On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:38:15 +0200, Amaya wrote:
> I'm doing a little houskeeping before sarge releases.
> Then I stumble upon this:
>
> Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in stable >= new
>version (1.6-2) targeted at unstable.
> Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old
Hi,
I'm wondering how to interpret, especially the last part.
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=tetex-bin
First it says:
* Updating tetex-bin makes 3 depending packages uninstallable on alpha:
jbibtex-bin, jmpost, ptex-bin
This seems to be bogus, because ptex-bin (source package
* Frank Küster [Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:55:56 +0200]:
> * Updating tetex-bin makes 3 depending packages uninstallable on
> alpha: jbibtex-bin, jmpost, ptex-bin
I think you need to ask -release for a hint of tetex-bin/2.0.2-20 and
ptex-bin/3.1.3+0.04a-3.
> This seems to be bogus, because ptex-bin
On 2004-08-30 Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm wondering how to interpret, especially the last part.
> http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=tetex-bin
> First it says:
> * Updating tetex-bin makes 3 depending packages uninstallable on alpha:
> jbibtex-bin, jmpost, ptex-bin
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> * Frank Küster [Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:55:56 +0200]:
>
>> * Updating tetex-bin makes 3 depending packages uninstallable on
>> alpha: jbibtex-bin, jmpost, ptex-bin
>
> I think you need to ask -release for a hint of tetex-bin/2.0.2-20 and
> ptex-bin/3.1.
i am writing to you to find out if you have some samples of sponsorship so i could have an idea on how to send a sponsors contract and what it entails .
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
> digikam has been removed from testing, because it depended on libexif9.
> The version of digikam in unstable will almost certainly depend on
> kdelibs4 3.3 once it's been successfully built on mipsel. This means
> the version in unstable will almost ce
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Paul Telford wrote:
> One of my packages just got removed from testing as you can see above.
> Having never dealt with t-p-u before, I want to make sure I get it right.
> The current version in unstable is 0.6.2-3. I have built 0.6.2-4 for
> sarge
^ oops... that should
This is an AUTOMATIC RESPONSE.
Thank you for your mail.
If you mail requires a reply I will endeavor to reply within 24 hours.
If your email requires an urgent reply, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Office Hours 9.00 am - 6.00 pm Monday to Friday.
Office phone number is +66 76 290 214
O
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 09:06:01AM -0700, Paul Telford wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > digikam has been removed from testing, because it depended on libexif9.
> > The version of digikam in unstable will almost certainly depend on
> > kdelibs4 3.3 once it's been successfully
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Why do you need to upload to unstable at all? Is there something wrong
> with the version in unstable? Can't you simply upload 0.6.2-3
> unchanged (except for debian/changelog) as 0.6.2-2sarge1 to testing?
Good point... I guess I wasn't sure that I c
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 09:45:26AM -0700, Paul Telford wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > Why do you need to upload to unstable at all? Is there something wrong
> > with the version in unstable? Can't you simply upload 0.6.2-3
> > unchanged (except for debian/changelog) as 0.6
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:38:15 +0200, Amaya wrote:
> I'm doing a little houskeeping before sarge releases.
> Then I stumble upon this:
>
> Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in stable >= new
>version (1.6-2) targeted at unstable.
> Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old
13 matches
Mail list logo
