Hi Guillem,
On Donnerstag, 4. Dezember 2014, Guillem Jover wrote:
That's because that upgrade is still using dpkg 1.17.21, which does
not force the upgrade of readahead-fedora, and then it's still using
the old readahead-fedora 2:1.5.6-4 w/o the fix. No bug here, besides
using old package
reopen 768600
found 768600 2:1.5.6-5.2
reassign 769557 readahea-fedora
forcemerge 768600 769557
affect 768600 education-desktop-lxde
affect 768600 education-desktop-sugar
affect 768600 education-common
affect 768600 education-desktop-xfce
thanks
On Sonntag, 23. November 2014, Petter Reinholdtsen
Hi Don,
On Sonntag, 23. November 2014, Don Armstrong wrote:
is it accepted by bendel (lists.debian.org)
And then it gets discarded by the mailing list because the message was
too large. I think the limit is 200K, and that message exceeds it.
ah, thanks. Did Lucas get a warning about this or
I suspect this metapackage upgrade problem was triggered by bug #768600
fixed in readahead-fedora version 2:1.5.6-5.2. If I got it right, it
was a problem exposed/triggered by a new dpkg version changing how
triggers were handled, and not really something we can fix in
education-common.
--
Hi owner@bugs + listmasters,
any idea why #769557 (Message-ID: 20141114122853.ga11...@xanadu.blop.info)
wasn't send to debian-...@lists.debian.org?
+thanks for all your work on keeping the infrastructure running so nicely
99,999% of the time! :-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi owner@bugs + listmasters,
any idea why #769557 (Message-ID: 20141114122853.ga11...@xanadu.blop.info)
wasn't send to debian-...@lists.debian.org?
Nov 14 12:46:12 s_local@bendel postfix/smtp[22501]: A9DE96F5:
6 matches
Mail list logo
