On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 08:30:54PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
One maintainer replied to my message in time stating that his upload
was prepared and he was just waiting for his sponsor.
Which maintainer was this? A sponsored MU is always better than an NMU,
so I'd be happy to sponsor an
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:51:20AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 04:57:40AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
At some point in the past, I wrote:
The 2.6.8 release has been almost exclusively focused on stabilization.
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 09:28:46PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 13:52:17 +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
Hi,
Andres Salomon writes:
There has been some talk on IRC about what kernel to release sarge
with; some people would prefer 2.6.8 (which hasn't been released
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 08:54:08AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
the revision or the version is about the same amount of work to get it
being used. So no gain there.
And its too late for d-i anyway, was probably already last week. Even my
2.6.7-4 .udeb kernels didn't make it in.
Well, if we
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:55:02AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 08:54:08AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
the revision or the version is about the same amount of work to get it
being used. So no gain there.
And its too late for d-i anyway, was probably already
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:09:56AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
After chatting w/ some of the -boot people on IRC, I'm unconvinced that 2
weeks is enough time. We're talking about 4 and a half weeks total before
the packages enter testing, and that's assuming
a) 2.6.8 release happens within
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:57:50AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:09:56AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
After chatting w/ some of the -boot people on IRC, I'm unconvinced that 2
weeks is enough time. We're talking about 4 and a half weeks total before
the packages
Hi!
liblrdf 0.3.7-2 has failed to build because of an RC bug in libraptor.
The bug is now fixed and liblrdf should be retried on
sparc, arm and m68k.
Thanks,
Robert.
--
If you're crossing the nation in a covered wagon, it's better to have four
strong oxen than 100 chickens. Chickens
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:17:55AM +0200, Robert Jordens wrote:
Hi!
liblrdf 0.3.7-2 has failed to build because of an RC bug in libraptor.
The bug is now fixed and liblrdf should be retried on
sparc, arm and m68k.
Done, but note that (as listed on www.d.o/ports/m68k) the m68k porters'
list
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:16:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Planning to violate the release schedule is not encouraged.
No, but let's be realist. The woody release schedule was also announced in a
hurry (of the no info for month, and then we freeze tomorrow), and then we
waited almost three
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 02:40:57AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:16:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Planning to violate the release schedule is not encouraged.
No, but let's be realist. The woody release schedule was also announced in a
hurry (of the no info for
The m68k buildd was choking on logrotate due to a gcc internal error in
gcc-3.3. I've been pestered into ensuring that 3.7 gets into sarge
[m68k].
All other arches are up-to-date in sarge. Only m68k has a much older
revision, due to the gcc error.
What I've done is to compile a binary-only
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:25:26PM +0100, Paul Martin wrote:
The m68k buildd was choking on logrotate due to a gcc internal error in
gcc-3.3. I've been pestered into ensuring that 3.7 gets into sarge
[m68k].
All other arches are up-to-date in sarge. Only m68k has a much older
revision, due
Robert Jordens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi!
liblrdf 0.3.7-2 has failed to build because of an RC bug in libraptor.
The bug is now fixed and liblrdf should be retried on
sparc, arm and m68k.
Thanks,
Robert.
Wrong lists :)
Each architecture has an arch@buildd.debian.org alias
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 10:52:44AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 09:09:56 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
With proper cooperation from the ftp-masters, this could happen much
faster. I
have asked in the past that the kernel packages get the same favorite
treatment as
One maintainer replied to my message in time stating that his upload
was prepared and he was just waiting for his sponsor.
Which maintainer was this? A sponsored MU is always better than an NMU,
so I'd be happy to sponsor an upload if needed.
Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED] for
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:36:04AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
One maintainer replied to my message in time stating that his upload
was prepared and he was just waiting for his sponsor.
Which maintainer was this? A sponsored MU is always better than an NMU,
so I'd be happy to
One maintainer replied to my message in time stating that his upload
was prepared and he was just waiting for his sponsor.
Which maintainer was this? A sponsored MU is always better than an
NMU,
so I'd be happy to sponsor an upload if needed.
Nico Golde
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 09:09:56 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
With proper cooperation from the ftp-masters, this could happen much faster. I
have asked in the past that the kernel packages get the same favorite
treatment as the d-i packages, but nobody ever bothered to react on this.
This is a
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:08:48PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
[...]
