On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:39:15PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 11:42:03AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > It's a little weird. The package that puts the plugin into firefox dir
> > > (via
> > > symlink) is java-gcj-compat-plugin, but gcjwebp
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 03:53:07PM +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote:
> I was trying to prepare security update of php5 and php4 and it's not
> possible to build php atm because conflicting dependencies of apache-dev
> and apache2-prefork-dev.
> apache-dev depends on libbdb4.4-dev
> apache2-prefork-dev de
Ondrej Sury wrote:
>
> apache-dev depends on libbdb4.4-dev
> apache2-prefork-dev depends on libbdb4.3-dev
> libbdb4.4-dev conflicts with libbdb4.3-dev
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=383659
... Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 03:04:08AM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
Since I'm afraid that the Linux team isn't doing anything to update
linux-2.6 in testing and that nothing else feels responsible for doing
so, I'm initiating the discussion. I request the release team
Geert Stappers a écrit :
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 03:04:08AM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
Hi,
3 days ago Frederik Schueler mentioned the following item for then's
today in his Kernel schedule proposal for Etch:
start migration of 2.6.17 kernel and udebs to testing
Sinc
Hi,
On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 15:53 +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote:
> I was trying to prepare security update of php5 and php4 [...]
> apache-dev depends on libbdb4.4-dev
> apache2-prefork-dev depends on libbdb4.3-dev
> libbdb4.4-dev conflicts with libbdb4.3-dev
>
> This means that we are not able to uplo
Hi,
I was trying to prepare security update of php5 and php4 and it's not
possible to build php atm because conflicting dependencies of apache-dev
and apache2-prefork-dev.
apache-dev depends on libbdb4.4-dev
apache2-prefork-dev depends on libbdb4.3-dev
libbdb4.4-dev conflicts with libbdb4.3-dev
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 03:04:08AM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Hi,
> 3 days ago Frederik Schueler mentioned the following item for then's
> today in his Kernel schedule proposal for Etch:
>
> >start migration of 2.6.17 kernel and udebs to testing
> >
>
> Since I'm afraid that the Linux t
gcj-4.1 in experimental is not just about gcjwebplugin; it contains a
backport of a classpath-0.92 prerelease and gcj from the current
trunk. it's this upgrade which makes gcj interesting for etch. If we
do want to include, it has to be tested with packages currently
depending on it (packages like
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 01:16:54PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
>
> #267040: remote code execution hole due to lack of Java security manager
>
> This is 'fixed' by:
> - Shows warning before loading an applet (Closes: #267040, #301134)
Not a big deal, #383704 brought my browser down before
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:59:28AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 11:42:03AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > Last I knew, it still had
> > > serious security problems.
>
> > Which ones? I can't see anything in the BTS.
>
> I wouldn't know them by bug number; previously
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:59:28AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Last I knew, it still had
> > > serious security problems.
>
> > Which ones? I can't see anything in the BTS.
>
> I wouldn't know them by bug number; previously though, the problem was that
> gcjwebplugin didn't have appropria
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 11:42:03AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > Would be very nice to have gcjwebplugin-4.1. We'll have no browser java
> > > support
> > > otherwise.
> > Is gcjwebplugin in a presentable state yet?
> I'm not sure (at the time I wrote this, I hadn't tried it). So far I fou
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 02:53:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:54:39PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > Any chance gcj >= 4.1.1-11j1 can make it into etch?
>
> gcj-4.1 hasn't been frozen yet, but whether this gets into etch depends on
> when it's uploaded.
I see.
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 07:21:06PM -0500, Ming Hua wrote:
> Starting from version 1:1.1.1, package uim changed the SONAME, and
> builds libuim1 instead of libuim0. As scim-uim depends on libuim0, it
> is uninstallable in unstable now (bug #382444).
> This library transition for uim indeed has AP
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 07:46:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:07:42AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Maks -
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:05:30PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> >> > > Something about [bug #242866] seems bro
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 03:04:08AM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Since I'm afraid that the Linux team isn't doing anything to update
> linux-2.6 in testing and that nothing else feels responsible for doing
> so, I'm initiating the discussion. I request the release team to force a
> linux-2.6
Hi,
3 days ago Frederik Schueler mentioned the following item for then's
today in his Kernel schedule proposal for Etch:
start migration of 2.6.17 kernel and udebs to testing
I asked him on #d-kernel precisely what was being done about this but
got no answer. I didn't see anything happen a
18 matches
Mail list logo
