayed job execution and batch processing]
On 2009-08-11, Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org wrote: No lp please! here is debian, we got alioth - use it. Please don't tell me what to do with *my code* should I ever retrieve it. it's not your code. I filed the bug, so I have a bit of responsibility to hand it to capable people. Luckily other guys already started doing the work, instead of only talking. On alioth of course... I don't see what's wrong with hosting a project on LP using bzr as DVCS if one takes it over. Really, I don't. If one wants to take over upstream development of something then it's fine and we should be happy and (s)he gets to choose. (I am not discussing this concrete case however.) LP is even open source now. You do not get to force people to use Alioth. Kind regards, Philipp 'Who doesn't like bzr, but that's another matter entirely' Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Python mess in Debian (was: Re: On cadence and collaboration)
On 2009-08-08, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote: Wrong. Several people tried to contact Matthias on various ways and never got a reply. He also completely failed to communicate with those people who maintain most Python related packages on Debian, except during Debconf. This is *NOT* the way how Python should be maintained. Actually several people already thought abut hijacking Python due to the complete lack of communication with the Python Maintainer, who prefers to force his changes on people instead of finding an acceptable resolution. While I think that large parts of this are the result of him being overworked due to Ubuntu stuff, this is not the way how things should go. During Debconf [1] came up, but I can't see it happen soon as there are *way* too many problems with the proposal, and it would bring us back to pre-Etch areas.. There were rumours that Python 2.6 was not uploaded to unstable due to bugs or missing things in python-support, but as usual there was no bug filed, and nobody talked to the python-support maintainer. I think there were at least two things (I think not check them, but from memory what Matthias told me): * python-support breaks upstream assumptions about relative imports. * python-support does not always have stable symlink handling, i.e. they should maybe be shipped by the package instead. (I'm relatively unsure about this though, as I don't recall the program; but I think it also has to do with the fact that you sometimes need to call update-python- modules from maintainer script.) It might be true however that most of the issues he has left did not manifest themselves in bug reports, probably because the personal relationship of the two maintainers misses some trust and needs a neutral party to communicate it. Matthias also stated during UDS that he wouldn't mind python-central to be dropped when some remaining issues in python-support are fixed (at the very least the first point above). I don't know if Debconf changed something in this regard. Anyway I don't know how responsive he is wrt emails. I can understand that the hostility on d-python didn't help in that regard, but maybe To'ing or Cc'ing him on some mails might help. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Python mess in Debian
On 2009-08-08, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote: AFAICT, the real problem is that after unpack many python modules do not work as they use symlink hackery in the postinst. What do you mean exactly? Could you point me to an example? The only problem I see is that it starts to become complicated as soon as you want to run a daemon, as the .pyc files are not compiled yet when the daemon is started. Well, the documentation of python-support states how to deal with it (with a command invocation in the postinst) but the same problem arises when you use a Python script of another package in your postinst maintainer script. Been there, don't that. And no, it's not the missing byte-compilation that triggers the failure but the missing symlink farm that's usually processed by a trigger at the end of the installation run. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: On cadence and collaboration
On 2009-08-06, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: And this is precisely why it was asked that for squeeze, frozen and testing remain different suites during the freeze. Currently I have no idea of whether this will happen. While I see the point of this I don't know if I would be happy. If people just continue with business as usual for unstable and testing we will not release. See the RC bug fixing activity of the last release. A short freeze just means that people would actually have to squash some bugs, but it seems that the majority of DDs simply don't care. Freezing a bit of unstable helps us to apply some peer pressure. Kudos to all of them who helped releasing in the last freezing cycle. I just don't like the perspective of feeling alone in the next one. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: On cadence and collaboration
