On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:39:37PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:06:19PM +0200, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:23:02PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > > > It's not even RC at al
(Please reply only to d-boot; Reply-to set accordingly)
The latest upload of linux-2.6.16 is now (after today's mirror sync)
available for all architectures except arm.
As there were important changes, we should rebuild the kernel udebs
against 2.6.16-17 before starting the builds of debian-ins
* Julien Cristau ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060717 14:55]:
> - hwinfo 8.38-5 hwinfo (sparc) uninstallable
> Still FTBFS in unstable.
>
> - stalin 0.9+0.10alpha2-1 stalin (sparc) uninstallable
> FTBFS - failure in the test-suite.
These two might need some porters work then?
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://ho
Hello,
BestJobs glad to offer you our new service. We are helping people to find job
online. It helps you to save your time. Now you don't need to post resume and
wait so long when the employer will find you. Don't lose your chance. You will
receive some vacansies every week. If you don't need t
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:06:19PM +0200, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:23:02PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > > It's not even RC at all, just a badly configured buildd. They should
> > > be using linux32.
> >
> > No, it is con
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:06:19PM +0200, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:23:02PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > It's not even RC at all, just a badly configured buildd. They should
> > be using linux32.
>
> No, it is configured correctly. The buildd pro
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:23:02PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> It's not even RC at all, just a badly configured buildd. They should
> be using linux32.
No, it is configured correctly. The buildd provides a build environment
which matches the standard configuration for this architecture.
Bas
On Monday 17 July 2006 21:24, Steve Langasek wrote:
> We weren't talking about removing all of them, just the ones from the
> kernel-latest-2.4-s390 source package.
This little bit gave a different impression:
> > > > > Well, couldn't we just kill the 2.4-kernel-related packages
> > > > > from un
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:06:49PM +, Marc Brockschmidt <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (...)
>> Etch will carry 4.0 as version number.
> Just out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind the major version change ?
Hysterical reasons. Actually, sarg
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:16:34PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 17 July 2006 16:37, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > Well, couldn't we just kill the 2.4-kernel-related packages from
> > > > unstable/testing?
> > > Second: no, not yet, as that would break D-I beta 2 installations (as
> > > was
* Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-17 20:31]:
> I already asked tbm to do a rebuild with the machinetype set to
> unknown. This will break also anything which uses autoconf but
> forget to provide the --build parameter.
Daniel Priem kindly gave me access to a 10 CPU SPARC box the other
* Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-17 19:53]:
> The problem here is that the buildd in question is running a 64bit
> kernel while building 32bit binaries. The same problem would happen if
> building i386 binaries on amd64 buildds. Now my question is: could these
> bugs be treated ignore-etc
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 14:55:32 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'll do as Bastian and list packages currently uninstallable on sparc in
> testing:
So, this means that the following is needed:
- ktrack 0.3.0-alpha1-8+b1
- sound-juicer 2.12.3-4
Should be requeued.
- python-visual 3.2.1-
On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 07:04:29PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Please schedule binNMUs for pango1.0 and cdebconf.
> These are needed to correct the dependency of the udebs on libglib2.0-udeb
> which is currently wrong because of #361697. A correct glib2.0 is now
> available on all arches.
Done.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 08:03:12PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Does the current NFSv4 implementation already allow client-side on-disk
> caching? IIRC the standard does specify it, but a quick look at
> linux-nfs.org confuses me - some pages speak about delegations, but OTOH
> the end use
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 07:53:55PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> If it is the case,
> someone with an amd64 or a sparc64 or anything that can do bi-arch
> should try to build the whole archive to find those packages that have
> the problem.
I already
Mike Hommey wrote:
[snip]
> The problem here is that the buildd in question is running a 64bit
> kernel while building 32bit binaries. The same problem would happen if
> building i386 binaries on amd64 buildds. Now my question is: could these
> bugs be treated ignore-etch ? It's indeed RC, but is i
On Monday 17 July 2006 17:00, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 01:18:41PM +, Marc Brockschmidt wrote:
> > There was a new request for another approved release goal, that is NFS
> > v4 support. We approved that goal.
>
> AFAICS, that goal has been completed for a while.
Sm
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:06:49PM +, Marc Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> (...)
> Etch will carry 4.0 as version number.
Just out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind the major version change ?
> (...)
