Hi,
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 03:42:31 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 31 July 2006 03:20, Steve Langasek wrote:
He did request approval for this transition on debian-release earlier
in the month, and there were no objections raised:
On Monday 31 July 2006 19:32, Guillem Jover wrote:
No problem. Anyway I'm sorry for the delay, as I left for 4 days or so
and was expecting to have net access. Also I asked for the transition
taking into account d-i, but missed the fact that libcairo was used by
it, and thought that the whole
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 04:01:04PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
I do not want to blame you or anything, but I do need your help to get
things sorted out.
You uploaded a new upstream version of directfb a few days ago (or rather,
it was accepted a few days ago), and I'm afraid that looks likely
On Monday 31 July 2006 03:20, Steve Langasek wrote:
He did request approval for this transition on debian-release earlier
in the month, and there were no objections raised:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2006/07/msg00147.html
/me kicks himself for missing the implications of that mail
Hi Guillem,
I do not want to blame you or anything, but I do need your help to get
things sorted out.
You uploaded a new upstream version of directfb a few days ago (or rather,
it was accepted a few days ago), and I'm afraid that looks likely to
completely mess up the Beta 3 release plans for
On Saturday 29 July 2006 16:01, Frans Pop wrote:
You uploaded a new upstream version of directfb a few days ago (or
rather, it was accepted a few days ago), and I'm afraid that looks
likely to completely mess up the Beta 3 release plans for the
installer.
The alternative is to release Beta 3
Frans Pop wrote:
Reason is that libcairo still depends on -24 and thus d-i builds currently
fail as that version is no longer available.
Also, this means that the new directfb has to migrate to testing before we
can release d-i, which in turn means that all packages that depend on
directfb
7 matches
Mail list logo
