On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 12:24:48AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 02:55:30AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > tags 238006 sid
> > tags 229409 sid
> > severity 227477 important
> > tags 227477 unreproducible
> > severity 118201 important
> > thanks
> > On Sat, Mar 27, 200
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 02:55:30AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> tags 238006 sid
> tags 229409 sid
> severity 227477 important
> tags 227477 unreproducible
> severity 118201 important
> thanks
>
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 01:39:44PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
>
> > I compiled a list of all R
Another fine waste of electrons:
> It's using libgnutls10? (Or is it using libgcrypt7 directly?) Hmmm. OK, I
> guess that's a good enough reason to put off the change. :-P
Take a look at debootstrap's changelog sometime.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> [signatories bcc'ed, except for Peter De Schrijver who
Anthony> doesn't appear to be a developer]
Anthony> On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 12:53:14PM +0200, Andreas Barth
Anthony> et al wrote:
>> Dear Release-Managers, currently, ther
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> I realise it will be painful to make this transition, but the benefits
> Werner lists (in particular, avoiding future ABI breaks and avoiding the
> problems we already see with processes that load two versions of gcrypt
> simultaneously) outweigh the pain by quite a bit
Colin Watson wrote:
> It is very painful to change the version of libgcrypt7 in base at this
> point. Doing this will break debian-installer testing, which is the
It's using libgnutls10? (Or is it using libgcrypt7 directly?) Hmmm. OK, I
guess that's a good enough reason to put off the change.
Ivo Timmermans wrote:
> Werner Koch wrote:
>> libgcrypt7 is not supported by upstream because it has always been
>> marked as work-in-progress.
>>
>> Please replace it by the current libgcrypt (1.1.94) which will RSN be
>> re-released as the stable 1.2. We are then going to track down any
>> rem
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:04:57 +0200, J H M Dassen (Ray) said:
> It's a side effect of our wide use of GnuTLS in order to avoid the issue of
> needing explicit exemption clauses in order to be able to redistribute
> works based on GPLed code that use the OpenSSL library.
I know and this is for sure
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 09:44:01 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> It is very painful to change the version of libgcrypt7 in base at this
> point. Doing this will break debian-installer testing, which is the reason
> we asked for no further changes to the package lists in the base system.
> debian-insta
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:44:01 +0100, Colin Watson said:
> It is very painful to change the version of libgcrypt7 in base at this
> point. Doing this will break debian-installer testing, which is the
> reason we asked for no further changes to the package lists in the base
I was not aware of the wi
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:41:14 +0200, Ivo Timmermans said:
> I don't really have an opinion on this, so I'd like to hear what other
> people think of it. Should I replace libgcrypt7 with libgcrypt11 (and
> recompile gnutls10 against it) before sarge is released?
Pretty please.
We will release 1.2
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 09:41:14AM +0200, Ivo Timmermans wrote:
> Werner Koch wrote:
> > libgcrypt7 is not supported by upstream because it has always been
> > marked as work-in-progress.
> >
> > Please replace it by the current libgcrypt (1.1.94) which will RSN be
> > re-released as the stable 1.
Werner Koch wrote:
> libgcrypt7 is not supported by upstream because it has always been
> marked as work-in-progress.
>
> Please replace it by the current libgcrypt (1.1.94) which will RSN be
> re-released as the stable 1.2. We are then going to track down any
> remaining problems. It is impossi
13 matches
Mail list logo