> And these release goals currently:
> - - LSB 3.1 compatibility
> - - SE
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Martin Pitt wrote:
> > Hi Thiemo!
> >
> > Thiemo Seufer [2006-07-16 21:42 +0100]:
> > > > FWIW, I tried a build with today's unstable on mips, after enabling
> > > > the server packages again. There was one failure in the testsuite:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > test
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 01:18:41PM +, Marc Brockschmidt wrote:
> There was a new request for another approved release goal, that is NFS
> v4 support. We approved that goal.
AFAICS, that goal has been completed for a while. What's needed in etch is:
- nfs-utils 1.0.7 or newer (check, 1.0.9 i
On Monday 17 July 2006 16:37, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Well, couldn't we just kill the 2.4-kernel-related packages from
> > > unstable/testing?
> >
> > Second: no, not yet, as that would break D-I beta 2 installations (as
> > was already discussed on IRC with Bastian this morning).
>
> If they r
* Frans Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060717 16:26]:
> (No need to CC me, I'm subscribed to d-release)
>
> On Monday 17 July 2006 13:32, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > The real problem here is that the latest security updates in stable
> > > have not been installed for unstable/testing too for packages tha
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 04:23:44PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> (No need to CC me, I'm subscribed to d-release)
> On Monday 17 July 2006 13:32, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > The real problem here is that the latest security updates in stable
> > > have not been installed for unstable/testing too for pac
(No need to CC me, I'm subscribed to d-release)
On Monday 17 July 2006 13:32, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > The real problem here is that the latest security updates in stable
> > have not been installed for unstable/testing too for packages that
> > don't have a more recent version there.
> > Solving
* Bastian Blank [Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:25:08 +0200]:
> > > - xorg 1:7.0.22 xserver-xorg-video-all (s390) uninstallable
> > > xorg-server is not built
> > This one need not be uninstallable because of that. I'd suggest working
> > with the XFS to have the package not depend on xserver-xorg-video-d
Hi,
I'll do as Bastian and list packages currently uninstallable on sparc in
testing:
- asterisk 1:1.2.7.1.dfsg-2 asterisk-bristuff (sparc) uninstallable
asterisk 1:1.2.7.1.dfsg-2 asterisk-classic (sparc) uninstallable
Built in unstable, but failed on arm with a weird error.
- asterisk-oh323 0.
* Frans Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060717 12:44]:
> On Monday 17 July 2006 12:25, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > > - kernel-latest-2.4-s390 2.4.27-1sarge1 kernel-headers-2.4-s390
> > > > (s390) uninstallable kernel-latest-2.4-s390 2.4.27-1sarge1
> > > > kernel-image-2.4-s390 (s390) uninstallable kernel-l
On Monday 17 July 2006 12:25, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > - kernel-latest-2.4-s390 2.4.27-1sarge1 kernel-headers-2.4-s390
> > > (s390) uninstallable kernel-latest-2.4-s390 2.4.27-1sarge1
> > > kernel-image-2.4-s390 (s390) uninstallable kernel-latest-2.4-s390
> > > 2.4.27-1sarge1 kernel-image-2.4-s39
Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hi Thiemo!
>
> Thiemo Seufer [2006-07-16 21:42 +0100]:
> > > FWIW, I tried a build with today's unstable on mips, after enabling
> > > the server packages again. There was one failure in the testsuite:
> > >
> > >
> > > ...
> > > test geometry ... ok
> > > test h
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 12:46:11AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Bastian Blank [Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:13:05 +0200]:
> > - ejabberd 0.9.1-2 ejabberd (s390) uninstallable
> > fixed in unstable, needs erlang update
> Waiting for #377877.
Needs to be requested by the porters. But maybe RM can reques
Hi Frans,
Frans Pop [2006-07-07 21:46 +0200]:
> On Friday 07 July 2006 21:33, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > Hmm, I need help here. I tried two uploads to
> > {stable,sarge}-proposed-updates and both were rejected. Any help?
>
> Because there is no such thing as {stable,sarge}-proposed-updates...
>
> Tr
Hi Thiemo!
Thiemo Seufer [2006-07-16 21:42 +0100]:
> > FWIW, I tried a build with today's unstable on mips, after enabling
> > the server packages again. There was one failure in the testsuite:
> >
> >
> > ...
> > test geometry ... ok
> > test horology ... failed (ignored
33 matches
Mail list logo
