I seem to remember that the packages in bo used to be updated for major
bugs (like security problems.) It seems like now such packages are only
in bo-updates, not in bo itself, which means that they don't show up in
the Packages list. An example is the bind fix that was put in
bo-updates a c
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
: Given the creation of a bo-updates directory for those of us who wish to
: provide backported versions of hamm packages for bo (thanks Guy!), we now
: have the possibility to do this.
I'd encourage the packaging and release of a fresher
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, David Welton wrote:
[snip]
> Please look over the relevant section in the policy manual.
Note, that the policy for bo-unstable is included in the README file in
the bo-unstable directory (on our ftp server).
Another thing: Some maintainers have already back-ported some packag
David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> bash
> libreadline2
I'm willing to advise anyone that want to tackle this.
Guy
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
[please do NOT cc me replies:-]
I don't think this is really a matter for debian-private anymore, so I'm
moving it to devel.
Given the creation of a bo-updates directory for those of us who wish to
provide backported versions of hamm packages for bo (thanks Guy!), we now
have the p
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> You've won me over. I've backported a couple of my packages,
> but only one (guavac) is not new for hamm, or even vaguely well known.
> However I think that fixing bugs in hamm should probably take
> priority, but I don't have outstanding here.
>
Right. It's only a reco
On Sat, Dec 06, 1997 at 04:36:40PM +0200, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> Most maintainers have a double boot machine (like me), or have a bo
> machine on their net, and launching recompilation of latest packages
> (after a small change in the changelog file) is a little waste of time
> (and gives more b
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> So, I think if somebody really wants to run some newer software
> (which isn't necessarily stable in our terms), then the choices are:
>
> 1. compile it from sources -- ugly, but workable. Even to the extent
>of making your own packages, which I gather youve done.
>
On Fri, Dec 05, 1997 at 05:37:10PM +1100, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Guess
> > why i proposed to name a directory with libc5 compiled hamm packages
> > "bo-unstable"?
>
> Surely bo-unstable == hamm, so please invest your time in hamm, not
> something th
Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Surely bo-unstable == hamm, so please invest your time in hamm, not
> > something that will be discarded in a few months.
> >
> Sure, but why invest my time in hamm which will be obsoleted in half a
> year anyway?
Wrong. What is your basis for saying t
On Fri, Dec 05, 1997 at 11:23:33AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) writes:
> > Surely bo-unstable == hamm, so please invest your time in hamm, not
> > something that will be discarded in a few months.
> >
> Sure, but why invest my time in hamm which will be obsolete
Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Guess
> why i proposed to name a directory with libc5 compiled hamm packages
> "bo-unstable"?
Surely bo-unstable == hamm, so please invest your time in hamm, not
something that will be discarded in a few months.
Martin.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM T
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nobody, but I don't *expect* it to, either. I guess my theory on this
> is that if the change is "small enough" to expect no problems (i.e.
> perl-5.003 -> perl-5.004 (or whatever the actual number are)), then
> is it *really* necessary to provide the
magically *become* stable.
> Guess why i proposed to name a directory with libc5 compiled hamm
> packages "bo-unstable"?
Sorry, didn't see that: the Subject line says "bo-updates", which
would make most people leap for their ftp program, without much
thought a
On 04-Dec-1997 14:08:59, Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) writes:
> Well, this temporary problem lasts since quite a while now and i fear
> that it will last for quite a while longer. I don't expect Debian-2.0
> to happen earlier than somewhere at the end of j
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
> The issue of keeping Debian bo crunchy and fresh w/o inhibiting the bold
> experimentalism of the hamm lineage is critical to Debian's success.
It hopefully won't be a problem once hamm is released. With a compl
[You (Hamish Moffatt)]
> Or does any of this matter ? :-)
The issue of keeping Debian bo crunchy and fresh w/o inhibiting the bold
experimentalism of the hamm lineage is critical to Debian's success. I
know a lot of people, even within my company, using Debian in a production
environment, but fr
the version on the command
> > line.
>
> Why wouldn't you want to add something like "* backported to libc5" to the
> changelog? Makes sense to me..
Hmmm, ok. What's the story with source for bo-updates?
Obviously changelog and rules changes are required, so a ne
18 matches
Mail list logo
