Re: 1 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

Previously Dominik Kubla wrote: > Oh yes it is. That's why 0.3.3 was bumped to 1.0: because it is mature > and stable software. 0.3.3 implies otherwise. We don't do marketing, we do a good and stable free software distribution. > BTW: 0.3.3/1.0 fixed quite some bugs over the 0.1.x series so an u

Re: 1 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Martin Schulze] > > For further explanation please check the detailed report at > > . > > libc6 is still not mentioned on this list. Is this on purpose, or did > someone forget to let you know? No package --> no mention. Nobod

Re: 1 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

Dominik Kubla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IMHO that should be updated to nfs-utils-1.0 from upstream, if it > only were for the psychological impact of the 1.x version number. 'psychological impact' isn't a valid argument for putting new versions of software in stable. -- Når folk spørger mig

Re: 1 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

* (Martin Schulze) | http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/n/nfs-utils/nfs-utils_0.1.9.1-1.potato1.dsc | http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/n/nfs-utils/nfs-utils_0.1.9.1-1.potato1.tar.gz Built, test-installed and uploaded. -- Tollef Fog Heen Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selectiv

Re: 1 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

[Martin Schulze] > For further explanation please check the detailed report at > . libc6 is still not mentioned on this list. Is this on purpose, or did someone forget to let you know? There seem to be a security problem with the current potato/woody glibc.

1 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

These packages have to be rebuilt for stable on i386 in order to let the packages go into 2.2r5. Please find URLs to source packages attached below for convenience. When uploading, please take care of the distribution, which should contain 'stable' and nothing else. For further explanation please