Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:38:45PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Therefore etch would be much better if the current sid version migrated
soon.
Understood, hint added.
Thanks for hinting, and for your release work,
Frank
--
Dr. Frank Küster
Single
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 08:57:53PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
please consider hinting ltsp 0.99debian5 into etch, which is
(presumably) held up by the ltsp-client-builder udeb.
Hinted.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 05:17, Steve Langasek wrote:
Superseded by a newly-uploaded 6.8-1. Should we assume that one will
also be release-worthy in 10 days, or wait and see?
From a d-i standpoint migrating it will be OK.
(In general, such utilities only udebs are normally not problematic.)
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 10:53:39PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You did not ask Roman to provide examples of fixes are just stuck in the
BTS, you picked your own bug and then complains it is not a good example
? Is not that non-sense ?
No, what
Ingo Juergensmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Does this explain why guile-1.6 is still not compiled for m68k?
Maybe you just wanted to know if the bug is solved in the meanwhile, but
your way to ask is very, uhm, bad, because it includes some sort of attack.
Your question can be understood
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:28:55AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It's not like I hunted around for problems, I simply looked at the
cases closest to the packages I maintain, asking why don't they work
on m68k?
I expected you would have realised by that time that you maintain some
of the
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:42:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a
release architecture for etch.
We have also asked about removing m68k from testing
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:28:55AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It's not like I hunted around for problems, I simply looked at the
cases closest to the packages I maintain, asking why don't they work
on m68k?
I expected you would have realised
Ingo Juergensmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What are the porters wanted to say? We want to release with Etch? I think
that's obvious and the porters are doing their best to keep the port going
and keeping up as much as possible.
Why is the most recent g-wrap still not compiled for m68k?
I
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:28:55AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Um, You'll note that g-wrap also has not been built, another
dependency of gnucash. Version 1.9.6-3.1 was uploaded on September 7,
and gnucash depends on that version.
It's not like I hunted around for problems, I simply
Ingo Juergensmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh well... you already know that m68k suffered from serious toolchain
problems, which are fixed now thanks to Roman, Stephen Marenka and others,
and that the w-b queueing algorithm is not known to be very intelligent,
i.e. it doesn't queue in order
Ingo Juergensmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh well... you already know that m68k suffered from serious toolchain
problems, which are fixed now thanks to Roman, Stephen Marenka and others,
and that the w-b queueing algorithm is not known to be very intelligent,
i.e. it doesn't queue in order
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:42:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a
release architecture for etch.
We have also asked about removing m68k from testing
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:02:28AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
And that's why g-wrap hasn't been built, or is it irrelevant?
Yes, this is irrelevant for this thread as the topic of this thread is m68k
not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans? and not
Thomas Bushnell
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:42:30AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:28:55AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It's not like I hunted around for problems, I simply looked at the
cases closest to the packages I
Hi,
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Why is the most recent g-wrap still not compiled for m68k?
Because it's waiting for guile-1.6? How about instead of only complaining
you contact the maintainer and ask him to check out the patch and release
a fixed package?
bye, Roman
--
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:42:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a
release architecture for etch.
We have also asked about removing m68k from testing
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061017 14:19]:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:42:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be
a
release architecture for
Hi,
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
- m68k can live without gcj-4.1 for some time, I think, so omit those from
the release
Actually gcj-4.1 is not an issue anymore (besides current build
dependencies), according to the test results it works for us now even
better than for arm
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 04:35, Rick Thomas wrote:
The daily images directory http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-
builds/daily/arch-latest/powerpc/iso-cd/ is empty and seems to have
been that way since October 9th.
Yes, unfortunately there are problems syncing new images from the
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 13:28, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 04:35, Rick Thomas wrote:
The daily images directory http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-
builds/daily/arch-latest/powerpc/iso-cd/ is empty and seems to have
been that way since October 9th.
Yes,
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 07:14:25PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Udebs to be migrated by Jeroen
--
Note: this needs to wait until libdebian-installer from list above can be
migrated too.
