Bug#756867: transition: gdal

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:17:27PM +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > The gdal 1.11.2 package is Ubuntu from some time already, and they > didn't have these concerns. But that may be inherent to Ubuntu not being > as strict as Debian about these kind of issues. > > I'd hate having to wait for GD

Re: sparc qualification for Wheezy

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 01:19:48PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Comments on / additions and corrections to the content of > http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html would be appreciated, > as would any other information you think is relevant to helping us > determine sparc's status for

Bug#600465: unblock: freeradius 2.1.10+dfsg-1

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 08:33:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > > I'll get to it today. It'll also fix another logging regression that got > > reported in the meantime. > > Argh, I just read the update, so I guess it's best to clarify, by pasting > the change

Bug#600465: unblock: freeradius 2.1.10+dfsg-1

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 04:11:39PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 07:09:26PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:35:38PM +0200, Alan DeKok wrote: > > > Josip Rodin wrote: > > > > [For Alan: I requested for FreeRADIUS

Bug#603490: unblock: joe 3.7-2

t's making me nauseous, too, +closes: #597825. + * Update standards version to 3.9.1. ++ Update menu section from Apps/Editors to Applications/Editors. (3.7.3) ++ Add Homepage field. (3.8.0) + * Declare 1.0 in debian/source/format explicitly. + + -- Josip Rodin Sat, 13 Nov

Bug#600465: unblock: freeradius 2.1.10+dfsg-1

On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 07:09:26PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:35:38PM +0200, Alan DeKok wrote: > > Josip Rodin wrote: > > > [For Alan: I requested for FreeRADIUS 2.1.10 to replace 2.1.9 in the > > > future > > > Debian 6.0

Bug#600465: unblock: freeradius 2.1.10+dfsg-1

[For Alan: I requested for FreeRADIUS 2.1.10 to replace 2.1.9 in the future Debian 6.0 release; the former came too late in our process to be accepted automatically.] On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 05:10:58PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 13:45 +0200, Josip Rodin wr

Bug#600465: unblock: freeradius 2.1.10+dfsg-1

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 08:27:50PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 13:45 +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > Right now we have 2.1.8 in squeeze, and I sense the same scenario will > > unfold, hence this request. This time at least we have roughly the last >

Bug#600465: unblock: freeradius 2.1.10+dfsg-1

ng /dev/urandom into /etc/freeradius/certs/random, it breaks grep -r in /etc. Instead, replace it inside eap.conf, both in the new shipped conffile and in postinst. -- Josip Rodin Thu, 14 Oct 2010 21:51:51 +0200 freeradius (2.1.9+dfsg-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream version.

Re: IRC Release Team Meeting on Mon, Aug 23rd, 20 UTC

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:29:27AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > Well, for upstream support there is: at the bottom of the page. According > to doko sparc32 code generation is unmaintained upstream, and he doesn't > want to step up to maintain it any longer. Well, that is no less of a problem than

Re: IRC Release Team Meeting on Mon, Aug 23rd, 20 UTC

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:52:34PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > sparc had concerns raised about [its] releasability http://release.debian.org/squeeze/arch_qualify.html indicates the number of porters and upstream support is questionable by being yellow, but other than that there is no real explana

Re: No warning on new arch?

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 03:43:23AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote: > Looks like armel arch hit the archive yesterday. > > Could we in future hope for some kind of announcement > or warning before being hit with ten gigs of new arch? Wrong list to talk to :/ There's a hint of it at: http://lists.debian.o

Re: sparc and testing migration

On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 01:18:29AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 07:30:24PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > as you all are probably aware, we currently have some quite bad issues > > with the sparc buildds for some times, especially > > http://b

Re: sparc and testing migration

On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 07:30:24PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > as you all are probably aware, we currently have some quite bad issues > with the sparc buildds for some times, especially > http://bugs.debian.org/433187 unkillable processes on the buildds. > > I hope that the mentioned RC bug can

Re: Debian release cycle for enterprise ?

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:25:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > I could take a DNS server in example, when the server is configured and > > > work, I have no reason to update the server to a new release for at least > > > 4 > > > years if it have the latest security patches. Upgrading to a n

Re: Debian release cycle for enterprise ?

