Re: libpqxx testing migration

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 05:49:49PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > >> libpqxx should now be ready to move into testing, but it requires a >> manual hint to do so. > > Why did the i386 package build a libpqxx-2.

Re: libpqxx testing migration

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 05:49:49PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > libpqxx should now be ready to move into testing, but it requires a > manual hint to do so. Why did the i386 package build a libpqxx-2.4.1 binary package, instead of a libpqxx-2.4.0 binary like all of the other archs? This looks very

Re: Bug#282700: fr locale strill display "Waiting for heeaders" in apt-get while the string is translated

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 08:33:36PM +0100, Jordi Mallach wrote: > Matt, if your tree does only contain bugfixes and translations, they > might be willing to accept a new version after a careful revision of the > diff. I could perhaps backport the patch if the release managers feel it is appropriat

Re: Bug#272853 acknowledged by developer (non-sense RC bugs on libgdiplus)

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:48:26AM -0800, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: >... > One cummulative answers for all stupid bug reports: > > About building non-buildable in Testing: that is how it works if there > are circular build dependencies. Please try to understand what is going > on before re

libpqxx testing migration

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks, libpqxx should now be ready to move into testing, but it requires a manual hint to do so. Thanks, Roger (please could you CC me on any replies--I'm not subscribed. Thanks!) - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http:

Re: report on current state of sarge security

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:15:17PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Over the past couple of weeks the testing security team has reviewed all > CAN and CVE entries announced since the release of woody, to check which > of these security holes are still present in sarge. Adding this to the > earlier work to

Re: report on current state of sarge security

In gmane.linux.debian.devel.release, you wrote: > ppp 2.4.2+20040428-3 needed, have 2.4.2+20040428-2 for CAN-2004-1002 > Candidate for to be forced into testing, if the diff seems sane > to RMs. If not we should backport only the security fix to t-p-u. Users can only DoS their own conn

Re: report on current state of sarge security

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >ppp 2.4.2+20040428-3 needed, have 2.4.2+20040428-2 for CAN-2004-1002 >Candidate for to be forced into testing, if the diff seems sane >to RMs. If not we should backport only the security fix to t-p-u. I need to make a new release of ppp, and it will be tar