Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:05:06PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > auric: has packages from testing/unstable installed That's why there is vore. > debussy: only reachable through a gateway machine if you happen to > have an account on it Machine is marked as down for this reason. > kubrick:

Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:05:06PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > That page is somewhat deceptive unfortunately. [snip] > kubrick: down It's reachable from here. Best Regards, -- Davide Puricelli, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian Developer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.debian.org Undergradu

Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

Previously Steve Langasek wrote: > Is the lack of current information on the machines page a result of > there being no one to keep the page up-to-date, or because no one tells > the page maintainer when a machine's status has changed? Mostly because debian-admin is aware of machine status but t

Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:05:06PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > According to http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi, there are fifteen > > machines running potato with access for developers. > That page is somewhat deceptive unfortunately. > auric: has pa

Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Previously Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > According to http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi, there are fifteen > > machines running potato with access for developers. > > That page is somewhat deceptive unfortunately. Hrm. Seems to me that something

Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

Previously Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > According to http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi, there are fifteen > machines running potato with access for developers. That page is somewhat deceptive unfortunately. auric: has packages from testing/unstable installed debussy: only reachable through a gat

Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Previously Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Um, they don't need one. All Debian maintainers have access to a > > stable system, since Debian maintains some for just this sort of > > reason. > > Debian does not unfortunately. According to http://db

Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 03:13:18PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Schulze) writes: > > These packages have to be rebuilt for stable on i386 in order to let > > the packages go into 2.2r5. > > ... > > > > This mail was generated automatically. > > Why is the mail not

Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 12:40:46PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Um, they don't need one. All Debian maintainers have access to a > > stable system, since Debian maintains some for just this sort of > > reason. > Debian does not unfortunately. Eve

Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

Previously Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Um, they don't need one. All Debian maintainers have access to a > stable system, since Debian maintains some for just this sort of > reason. Debian does not unfortunately. Wichert. --

Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Schulze) writes: > > > > > These packages have to be rebuilt for stable on i386 in order to let > > > the packages go into 2.2r5. > > > ... > > > > > > This mail was generated automatically. > >

Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Schulze) writes: > > > These packages have to be rebuilt for stable on i386 in order to let > > the packages go into 2.2r5. > > ... > > > > This mail was generated automatically. > > Why is the mail not simply sent to the maintainers? Bec

Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

* (Martin Schulze) | 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 check the detailed report at |

Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Schulze) writes: > These packages have to be rebuilt for stable on i386 in order to let > the packages go into 2.2r5. > ... > > This mail was generated automatically. Why is the mail not simply sent to the maintainers?

2 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

Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

Previously Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > I've been unable to find any details about this problem, and do not > know if it is present in Debian. If it is, libc in Stable and Testing > should updated. They should be updated indeed. Welcome to my christmas `holiday'.. Wichert. -- ___

Re: 2 package(s) to rebuild on i386/stable

[Martinf] > For further explanation please check the detailed report at > . Is the security problem with libc glob() present i Potato? According to http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-160.html>, the bug is present in 2.2.4, and according to http:/

2 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