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:07:58PM +0200, Frédéric PICA wrote: > I could take a DNS server in example, when the server is configured and > work, I have no reason to update the server to a new release for at least 4 > years if it have the latest security patches. Upgrading to a new stable > version

Re: desktop-base for etchr1

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 11:33:17AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > We can't accept a decision that goes completely against what we have > been told by people in charge. When did people in charge tell anyone that stable update policy changed? I didn't see them... there was a mail from Luk Claes th

Re: [SRM] kernel updates for oldstable

On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 02:34:19PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > It seems to me that Frans may have been referring to whether it's > > relevant to add other stuff into sarge's *debian-installer*. > > No, I wasn't, or at least not primarily. As we have to update the > installer anyway because of the

Re: [SRM] kernel updates for oldstable

On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 05:13:45PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > > > Since we're spinning d-i anyway, I thought I'd see if we could get > > > some other non-security changes in there anyway. We've had some stuff > > > queued for way too long (since before sarge released even). > > > > The main ques

Re: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 Non-US

On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 07:49:20PM +0300, Teodor wrote: > IMO all pages that contains references to the non-US archive should be > modified to state that it was integrated in the `main' archive and > removed on ${DATE} or with release 3.1. /mirror/list-non-US actually does say so. -- 2. Tha

Re: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 Non-US

On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 06:38:22PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > http://www.debian.org/mirror/list-non-US > > The latter page should remain as an archive. Where did you see it linked > from? I found a link on /distrib/ftplist. That will now be moved to /distrib/archive. --

Re: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 Non-US

On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 07:28:06PM +0300, Teodor wrote: > In this case it should be removed from the manuals and the web pages: > > http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages I'm removing it from that page now, thanks for the note. It's older than oldstable so it's irrelevant. > http://www.debian.or

Re: Listing for release notes on DDP pages

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:39:46PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > At http://www.debian.org/doc/user-manuals#relnotes we currently have (the > bits between <<...>> are links): > > I'd like to propose the following changes: > - Authors: add everybody listed as such in current version; I don't > feel i

sparc testing machine status

Hi, vore.d.o is still down. Looking at machines.cgi, I see schulz.d.o in the state "setup"; it doesn't ping, and it has no specifications other than a location in Canada. http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_qualify.html still lists vore, but without it, sparc fails the qualification. My Fire 280

Re: Is this acceptable to be called "Release"

On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 01:31:23PM +0300, Max Dmitrichenko wrote: > Do you feel absurdity of this situation? Will this be included in the > final release of Etch to make everyone laugh about "quality" of Debian > that even our reportbug utility contains bugs? Well, there are more cases where a bug

Re: maildrop lacking courier-authlib dependency on amd64, still

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 07:17:42PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > Why does this only happen on amd64? I don't really want an > > architecture-specific kludge in the package, let's fix the tools to be > > consistent. Or at least produce useful error information (e.g. crapping > > out instead of letti

Re: iproute

On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 03:02:50AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I noticed that the iproute package is priority optional. Aren't we > > supposed to be transitioning to the ip tool and away from > > ifconfig/route? We obviously won't do this for etch, but I was thinking > > maybe increasing the p

Re: maildrop lacking courier-authlib dependency on amd64, still

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 04:31:35AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg -x maildrop_2.0.3-1_amd64.deb tmp/maildrop/ > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ objdump -x tmp/maildrop/usr/bin/maildrop | grep auth > > > NEEDED libcourierauth.so.0 > > > RPATH /usr/lib:/usr/lib/c

maildrop lacking courier-authlib dependency on amd64, still

Hi, Can someone please suggest a proper solution to #395529? What happened there, really? Why is the package not getting built properly on amd64 only? % cd debian/pool/main/m/maildrop % for i in maildrop_2.0.2-11_*.deb; do dpkg -I $i | grep Depends | grep -q courier-authlib || echo $i; done mail

Re: rrdtool

On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 03:40:22PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > Unfortunately, librrd2 continues to screw us over. I uploaded a new upstream > version that fixed one grave bug and caused another. That was #392937, and then #397691, and now we have #402782. :( Haroon Rafique and myself ar

Re: maildrop 2.0.3-1

On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 12:23:45PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > > The latest maildrop package uploaded to unstable should be allowed to > > propagate into testing in ten days time, if all goes well, because > > it really shouldn't bring in anything to be particularly concerned about > > (

maildrop 2.0.3-1

* Avoided touching Makefile.am to change the htmldir variable (s,$(pkgdatadir)/html,$(datadir)/doc/maildrop/html,) and instead done that post res in the rules file, just to avoid running automake et al every time. -- Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 8 Jan 2007 01:58:36 +0100

greylistd issues

severity 321025 important thanks Hi, greylistd has been equally broken in this regard in the previous releases too, and the invocation of this buggy script is *optional*, yet now the whole package is missing from etch because of the severity of this bug. In fact, the bug #345079 which seems to b

rrdtool

On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 04:57:31AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > We have not yet reached a point where we believe there should be a hard > freeze of updates into etch, but we ask your continued support by avoiding > uploads that are likely to introduce regressions or be disruptive to other > packa