All done, as of upcoming britney run, except:
flash-kernel
Has debs, needs to be
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:45:39PM +0200, Christoph Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So you have multiple machines on your local link that are running zeroconf
(or similar technology), as a result they can talk to each other using local
link addresses, and this is inconsistent with the
This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:45:39PM +0200, Christoph Martin [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
So you have multiple machines on your local link that are running zeroconf
(or similar technology), as a result they can talk to each other using
local
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 06:08:37PM +0200, Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 04:47:33PM +0100, Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You've missed the crucial steps:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache rdepends kdnssd
kdnssd
Reverse Depends:
kdenetwork
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 04:47:33PM +0100, Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You've missed the crucial steps:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache rdepends kdnssd
kdnssd
Reverse Depends:
kdenetwork
education-standalone
Then the bug is not in zeroconf, but in kdnssd. Why does a dns-sd
* Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-17 14:18]:
The toolchain looks to be in pretty good shape right now and with
the next gcc update every reported problem will be fixed
This is slightly off-topic here, but I have not seen any of your m68k
GCC fixes been submitted and incorporated
Hi,
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-17 14:18]:
The toolchain looks to be in pretty good shape right now and with
the next gcc update every reported problem will be fixed
This is slightly off-topic here, but I have not seen any of
Ingo Juergensmann a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:42:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:55:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
It's with some regret that I have to confirm that m68k is not going to be a
release architecture for etch.
We have also asked
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 02:10, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 06:08:37PM +0200, Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 04:47:33PM +0100, Stephen Gran
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've missed the crucial steps:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:11:06AM +1000, Andrew Vaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
libnss-mdns recommnends zeroconf
libnss-mdns recommends zeroconf
That was bug #353131 and was fixed in libnss-mdns 0.8-4.2.
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Ingo Juergensmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, this is irrelevant for this thread as the topic of this thread is m68k
not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans? and not
Thomas Bushnell would like to see his packages being built on m68k. Maybe
that's disappointing for you
ping
Wondering if this message was just overlooked, or if the release team
has a reason to ignore it?
Thanks, and sorry for the bother.
best regards,
Original Message
Subject: Please bin-NMU mn-fit on alpha, amd64, ia64
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:52:32 -0700
From: Kevin B.
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 03:19, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:11:06AM +1000, Andrew Vaughan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
libnss-mdns recommnends zeroconf
libnss-mdns recommends zeroconf
That was bug #353131 and was fixed in libnss-mdns 0.8-4.2.
Mike
The changelog
reassign 392590 libnss-dns/0.8-6
thanks
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 04:12:46AM +1000, Andrew Vaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 03:19, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:11:06AM +1000, Andrew Vaughan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
libnss-mdns recommnends
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
This is a matter of copyright law. If we do not have permission to
distribute, it is illegal to distribute. GPL grants permission to
distribute *only* if we distribute source. So, GPLed sourceless == NO
PERMISSON.
I will list the
Hi Jeroen,
Could you please migrate the whole partman complex for me?
A few very young ones in there, but all thoroughly tested.
partman-auto
partman-auto-crypto
partman-auto-lvm
partman-auto-raid
partman-base
partman-crypto
partman-ext2r0
partman-ext3
partman-lvm
partman-partitioning
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:52:32AM -0700, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Could you please bin-NMU mn-fit on the three 64-bit architectures?
Unfortunately, code of its build-dependencies in the cernlib and paw
source packages is very old and not 64-bit clean; mn-fit must be linked
against them
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 06:56:03PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Can someone please schedule binNMUs for:
pike-public.parser.xml2_1.38-2, rebuild against pike7.6 (= 7.6.93), 1, alpha,
amd64, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
pike-public.network.pcap_1.2-4, rebuild
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:24:26PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I've seen, no concrete suggestions on what the m68k porters want to do
about this.
I *have* asked about the possibility to maintain our own
slightly-different m68k distribution (similar to how amd64 works for
sarge) on
For the graphical version of the installer I'd like hints for the
following packages:
unblock cdebconf/0.107
# Various relatively minor changes
unblock gtk+2.0/2.8.20-3
urgent gtk+2.0/2.8.20-3
# Added udeb to solve blocking bug: #390683
unblock gtk2-engines/1:2.8.1-3
urgent
42 matches
Mail list logo