On 2009-08-06, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: The apparently partly-automated bug reports from what appears to be your live CD system are particularly bad. Many of them are automated dumps of translated install logs with translated error messages, which drastically limits the number of people who can figure out what's going on. While the upgrade errors are mildly annoying (somebody *did* expirience them, though), the automated coredump retracing is very, very useful. If anybody hits a segv in my C++ packages and go through the bug reporting process it's obvious what the problem is almost every time. But I guess we'll get there as soon as we have debug packages in place. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: On syncing freeze dates with other distributions
On 2009-08-04, Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org wrote: [1] As I'm french, openSuse isn't very relevant here, I bet it's different on the other side of the Rhine. Somewhat. But it looks to me as Ubuntu having the biggest user share at the other side of the Rhine, to be honest. I rarely see Fedoras. Maybe my sample set is biased, though. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
[ Please note that I'm taking all my hats off for this post, especially ] [ debian-release ones. ] On 2009-08-03, Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org wrote: What I'm wondering is: why should *we* adapt to ubuntu? why was not ubuntu in the first place to accommodate our plans, instead of the other way around? Why was not ubuntu that proposed we freeze when Debian freeze but the opposite or so? since when upstreams make their plans on downstreams? Well, there is a certain hope that upstreams above Debian would also adapt at some point. We receive nothing (or very near to) from Ubuntu; they *do not give us back*, why should we schedule to follow on their needs? I guess you already know it, but just in case you don't: * http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=origin-ubuntu;users=ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com * http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ubuntu-patch;users=ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com But of course it could be more. Especially contributions from Canonical employees doing stuff in main. (Some a tad neglecting their packages in Debian IMHO...) Their changes (when they are worth to be applied in Debian too) are quite never given back, and the debian maint has to go and extract the relevant patch from the usual mess they do on their packages. True. However the use of a patch system is extremly encouraged in Ubuntu. So maybe you want to point us to such messes where the bug actually makes sense to pull back into Debian. (There are quite some deltas in Ubuntu because of Ubuntu-local changes, with the introduction of dpkg-vendor they could of course be reduced again.) They do not collaborate with us to do changes in Debian first and then have them for free in ubuntu, and the successful collaborations I've seen (mainly in the python area) are just *exceptions* and not the rule (as it should be). True. However sometimes I'd like to see Debian to move more quickly too. But it doesn't seem easy to me. What are my feelings to the whole story? we're trying to make ubuntu LTS easier, because WE PREPARE the release, THEY STEAL our packages while WE keep improving (fixing bugs and so), THEY do THEIR OWN changes to target their goals, and we receive quite *NOTHING* in return. We do the work, they make the money selling LTS to customers. I wouldn't reduce this to the selling point, the main question is what this costs us in terms of users of Debian's stable release. However main is only a tiny subset that's supported security-wise and everything else is as best-effort as in Debian. (I thought I could raise exim4 vs. postfix but it seems that exim4 is in main in Ubuntu, damn it ;-) There was never collaboration between ubuntu and us, how would this make things changing? at least are they publicly making any statement about actively providing support to debian to make this experiment something where we are both winning or not? Never ever! Nevermind teams like clamav that try it. *sigh* Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On 2009-07-29, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: So the developers are then within their rights to ignore the short first freeze, and work to release whenever the packages are really ready. Uh, that's what a subset of them always did, no? Like starting transitions during freezes with no coordination? Been there, done that, thank you. Well, or not fixing RC bugs during the freeze at all but complaining that the freeze is taking so long and hurts unstable. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On 2009-07-30, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: You seem to have been operating under a misconception that the *majority* of packages in Ubuntu have been touched wrt Debian. They have not - the vast majority of packages in Ubuntu are unmodified Debian packages, as shown by the graphs on the bottom of https://merges.ubuntu.com/main.html and https://merges.ubuntu.com/universe.html - which is for the best given the relative number of developers working on each project. I don't think it holds true for main, though. Unless I'm misreading the graphs. Of course it applies to universe where Ubuntu is heavily relying on Debian to do the work. But it's only main that's officially supported (even security-wise) anyway. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: What is preventing Debian from being fully free at this moment?