Re: sparc buildd issues [Re: Release candidate architecture requalification results; amd64 is RC]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:18:43PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > > sparc will be removed from consideration until we no longer have to > > worry about OpenOffice builds (or other intensive package builds) > > crashing the buildd machines. > > I have a few Ultra5 machin

sparc buildd issues [Re: Release candidate architecture requalification results; amd64 is RC]

On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 04:14:35AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Sun SPARC > - > Initially, it seemed like sparc ought to have the easiest time of the > four to get requalified. Despite misgivings earlier this year about > upstream support, sparc is generally doing well; since the sarge >

Re: Old RC bugs

On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 11:09:58PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > db3 > > > #223142, #234507 > > > db4.0 > > > #223140 > > > I know we can't remove them. One of the base problems > > > > It would be nice to see fewer copies of libdb in sarge, in all honesty. > > There is external (non-free) sof

Re: Package removal proposals

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 05:30:21PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >> remove dict-jargon/4.4.4-4 > >> FTBFS (#229435). Eventually it will be fixed and it can go in again, of > >> course. > > > > Um. It's Architecture: all. > So what? It still has source and object files, since it generates stuf

Re: Package removal proposals

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 03:22:20PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > remove dict-jargon/4.4.4-4 > FTBFS (#229435). Eventually it will be fixed and it can go in again, of > course. Um. It's Architecture: all. Surely not all problems need to be resolved with an axe? -- 2. That which causes

Re: status of postgresql for sarge?

On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 05:08:39PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > The automatic upgrading is flawed in general; this affects both the > testing and the Sid version. So tag it properly. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Re: Removal-from-testing proposals, current version

On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 12:14:08AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > remove amavis-ng/0.1.6.2-1 > > Note that this will also allow the removal of suidmanager to work. > > I'd been hoping not to have to remove this, but it seems too badly > broken at the moment; done. It seems that daemon approach

Re: Why is package X not in testing yet?

On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 10:08:56PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > The reason this doesn't show up in update_output is slightly unfortunate: > for performance reasons, the testing script only shows problems on the > first architecture in alphabetical order, and qalculate was only in > testing for i386

Re: kaffe in testing asap

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 02:46:20PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > > I'd like to have kafe in testing. At the moment, kaffe only build on > > powerpc and i386. What do I have to do to let it go in testing? > > > > o do I have to change arch: any to arch: i386, powerpc > > Err... first of all I'd s

Re: gutenbook both in main and non-US

On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 10:48:27AM -0700, Andre Lehovich wrote: > > non-US has been basically non-functional since the compromise. (For the > > most part, apart from bugs like this, that's OK; almost everything in it > > is dead anyway.) > > If non-US is non-functional and mostly dead should it be

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Please read it, and make your own opinions on where I'm right and where > I'm wrong, even if you might not agree with my opinions on other issues > or if you don't agree with everything below. Nice of you to vent steam onto the mailing

Re: More testing cleanup

On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 06:38:16PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > (By the way, why do we worry about non-free software wrt to testing and > the release?) Perhaps not important to the release itself, but we should worry about serious issues in those packages and deal with them appropriately. The

Re: Summary of python transition problems

On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:47:09PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > * gimp-python: #207304 > > automake problem, which it seems I failed to fix. > > but one of it's build-dep's is listed as: > > -gimp1.2 (1.2.3-2.4 to -) > > * Maintainer: Ben Gertzfield > * Valid candidate > > so p

Re: package chicken entering testing?

On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 09:23:50AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > [Is this the right list? Or should -devel be used?] This looks all right. > update_excuses lists chicken as > > "Trying to remove package, not update it" > > Please could you change this, as swig1.3 build-depends on this.

Re: HPPA still *ed...

On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 10:08:41PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > HPPA doesn't have updated glibc yet (still). No ETA. > That means that the fixed GCC 3.3 won't build on HPPA, so it can't go > into 'testing'. The new glibc went into testing despite hppa, so it's probably safe to assume that th

Re: debian-installer (was Re: Unofficial Sarge Release Issues (Updated for August))

On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:22:22AM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > > > - The debian-installer (d-i) is in what I would call almost a releasable > > > state, but that's just my opinion. See debian-boot for information. > > > > Without it being on the CDs, it's far from a releaseable state... >

Re: Unofficial Sarge Release Issues (Updated for August)

On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 02:49:37PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > - The debian-installer (d-i) is in what I would call almost a releasable > state, but that's just my opinion. See debian-boot for information. Without it being on the CDs, it's far from a releaseable state... -- 2. That