FYI I've just filed this rc-bug (#262995), because we thought gtksee
was accidentally missed, as the current maintainer is a DD and does
not need a sponsor and therefore does not match the profile. - Sorry.
Did you find
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 05:20:09PM +, Thomas Skybakmoen wrote:
What is discussed here, should not this apply to kernel 2.4.27 wich is soon
Well, i (and probably the rest of the debian-kernel team) care only little
about 2.4 kernels, but sure you have a point.
out the door as well, also
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 10:28:55AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 05:20:09PM +, Thomas Skybakmoen wrote:
Here goes the forth 2.4.27 release candidate.
It includes a dozen of USB fixes, JFS update, IA64 fixes,
networking update, amongst others.
2.4.27 final
Hi,
One maintainer replied to my message in time stating that his
upload
was prepared and he was just waiting for his sponsor.
Which maintainer was this? A sponsored MU is always better than
an NMU,
so I'd be happy to sponsor an upload if needed.
Nico Golde [EMAIL
What is discussed here, should not this apply to kernel 2.4.27 wich is soon
out the door as well, also has had a looong test run, yes know it`s summer,
but 2.6 and 2.4- what`s comming seems like better than 2.4.26 and 2.6.7, and
yes one can always go on and say the next will be better d`oh, but
What is discussed here, should not this apply to kernel 2.4.27 wich is soon
out the door as well, also has had a looong test run, yes know it`s summer,
but 2.6 and 2.4- what`s comming seems like better than 2.4.26 and 2.6.7, and
yes one can always go on and say the next will be better d`oh, but
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:43:00PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:25:26PM +0100, Paul Martin wrote:
The m68k buildd was choking on logrotate due to a gcc internal error in
gcc-3.3. I've been pestered into ensuring that 3.7 gets into sarge
[m68k].
All
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 10:28:55AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
I hope very soon; I have OOM killer fixes (purely functional issues,
i.e. refcounting mm's) waiting for 2.4.28-pre1.
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 08:37:40PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
anything more precise than soon ? We need
Hi there,
Is there time for an optional package to get introduced into sarge?
I've noticed that cm-super still hasn't made it into unstable, so I am
now aggressively developing a package for it.
It's a very useful package, and it should probably get into this
distribution. I see no way for it
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 10:26:34PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
severity 263019 minor
thanks
Adrian Bunk writes:
severity 263019 grave
thanks
If gcc-3.4 requires binutils (= 2.15) the dependencies need an update.
you didn't give any reason. downgrading.
Matthias
Uhm.
severity 263019 minor
thanks
Adrian Bunk writes:
severity 263019 grave
thanks
If gcc-3.4 requires binutils (= 2.15) the dependencies need an update.
you didn't give any reason. downgrading.
Matthias
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 06:25:20PM +0100, Paul Martin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:43:00PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
gcc-3.0 isn't available in sid/sarge on m68k. Suppose that your package
FTBFS's on m68k in sarge (I'm not saying it does, but it could easily be
the case as at
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:25:26PM +0100, Paul Martin wrote:
The m68k buildd was choking on logrotate due to a gcc internal error in
gcc-3.3. I've been pestered into ensuring that 3.7 gets into sarge
[m68k].
All other arches are up-to-date in sarge. Only m68k has a much older
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 02:52:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
This issue warrants opening an RC bug against logrotate, that should be
addressed before sarge. There will probably be someone on debian-68k
(cc:ed) who can verify for us whether logrotate does build with gcc-3.4,
Actually, you
Hi,
With some rude scripting, and afterwards careful hand-checking, I've
compiled a list with RC bugs that are closed because they are fixed in
sid, but the packge containing the fix didn't make sarge yet, hence the
bug is likely still present in Sarge. This implies that the bug wasn't
bogus (all
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 01:26:53AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
2004-05-152004-05-14 245439: librmagick-ruby: FTBFS: ruby errors
- sarge=1.3.2-2 = bug=1.3.2-2
- Status: VERIFIED
Interesting, there is a package rubymagick, too. /me goes investigating
2004-04-222004-04-19 224363:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:24:54AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 01:26:53AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
2004-04-222004-04-19 224363: imagemagick: package no longer contains
libMagick.so.0!
- sarge=5:5.5.7.9-1.1 = bug=0.11.4-1
0.11.4-1 - Where does this
36 matches
Mail list logo
