Philipp Kern wrote:
> | Binary Package: lxde-core (Version: 0.5.0-3)
> |
> | BTS entry: http://bugs.debian.org/lxde-core
> | Relationships
> |
> | Package has a Depends on lxpanel (>= 0.4) which cannot be satisfied on
> kfreebsd-amd64.
> | Package has a Depends on lxpanel (>= 0.4) which cannot b
Hi!
Joerg Jaspert schrieb:
> I did an initial check of stuff that recently happened in the ftpmaster
> part of ries. Right now we have a set of packages that are broken beyond
> repair (on ries and also pushed to mirrors):
>
> gparted 0.5.2-2 alpha
> python-oss 0.0.0.20010624-6.1+b1 armel
> pyt
(CC is appreciated. I'm not following this list)
Hey there,
I would like to upload a new poppler package to stable in order to fix a
the
security issue 2178 [1], #524806 [2]. This was checked with the security team
and is a non-dsa case.
The debdiff:
http://people.debian.org/~luciano/popp
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:41:23PM +0700, Andrew Lee wrote:
> The lxde-common package got blocked by _tasksel-meta-faux_ package.
> However I did a search, and cannot find any information about
> _tasksel-meta-faux_ package. Any idea?
>
> Details:
>http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.p
Dear release team,
The lxde-common package got blocked by _tasksel-meta-faux_ package.
However I did a search, and cannot find any information about
_tasksel-meta-faux_ package. Any idea?
Details:
http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=lxde-common
Move this package into testin
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:30:56AM +, Arnaud Cornet wrote:
> If you're willing to do it, it's greatly appreciated. Otherwise I'll
> do it when I get a bit more time.
I've just filed the RM request, you are Cc-ed in the request.
Thanks for your feedback,
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Heya, thanks for your feedback.
Are you going to submit the RM request by yourself or should I?
If you're willing to do it, it's greatly appreciated. Otherwise I'll do
it when I get a bit more time.
Cheers,
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists
[ Not quite sure why you sent it to debian-release when I tried to have the
discussion on -devel only, anyway ]
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Philipp Kern wrote:
> [ Just a few quick thoughts. ]
>
> On 2010-03-26, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Multiple transitions will still end up mixed in sid if you pus
[ Just a few quick thoughts. ]
On 2010-03-26, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Multiple transitions will still end up mixed in sid if you push them
> before packages have migrated to testing but they are all already
> completed and you only have to deal with RC bugs and delays to ensure
> package can mig
[ Bcc debian-release for info, discussion welcome on -devel ]
Hello,
one of our biggest problems is dealing with transitions because they tend
to get interdependant and it's thus very difficult to move packages from
sid to testing. Also many transitions are badly managed by the maintainers
who ar
10 matches
Mail list logo