Re: Bug#155374: Where are Installation Manual and Release Notes

On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 10:00:39AM -0700, David Kimdon wrote: > > I've noticed that changes to the manual get propagated to the web from > > CVS, even though it's not 'released'. > > It looks like the web version of the manual was updated on December 18, > 2002. Well, no. It was last updated a fe

Re: Bug#155374: Where are Installation Manual and Release Notes

On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 09:24:55AM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote: > > > > > In what sense is this bug pending? > > > > > > > In the sense that it is fixed in cvs, which will be version 3.0.24. > > > > But 3.0.23 was used for woody and it is possible (likely?) that 3.0.24 > > > > will never be release

Re: Bug#155374: Where are Installation Manual and Release Notes

On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 12:52:51PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > Is there any reason that install-doc shouldn't be removed from > > > unstable and/or testing, if it's not going to be used for > > > debian-installer? > > > > The package is useless as it is so nobody would shed a tear for it, > >

Re: Where are Installation Manual and Release Notes

On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 02:13:04PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > In what sense is this bug pending? > > > In the sense that it is fixed in cvs, which will be version 3.0.24. > > But 3.0.23 was used for woody and it is possible (likely?) that 3.0.24 > > will never be released since the debian-

Re: Assignments III (2003/04/18)

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 09:04:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > 155374 [P ] Where are Installation Manual and Release Notes BTW this one is specific to the old installation system. The (supposed) contents of the install-doc package for debian-installer is yet to be even drafted. The bu

Re: 2.2r4?

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 07:09:21PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > I understand everyone is busy with woody, but is there any chance of a > > 2.2r4 release soon (maybe there are pending security issues)? It was > > last mentioned to be planned for the end of May. > > What for? For the record, I

Re: no alpha boot-floppies

On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 04:15:12PM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote: > I wrote to the admin list to see if we could get a woody chroot on lully, > but I haven't heard a responce on this at all yet (over two weeks > now...and my message also stated that lully needed a kernel change due to > rand

Re: Stable Release plan

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 03:02:45PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > > > > Considering how stable releaes were handled recently or better how > > > > > > they weren't handled properly with regards to our duty to our users, > > > > > > my plan is to release a new point release of stable about every

Re: Stable Release plan

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:50PM +0100, lance wrote: > > > > Considering how stable releaes were handled recently or better how > > > > they weren't handled properly with regards to our duty to our users, > > > > my plan is to release a new point release of stable about every one to > > > > two m

Re: Stable Release plan

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:16:11AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Also - is there any chance that .iso images or pseudo image > > configurations could be ready _before_ the release is announced - eg > > tonight cdimage.debian.org still has no idea about 2.2r3 - shouldnt .isos > > be part of the r

Re: [David Whedon ] Re: still not out of the woods with idepci / compact kernels

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 10:57:19AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > The only problem now is an aesthetic one. The compact and idepci kernels > attempt to draw a framebuffer penguin logo at boot. The 2.2.19pre17 > version has a messed up color map for me (I tried the 2.2.17-idepci kernel > and the col

Re: Preparing Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r3

On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 01:28:33PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > I'm currently preparing 2.2r3 and will send reports so people can > actually comment on it. I'm not responsible for that release, > responsibility still lays at Anthony Towns who has to give the final > approve for each package. I,

Re: 2.2r3 preparation

On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 01:16:18PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > > IIRC realplayer is orphaned. > > I don't this so: > > -rw-rw-r--1 troupdebadmin10924 Dec 31 17:49 > /org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/pool/contrib/r/realplayer/realplayer_8.0.tar.gz Eh? % ssh auric dpkg -I /org/ftp.debian.o

Re: 2.2r3 preparation

On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 01:55:03AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > > > I suspect we won't make the end of Jan, but we may as well try for it. > > > > You may want to include realplayer from unstable; the one in stable is > > no longer usable. > > If this is so, shouldn't someone file a bug and have

Re: [comments?] Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r2 Released

On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 11:39:33AM +0100, Nils Lohner wrote: > - Webmasters: update please (i.e. > remove references to r0, add dates for r1(November 14, 2000) and r2 > (December 3) ... Why do we have to mention the date of previous point releases? I'll

Re: 2.2r1 release problems

On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:28:52PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > > Would someone on the list be able to take care of announcements and such > > in future? > > You can get it anounced on debian-news; just send > the announcement or a heads-up. I forget who, probably Nils Lohner. Note how the web page

