On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 09:13:31PM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> Mark, do you agree with this? Are you able to prepare a Galeon 1.2.8
> upload now, or should I handle it?
Sorry, I meant 1.2.5 there, not 1.2.5. The only change in the t-p-u
upload would be to remove the galeon-nautilus package, no n
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:34:41PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> > If Takuo doesn't react in a few hours, I'll NMU, as this is pretty
> > important. It'd be nice to have it in today's dinstall run, even.
> Thanks Jordi.
It hit incoming in time for today's dinstall.
Nautilus continues to have
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 03:28:19AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> >FYI: Note that I've forced the current version of gcc-3.3 into testing
> >for tomorrow's dinstall; in spite of it being broken on arm, and unbuilt
> >on m68k. This will ease a bunch of problems, but is still
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 03:28:19AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> m68k appears to have built, so maybe it should be put into testing with
> the rest.
Yes, this happens automatically.
> arm is failing on a pascal-specific part, which isn't anything to
> do with upstream gcc. :-/ Evil gpc.
>
>
Anthony Towns wrote:
>FYI: Note that I've forced the current version of gcc-3.3 into testing
>for tomorrow's dinstall; in spite of it being broken on arm, and unbuilt
>on m68k. This will ease a bunch of problems, but is still causing major
>hassles for Qt and KDE, so we still need a properly fixed
5 matches
Mail list logo
