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:
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?
Because they
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.
Why is the mail not
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.
--
_
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.
Even if it
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 simply sent
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
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
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 should
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 packages
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?
whineMostly because debian-admin is aware of machine status
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
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
[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?
* (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
|
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
[Martinf]
For further explanation please check the detailed report at
http://master.debian.org/~joey/2.2r5/.
Is the security problem with libc glob() present i Potato?
According to
URL:http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-160.html, the bug
is present in 2.2.4, and according to
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.
--
18 matches
Mail list logo
