On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:47:11PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
If it's not a release-critical bug, then it's better to not touch this
package so that the udeb is kept in sync with the deb/source for sarge.
Also it is used in any initrd which supports language setup.
Bastian
--
Oh, that
Is this actually an issue for USB keyboards on x86, or only for other
architectures? If it's only on other architectures, we probably want to
spell that out.
I know that if I select an USB keyboard on i386 while I have a PC keyboard
attached there are problems. IIRC the breakage is less
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 02:03:40AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Why don't you avoid all the possible problems for security support in
testing by handling build dependencies as dependencies?
This has been discussed over the past couple of days; it may be best to
turn on build-dep checking in
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 02:16:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
CCing debian-release so they are aware of this, but don't think any particular
action they can do about this, not sure though.
If you're going to cc: debian-release to make us aware of something, it
would be useful if you would
Hamish,
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:51:42AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I think I read that you had pushed some packages into testing without
waiting for arm binaries to build.
gEDA hasn't been up to date in testing for a while now as the previous
upstream version never made it, due to
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 07:00:56PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:51:42AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
If you are indeed relaxing the arm requirement temporarily, could you
push the current geda packages into testing?
As these are new upstream versions that may or
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:31:40PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 07:00:56PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:51:42AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
If you are indeed relaxing the arm requirement temporarily, could you
push the current geda
Packages that have a security fix blocked by arm only:
ltris 1.0.6-1.1 needed, have 1.0.6-1 for CAN-2005-0825
racoon 1:0.5-5 needed, have 0.3.3-7 for CAN-2005-0398
Packages that are blocked by arm and m68k:
epiphany-browser 1.4.8-2 needed, have 1.4.7-3 for CAN-2005-0238
lsh-utils 2.0-1
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Security support can turn out to be a nightmare if build dependencies
aren't fulfilled.
As security bloke I can only agree to this.
Regards,
Joey
--
Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 06:18:11PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 02:16:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
CCing debian-release so they are aware of this, but don't think any
particular
action they can do about this, not sure though.
If you're going to cc:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:50:36PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050329 19:35]:
If testing should make any sense, handling build dependencies as
dependencies in the testing scripts was required.
We all know that your opinion about the usefulness of testing
Hello,
I missed Samuel and Sylvain earlier on irc, but i have done some thinking
about the problematic cases of the hppa/ia64 buildds. I have written to both
debian-hppa and debian-ia64 a week or so ago, but received no reply, so i
would say let's just ignore those, and go ahead with the
12 matches
Mail list logo
