13 months ago[1], I wrote:
> Hi MIPS porters,
>
> I'm quite puzzled by the behaviour of the mips buildds:
>
> - resume.rfc822.org is able to build bigloo [1]
> - reconfig.rfc822.org is not [2][3]
> - there is a bug in some versions of gcc (including 3.x up to 3.3, but
> maybe already fixed in lat
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 11:08:11AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt scribbled:
>
> There are only seven packages left that are potentially holding up the
> tiff transition. They are:
Got a dumb question. I've uploaded all the pikes (pike7.2, pike7.4, pike7.6)
shortly after the issue popped up, fixed as nece
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 12:58:41PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 10:50:59AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>> I'm seeking the opinion of the release team on whether there's any
>> point right now in trying to get a new (never-before-uploaded) package
>> with pr
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 10:50:59AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> I'm seeking the opinion of the release team on whether there's any
> point right now in trying to get a new (never-before-uploaded) package
> with priority extra into sarge at this point.
If you can get it through NE
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 11:08:11AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> There are only seven packages left that are potentially holding up the
> tiff transition. They are:
> epplets
epplets is being addressed by its maintainer.
> gnobog
Jordi Mallach has been having problems getting this one to bui
* Jay Berkenbilt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> There are only seven packages left that are potentially holding up the
> tiff transition. They are:
>
> epplets
yea, yea, I'll be uploading a new version later today. Probably not
before the dinstall run, but it'll be with 'urgency=medium'. I've
al
* Domenico Andreoli [Fri, 06 Aug 2004 18:12:06 +0200]:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 04:42:38PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > If you can get it through NEW before the date marked "last date for
> > urgency=low uploads", there's no reason why not.
> ehm.. where could i read about such date?
$ link
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 06:12:06PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 04:42:38PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 10:50:59AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > > I'm seeking the opinion of the release team on whether there's any
> > > point right now in tr
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 04:42:38PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 10:50:59AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > I'm seeking the opinion of the release team on whether there's any
> > point right now in trying to get a new (never-before-uploaded) package
> > with priority extra i
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 10:50:59AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> I'm seeking the opinion of the release team on whether there's any
> point right now in trying to get a new (never-before-uploaded) package
> with priority extra into sarge at this point.
If you can get it through NEW before the dat
There are only seven packages left that are potentially holding up the
tiff transition. They are:
epplets
gnobog
libimager-perl
libtk-img
lightspeed
mountapp
qvwm
In addition to these, the following packages haven't been handled but
aren't in sarge and therefore shouldn't interfere with the tra
I'm seeking the opinion of the release team on whether there's any
point right now in trying to get a new (never-before-uploaded) package
with priority extra into sarge at this point. The closely related
packages in question are vips and nip whose [1] ITP you can find here:
1. http://bugs.debia
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 21:08:09 -0400, James Strandboge wrote:
> I am the maintainer of the gnome2.2 backport for woody, and in working
> on the transition of the backport to sarge I ran into the problem with
> 'apt' on woody where packages get configured in the wrong order (because
> of how it de
13 matches
Mail list logo