Re: Potato revision 1

On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 10:17:21PM +0200, Max Moritz Sievers wrote: > > I would very much like to see the following in r1: > > - Mozilla M17, as it is much more usable than M14 > > - PostgreSQL 7.0, as it supports foreign keys (a very desirable thing to > > have for non-trivial databases), which

Re: Potato revision 1

On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 01:24:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > I'm thinking we'll want to include: [...] I'd like to upload doc-debian 2.2.2 with stuff updated to say how potato is the latest stable distribution, not slink, and a few other changes - everything in the package is documentation so

Re: Test Cycle Three

On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 09:22:13AM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote: > > Second, it means we need a final set of release notes for TC3. These will > > need to be updated again after TC3 to document any further problems we > > have, of course, but the TC3 release notes will need to be ready by around > > 1

Re: Could the release notes for potato mention smail?

On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 02:15:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > BTW aj, as new release notes (including this and a few other important > > changes) need to be installed in the archive, should I contact James? > > Upload to incoming, and I'll tell james. It's a bunch of files that isn't suppose

Re: Could the release notes for potato mention smail?

On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 02:35:20PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > I'm the new maintainer for smail. I will soon try to fix as many bugs as > possible and prepare packages for potato because many people use smail. Is > it possible to put a note in the release notes that there will be > unofficial smai

Re: smail

On Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 01:36:27AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: > > > If i386 smail isn't included when potato releases, literally millions of > > > boxes will be rather forcibly transitioned to a new MTA. > > > > No, they won't, they'll be left untouched. Or is there some kind of bug? > > Good

Re: smail

On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 04:38:45PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: > Said bug is present on the ALPHA architecture only. (Even there it is > manifested only when running smail from inetd, which is not the > recommended procedure - so I personally would classify it as "normal" > rather than "grave"

Re: Upgrade report: Test Cycle 2

[please CC: replies to mailing lists, I'm not on -testing] On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 03:12:15PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > The reason for this error was: > > /usr/sbin/update-alternatives contained > > #! /usr/local/bin/perl > > but on my slink system, there was no /usr/local/bin/perl, just >

Re: Formal objection: Changing how the testing of potato works would invalidate the whole test. So please don't change it.

On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:27:49AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > I say this because i386 (at least) has to go from 2.2.15pre20 to 2.2.15 > (release) and generally that process involves at least 3 people and takes > around a week, so I just don't know if a boot-floppies can be ready with > this kern

Re: Formal objection: Changing how the testing of potato works would invalidate the whole test. So please don't change it.

On Sun, May 14, 2000 at 10:30:11PM -0700, Jim Lynch wrote: > Summary of this note: OK, you don't want to go back to an unfrozen state, > you just want to cancel the current test cycle. I don't. It's not yet out > of the prep phase. It will be when cd images for the test phase are > officially avai

Re: Formal objection: Changing how the testing of potato works would invalidate the whole test. So please don't change it.

On Sun, May 14, 2000 at 06:32:28AM -0700, Jim Lynch wrote: > > Almost two weeks have passed since this test cycle began, so this would seem > > to be the time to make that evaluation. > > > > Since the archive move and all the related trouble related to it happened > > exactly during the test cycl

Re: First Test Cycle starts today

On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 12:35:19PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > After that, the distribution will be tested for about 10 days, during > which it will not change at all. After testing comes an evaluation > period, during which we either release potato as-is, or install any > fixes necessary (wh

Re: file RC bugs for potato uninstallable pkgs (was Re: Pleaserelease 2.1r6)

On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 03:13:28PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > The next thing I'm doing is filing RC bugs for priority problems (most > > often: package with priority `optional' depends on package with priority > > `extra'). > > Noo, please don't do that. File a *single* bugreport for ftp.d

Re: Debian 2.1 stable update.

On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 09:23:29PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > > > 2.1r3 is the next release of slink; > > > > Right. It's the third point-release of slink, and point-release only > > have security-fixes and very important bugfixes. > > > > IMHO the stable update should be 2.2 and then potat

Re: stable with 2.2.11 (was Re: Stable release management)

On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 03:26:37PM +, Vincent Renardias wrote: > GNOME 1.0 > (everyone complained the GNOME 0.3 shipped with slink was hardly > usable; since there has not been too many complaints with the GNOME update > for slink released a few months ago, it will be merged in slink). N

Re: shortening release cycles

On Sun, Jul 11, 1999 at 03:21:10PM -0400, Brandon Mitchell wrote: > > > * shut down new-maintainer > > >problem: don't see how it helps anything > > > > It doesn't help but we could add some rules in order to go in the > > right direction, ie don't allow new maintainer to start with new > >