Hello all,
The XSF has been busy over the past several weeks preparing the Xorg 7.1
release for unstable. After the next dinstall we will have the packages in
such shape that I deem them ready for unstable of their own accord. There
are clearly several RC bugs against the X packages that need t
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 05:07:31AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > Probably best to just ask the release team (cc'd) for their preferred
>> > approach.
>>
>> Could we quantify that somewhat? Is one security bug enough? Are 10?
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dear listmasters,
>
> Please block [EMAIL PROTECTED] from posting to the debian-release
> mailing list. He appears to be incapable of exercising self-restraint in
> using the list for its intended purpose.
Dear listmasters,
Please block [EMAIL PROTECTED] from posting to the debian-release
mailing list. He appears to be incapable of exercising self-restraint in
using the list for its intended purpose.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
On 8/15/06, Adam D. Barratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 11:39 -0600, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> Package: ftp.debian.org
>
> swt-gtk 3.0-6 (in sarge) does not work on ia64. It dies with a
> SIGSEGV. Please remove the binary packages.
>
> libswt-gtk3_3.0-6_ia64.deb
> libswt-gtk3-jn
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 05:07:31AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Probably best to just ask the release team (cc'd) for their preferred
> > approach.
>
> Could we quantify that somewhat? Is one security bug enough? Are 10?
There's no way to quantify that as security bugs are linearly depe
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 10:51:11AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:12:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 09:42:57PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > This thread has also again shown that Sven is not really interested in
> > > discussing the issue, but
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:12:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 09:42:57PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > This thread has also again shown that Sven is not really interested in
> > discussing the issue, but only in pushing his own agenda.
> Frans, i am still waiting for sincer
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 05:07:31AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Could we quantify that somewhat? Is one security bug enough? Are 10?
> Do we have a delegate that could audit and veto a package already
> other than the release team? Is that the domain of QA or security?
>
> Maybe any new pa
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:42:54PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 August 2006 03:01, Alec Berryman wrote:
> > The current version of gnupg in testing is 1.4.3-2; it's vulnerable to
> > CVE-2006-3746 (remote denial of service). This has been fixed in
> > 1.4.5-1, although it's not mentio
* Steve Langasek [Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:21:57 -0700]:
> > Or, perhaps file a grave bug against each package stating that it
> > cannot be security supported and ask the release team to drop it
> > from etch.
> Should be serious rather than grave, but yes -- the bugs should be filed
> against the un
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 03:01, Alec Berryman wrote:
> The current version of gnupg in testing is 1.4.3-2; it's vulnerable to
> CVE-2006-3746 (remote denial of service). This has been fixed in
> 1.4.5-1, although it's not mentioned in the changelog (CVE was assigned
> after upload). According
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006, Loïc Minier wrote:
> I didn't check its correctness, but pkg-evolution-maintainers@ received
> a FTBFS report in unstable. Beside, 2.6.3 is supposedly pending
> sponsoring by me, but it fails to build (due to shipping of a file in
> gtkhtml3.8 instead of its -dev package)
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 09:42:57PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> This thread has also again shown that Sven is not really interested in
> discussing the issue, but only in pushing his own agenda.
Frans, i am still waiting for sincere apologizes on your part for the indecent
behaviour you demostrated
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 11:57, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> today: start migration of 2.6.17 kernel and udebs to testing
>
> 15.09: upload 2.6.18 to unstable [1]
>
> 01.10: migrate 2.6.18 kernel and udebs to testing
For the first and third items above: you cannot just migrate new kernel
udebs t
Can someone pleaes review and approve colo 1.22-1. It fixes a FTBFS
bug.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 09:42:57PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> I have just written a new wrapper script for the 'kernel-wedge build-all'
> command to allow me (or another D-I release manager) to relatively
> quickly [0] rebuild and upload the kernel udebs for all architectures.
really grea
Hello,
we should finally agree on which kernel version we want to release etch
with, and on an appropriate timeframe.
The goal should be obvious: release Etch on December, 4th.
All kernel team members I asked so far would prefer a release with
2.6.18, which is likely to be released upstream with
18 matches
Mail list logo
