Hi,
after some discussion we had today on IRC, I tend to think we should
put a section within security of the release policy that says
something like Packages must not open listening sockets at localhost
where usage of a unix domain socket (in the filesystem) would be
equally sufficient.
Andreas Barth wrote:
after some discussion we had today on IRC, I tend to think we should
put a section within security of the release policy that says
something like Packages must not open listening sockets at localhost
where usage of a unix domain socket (in the filesystem) would be
equally
Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:33:11 +0200, Luk Claes l...@debian.org wrote:
Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
Hello,
I have a migration unstable = testing issue with Scilab. I would like
to see it into testing but, for now, it does not respect the rule
It must be available
* Luk Claes (l...@debian.org) [091018 14:51]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
after some discussion we had today on IRC, I tend to think we should
put a section within security of the release policy that says
something like Packages must not open listening sockets at localhost
where usage of a unix
Andrew Pollock wrote:
I'm in the process of packaging ISC's DHCP 4.1. It's currently in
dhcdbd
Don't care for dhcdbd. It's dead and removed in squeeze and sid.
It previously was a dependency of network-manager, but it's obsolete now.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Why is it that all of the instruments
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: rm
Hello,
please remove tork from testing/squeeze.
Reasons:
1) It still lacks a Qt4 port and is not very compatible with KDE4
2) Upstream is not very reponsive
3) Bug #529908 has become critical,
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 20:16 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Luk Claes l...@debian.org wrote:
Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Hello,
blacs-mpi and scalapack have been in transition for over four months.
AFAICT, it's because of old binary packages in
Your message dated Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:24:21 -0400
with message-id 1255886661.3941.368.ca...@workhorse
and subject line Re: blacs-mpi/scalapack transition
has caused the Debian Bug report #550648,
regarding RM: blacs-pvm-test, scalapack-lam-dev, scalapack-lam-test,
scalapack1-lam,
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 13:38:24 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi,
after some discussion we had today on IRC, I tend to think we should
put a section within security of the release policy that says
something like Packages must not open listening sockets at localhost
where usage of a unix
Linux 2.6.31 seems to be in fairly good shape now. I have updated
linux-kbuild-2.6 to 2.6.31.2 and refreshed firmware-linux-nonfree from
the linux-firmware repository. I'll be requesting removal of
linux-modules-extra-2.6 rather than updating it.
Also, the stable series 2.6.30.y has now ended.
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 07:17:19PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
There was a build failure for linux-2.6 on alpha which needs to be fixed
somehow.
will disable that stupid snd driver on alpha.
I also need to add a conflict to firmware-linux-nonfree.
Other than that I think we're ready to
* Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [2009-10-18 19:17]:
There was a build failure for linux-2.6 on alpha which needs to be fixed
somehow.
Fixed for what? 2.6.30 or 2.6.31? I don't think we need another
2.6.30 upload to fix alpha since it's being dropped from testing
anyway.
--
Martin
Hi Adam,
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 20:16 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote:
I have uploaded a revision of scalapack in mentors.d.n:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/scalapack/
If I understood #549707
[Andreas Barth]
Comments?
The idea seem reasonable, but it might be hard to decide when equally
sufficient is the case or not.
I suspect it is better to make this a release goal as the first step,
and then see if it make sense to make it a release requirement when it
is better known how many
Ben Hutchings wrote:
I'll be requesting removal of
linux-modules-extra-2.6 rather than updating it.
where was this discussed? how will be binary modules provided in the
future? why was debian-live not informed about it, it's critical part of
the distribution for building live images.
--
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 08:34:05PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [2009-10-18 19:17]:
There was a build failure for linux-2.6 on alpha which needs to be fixed
somehow.
Fixed for what? 2.6.30 or 2.6.31? I don't think we need another
2.6.30 upload to
On Sun, 2009-10-18 at 21:55 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
I'll be requesting removal of
linux-modules-extra-2.6 rather than updating it.
where was this discussed?
Bug report #517130 and the Debian kernel team meeting in Portland.
how will be binary modules provided
Ben Hutchings wrote:
where was this discussed?
Bug report #517130
which is one single message, not a discussion.
and the Debian kernel team meeting in Portland.
in private then, behind 'closed doors'. :/
how will be binary modules provided in the future?
In general they should be
On Sun, 2009-10-18 at 22:56 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
where was this discussed?
Bug report #517130
which is one single message, not a discussion.
and the Debian kernel team meeting in Portland.
in private then, behind 'closed doors'. :/
It was held at a
* Ben Hutchings (b...@decadent.org.uk) [091018 20:17]:
There was a build failure for linux-2.6 on alpha which needs to be fixed
somehow.
Alpha is no longer an release architecture, so I doubt that the
release team would care.
Cheers,
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Ben Hutchings wrote:
If you choose to unsubscribe from
debian-kernel then don't complain that you don't hear what the kernel
team is doing.
wrong; i complain because the kernel team is apparently not
communicating to other teams about stuff that is critical for them. if
you maintain such a
On Sun, 2009-10-18 at 23:28 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
If you choose to unsubscribe from
debian-kernel then don't complain that you don't hear what the kernel
team is doing.
wrong; i complain because the kernel team is apparently not
communicating to other teams
On dim, 2009-10-18 at 23:28 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
If you choose to unsubscribe from
debian-kernel then don't complain that you don't hear what the
kernel
team is doing.
wrong; i complain because the kernel team is apparently not
communicating to other teams
23 matches
Mail list logo
