> "Adam" == Adam D Barratt writes:
Adam> Even accounting for the patch overhead, the diff is still somewhat
Adam> larger than most we'd usually handle via proposed-updates. That's not
Adam> necessarily a blocker in and of itself, but we are rapidly approaching
Adam> the cut-off point for the
On 02.05.2012 18:07, Patrick Baggett wrote:
> Matthias,
>
> I wouldn't mind helping a bit, as I'd like to see GCC 4.7 be the default on
> ia64. I'm good at C/C++ programming and can definitely provide upstream
> patches, but I have absolutely no idea what the "debian way" of doing
> things is -- r
2012/5/1 Aurelien Jarno :
>> Are you sure this is correct? It seems to me that this can be a big
>> problem if those packages migrate to testing before eglibc does.
>>
>
> Not it's a mistake, I don't know how I managed that. I am going to fix
> that in an upload today.
Thanks!
--
Robert Millan
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 19:06 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
+links2 (2.3~pre1-1+squeeze1) stable-proposed-updates; urgency=low
+
+ * Fix several security issues reported by upstream (Closes: #668227)
Please go ahead; thanks.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.d
Processing changes file: wicd_1.7.0+ds1-5+squeeze2_i386.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: imagemagick_6.6.0.4-3+squeeze2_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: imagemagick_6.6.0.4-3+squeeze2_armel.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: imagemagick_6.6.0.4-3+squeeze2_i386.changes
On Sun, 2012-04-08 at 12:20 +0400, Sergey Kirpichev wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Adam D. Barratt
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 13:46 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >> After some discussion, we've come to the conclusion that adding
> >> simple-patchsys is less bad than the alter
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 668456 + pending
Bug #668456 [release.debian.org] pu: package wicd/1.7.0+ds1-5+squeeze2
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
668456: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cg
tags 670730 + pending
thanks
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 22:23 +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 08:52:35PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-04-28 at 17:01 +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > > giplet has in its preferences to check for ip on interfaces eth0 w
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 670730 + pending
Bug #670730 [release.debian.org] pu: package giplet/0.2.3-3+squeeze1
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
670730: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi
tag 668456 + pending
thanks
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 06:38 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 22:08 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> > sorry to bother you again, but... my 1.7.2.3 release of wicd didn't really
> > fix
> > anything. Now I _really_ fixed it with 1.7.2.4, which I just u
Ping?
On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 19:47 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 15:59 +, Georges Khaznadar wrote:
> > Adam D. Barratt a écrit :
> > > I noticed that you've uploaded "wims" to stable, in order to resolve
> > > #574235. Was this discussed with any member of the Release T
On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 20:18 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 09:44 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > [Adam D. Barratt, 2011-12-19]
[...]
> > > Looking at the diff, and the equivalent code in the unstable package,
> > > there seems to be a missing component - namely, that the di
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 00:05 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 23:00:57 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
>
> > libXi has had several important fixes upstream over the past year, some
> > of which are required for operation with recent X servers (see
> > bug#660411 e.g.). A lot of
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 20:46 -0400, A. Maitland Bottoms wrote:
> OK. The handling of auto* tools in the coolkey 1.1.0-6 package in stable
> means that the clean target in debian/rules doesn't restore the files
> to pre-built state. So there was too much autotools cruft in the
> previous coolkeyspu2
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 23:00:57 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> libXi has had several important fixes upstream over the past year, some
> of which are required for operation with recent X servers (see
> bug#660411 e.g.). A lot of it is related to calculating the proper size
> of an allocation to
[Cc += team@security]
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 11:26 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > I noticed that you've uploaded an "acpid" package to proposed-updates.
> > Was this discussed with anyone on the release team beforehand?
>
> Yeah with Zobel. Come to think of it, he's no longer a stable release
>
Processing changes file: dropbear_0.52-5+squeeze1_powerpc.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: dropbear_0.52-5+squeeze1_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: dropbear_0.52-5+squeeze1_armel.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: dropbear_0.52-5+squeeze1_i386.changes
ACCEPT
Proces
* Adam D. Barratt (a...@adam-barratt.org.uk) [120430 20:30]:
> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 23:09 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 13:46 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > fwiw, the next sensible weekends (i.e. ignoring the one in a couple of
> > > days time) are May 5/6th - which
Hi,
A few weeks ago I performed a few test britney runs, in order to try and
answer the question "how much pain would trying to squeeze hurd in to
testing be right now?". I've just realised that I never really publicly
shared any of the result, hence this mail; looking through what I noted
at the
Matthias,
I wouldn't mind helping a bit, as I'd like to see GCC 4.7 be the default on
ia64. I'm good at C/C++ programming and can definitely provide upstream
patches, but I have absolutely no idea what the "debian way" of doing
things is -- right now, I'm an end-user. What can I do?
Patrick
On T
On 02.05.2012 16:01, Ondřej Surý wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Adam D. Barratt
wrote:
If the binaries are going away, they need removing from unstable,
not
testing.
Manual removals from testing are source-based, binary removals
(including
partial removals) happen as the result of sy
Hi Adam,
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Adam D. Barratt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 02.05.2012 14:51, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>>
>> after some chit-chat with upstream, we have decided that kfreebsd-any
>> isn't supported by upstream code.
>>
>> Please remove from testing, so it can migrate.
>
>
> If the bi
Hi,
On 02.05.2012 14:51, Ondřej Surý wrote:
after some chit-chat with upstream, we have decided that kfreebsd-any
isn't supported by upstream code.
Please remove from testing, so it can migrate.
If the binaries are going away, they need removing from unstable, not
testing.
Manual removals
Hi,
after some chit-chat with upstream, we have decided that kfreebsd-any
isn't supported by upstream code.
Please remove from testing, so it can migrate.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
> I noticed that you've uploaded an "acpid" package to proposed-updates.
> Was this discussed with anyone on the release team beforehand?
Yeah with Zobel. Come to think of it, he's no longer a stable release manager,
is he? Sorry for the fuzz guys. Feel free to reject the upload. My bad, I
hurri
25 matches
Mail list logo
