-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
17.05.2011 00:25, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 10:49:51PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>> 09.05.2011 22:10, Philipp Kern wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 12:44:54PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
I forgot to show a debd
Processing changes file: user-mode-linux_2.6.32-1um-4+34squeeze1_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: user-mode-linux_2.6.32-1um-4+34squeeze1_i386.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: libfinance-quotehist-perl_1.14-1+squeeze1_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deb
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 13:12 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 01:35:39PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:11:58PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > Attached is a debdiff of the build in a squeeze chroot; packages
> > > available at http://www.codelibre.net/~
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 07:12:21 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Dear Release Team. dput in squeeze still has the old upload data for
> backports in it from its unofficial time. Given that we released squeeze
> with backports being official I would like to request permission to
> upload dput with
[Resent, as l.d.o still does not like mails from my private address mail@...]
Hi,
On Thu, 26 May 2011 15:01:49 +0200, Joachim Breitner
wrote:
> Correct. MAX-SAT (or, more precise, PMAX-SAT) is what we want to use.
BTW, here is a competition for PMAX-SAT, with a DIMACS-based input and
some resul
Hi,
On Thu, 26 May 2011 14:03:17 +0200, Raphael Hertzog
wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 11:58 +0200 schrieb Raphael Hertzog:
>> The rationales for this separation:
>> * Layer 1 needs to be fast, so eventually it is likely implemented in
C
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 01:35:39PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:11:58PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Attached is a debdiff of the build in a squeeze chroot; packages
> > available at http://www.codelibre.net/~rleigh/schroot-squeeze/
>
> Is this fixed in unstable already
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 11:58 +0200 schrieb Raphael Hertzog:
> > We could instead include it as a "post-process filter". We'd run
> > edos-distcheck on the result to identify what new packages
> > are uninstallable, and from this we could try to
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 11:58 +0200 schrieb Raphael Hertzog:
> On Tue, 24 May 2011, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> That said, I'm not sure we need to deal with it from the start at the SAT
> solver level.
>
> We could instead include it as a "post-process filter". We'd run
> edos-distcheck
Hi,
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> If cases where a conflict (of the non-versioned-kind, i.e. a conflict
> only with regard to installability and not with regard to presence in an
> suite) has an effect on the migrateability occur often, then this poses
> indeed a serious problem.
10 matches
Mail list logo