On 2009-07-29, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote: frederiqu...@gmail.com wrote: I'd love to see Debian comply to real GNU/FSF freedom. When I visit the This will never happen, since Debian and the FSF have different ideas about what is free. And even within Debian there are diverging opinions if registry initialisation data provided in array form is something non-free that needs to be stripped from the kernel. Those people are also vocal outside the lists to market their impression that Debian is not all free despite our best efforts to keep it that way. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
On 2009-06-25, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: Cf. 87ofiygrkx@tacitus.systems for the explanation of how NEW got the way it is (with rationale), as well as 20010909160205.b8...@azure.humbug.org.au on debian-private (9 Sep 2001) and the debian-private list archives for July 2001 for more information, including references to the relevant sections of US export regulations. Which leaves me wondering why NEW (and to the same extend parts of the morgue) are not locally world-readable anymore... To quote James: | o Only 'unchecked' is locally world-writeable. The others are all, |of course, locally world-readable but only 'install' and 'byhand' |are publicly visible on http://incoming.debian.org/ And I can't find anything in Anthony's mail to contradict this. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues
[ Forwarded on behalf of Sven Luther s...@powerlinux.fr ] On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 09:31:40AM +, Philipp Kern wrote: On 2009-05-13, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: , |5. Works that do not meet our free software standards | | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works | that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We | have created contrib and non-free areas in our archive for | these works. ` As I understand it, we, as a project, have acceoted that there is tension between the needs of our users, and the dictates of free software; and the solution we have come up with is called contrib and non-free areas in our archive. Isn't that perfectly clear? Sure, but why the heck was the discussion if we should delay the release instead of moving the kernel to non-free because it's tainted with few binary blobs? Because moving them to non-free was deemed a too long process compared to the need for a timely release, which was a result of taking this up too late in the release process, which in turn was a result of the flamewar and anger which surrunded this selfsame discussion before the last release, which made nobody willing to work on this topic. Please forward this mail to the list, as i am being censored (even though some seem to feel offended by me using that word). Sadly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues
On 2009-05-13, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: , |5. Works that do not meet our free software standards | | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works | that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We | have created contrib and non-free areas in our archive for | these works. ` As I understand it, we, as a project, have acceoted that there is tension between the needs of our users, and the dictates of free software; and the solution we have come up with is called contrib and non-free areas in our archive. Isn't that perfectly clear? Sure, but why the heck was the discussion if we should delay the release instead of moving the kernel to non-free because it's tainted with few binary blobs? Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues
On 2009-05-13, Thomas Bushnell BSG t...@becket.net wrote: DFSG is a guideline and a target: we must no go far as the nearest point we reached, but it still a guideline. Consider: - we never had a full DFSG Debian (also when DFSG was written) - we have RC also on stable releases. What should we do in such cases? Block all dDbian website, all mirrors, etc. because it is clearly against our foundations? No. The Social Contract does not leave vague how we use the DFSG. It could say that we take the DFSG as a guideline, or as a target, but it does not. [...] Note that the Social Contract does *not* say that we treat non-free things as bugs just like other bugs. We make no promise about other bugs, except the general one to prioritize the interests of the free software community and our users, both of which involve fixing bugs. But section one doesn't just say it's a goal, or a priority, but says that it is actually a *promise* not just to try hard, but *never* to release non-free software as part of Debian. Actually, going by the word of the Social Contract, it does not speak of releases at all. Regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: debian t-shirts
Martin Schulze wrote: I wonder where/if you can buy debian t-shirts. Would be a good way to both make some money and promote Debian. Go to the exhibitions listed at http://www.debian.org/events/ I really do not want to resurrect old threads... But do you also sell Debian hats? I mean we all have our immaginary hats to put on when facing different situations. Like this we could move this into reality. :D Ciao SCNR, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Consultant entries that will be removed unless there is an email address provided
Bill Allombert wrote: Given that MJ Ray has taken the trouble to check the list for sites that are still active, I think you are hitting the wrong nail[1] with the wrong hammer[2]. Actually it is hammerhead[1], as suggested by p.d.o's non-exact search. SCNR. Kind regards, Philipp Kern [1] http://packages.debian.org/hammerhead -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Sarge
Taha Nazari wrote: what is the release date of the stable version of Debian Srage 3.1 Please refer to [1], it will be updated if anything changes. Currently May 30, 2005 is the planned release date. Kind regards, Philipp Kern [1] http://www.nl.debian.org/releases/sarge/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
