On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 22:46:07 +, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I have prepare some branches that has what I am intending to upload to
> stable-proposed-updates. The modules I have changed are the following:
>
> grub-installer
> linux-kernel-di-sparc-2.6
> tasksel
> cdebconf
>
On Wed, March 9, 2011 15:12, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> Excerpts from Adam D. Barratt's message of 2011-03-06 16:20:51 +0100:
>>
>> - console-setup
>>
>> Looks okay, other than the version number should be 1.68+squeeze1.
>> Fixed in unstable but not migrated to testing yet; could we unblock it?
>
>
Excerpts from Adam D. Barratt's message of 2011-03-06 16:20:51 +0100:
>
> - console-setup
>
> Looks okay, other than the version number should be 1.68+squeeze1.
> Fixed in unstable but not migrated to testing yet; could we unblock it?
I prepared a squeeze branch for this and pushed it to the rep
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 18:09, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> It looks like this got uploaded, but targeted at unstable where there's
> already a newer version, so it got rejected:
Yes. I did it wrong :-( My fault.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
E-mail: ota...@ossystems.co
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 15:20 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 22:46 +, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > I have prepare some branches that has what I am intending to upload to
> > stable-proposed-updates. The modules I have changed are the following:
> >
> > grub-installer
>
> Do
On 06/03/11 12:08 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Well, having it fixed in unstable would be a good start. The problem
> doesn't just affect stable so having the first time the patch is in the
> archive be a stable point release isn't generally appropriate.
The biggest barrier to this is that Matt sa
On 06/03/11 12:08 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Well, having it fixed in unstable would be a good start. The problem
> doesn't just affect stable so having the first time the patch is in the
> archive be a stable point release isn't generally appropriate.
>
> Where would one find the patch for #614
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 11:39 -0400, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> On 06/03/11 11:20 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > - anything I missed?
>
> netcfg. #614884 blocks #606268 against network-manager. We have a
> working solution with the two fixes I mentioned in 614884 and my
> supplied patch for NM's ifblack
On 06/03/11 11:20 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> - anything I missed?
netcfg. #614884 blocks #606268 against network-manager. We have a
working solution with the two fixes I mentioned in 614884 and my
supplied patch for NM's ifblacklist_migrate.sh filed against 606268.
The NM bug is RC but had no i
On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 22:46 +, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> I have prepare some branches that has what I am intending to upload to
> stable-proposed-updates. The modules I have changed are the following:
>
> grub-installer
Doesn't look like this got uploaded yet? The relevant fix is in
unstable
On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 22:46 +, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> I have prepare some branches that has what I am intending to upload to
> stable-proposed-updates. The modules I have changed are the following:
For the record, after a discussion on #-boot earlier this evening, we
concluded that checksum-
Quoting Julien Cristau (jcris...@debian.org):
> > Please take a look and comment on those. If you think anything is
> > missing please say so.
> >
> Is there any chance we can update the apt-setup debconf templates to
> stop talking about volatile?
As people probably noticed, I haven't managed t
* Otavio Salvador [2011-02-24 18:28]:
> Please preparae and push the respective squeeze branches so we start
> uploading soon.
They should be there already (unless I made a mistake with git).
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 18:10, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Otavio Salvador [2011-02-12 22:46]:
>> I have prepare some branches that has what I am intending to upload to
>> stable-proposed-updates. The modules I have changed are the following:
>
> There are two more updates I'd like to see in 6.0.
* Otavio Salvador [2011-02-12 22:46]:
> I have prepare some branches that has what I am intending to upload to
> stable-proposed-updates. The modules I have changed are the following:
There are two more updates I'd like to see in 6.0.1:
- libdebian-installer: I added a one-liner to recognize a
Julien Cristau writes:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 21:52:53 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
>
>> In short, I know that "volatile" is now named "squeeze-updates"...but
>> how is it called more generically?
>
> 'Urgent bug fixes', or something to that effect?
Timely updates, or (world-)tracking upda
Quoting Philipp Kern (pk...@debian.org):
> Sure. But iso-codes most certainly won't qualify? Also database updates is
> quite a stretch. tzdata, yeah, but the case there's somewhat different.
You're right: it probably won't qualify and point releases are
probably enough.
This discussion still
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:19:23PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> On 02/18/2011 09:02 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 06:33:39AM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> >> Quoting Otavio Salvador (ota...@ossystems.com.br):
> 'Urgent bug fixes', or something to that effect?
> >>> They'
On 02/18/2011 09:02 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 06:33:39AM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
>> Quoting Otavio Salvador (ota...@ossystems.com.br):
'Urgent bug fixes', or something to that effect?
>>> They're not only bug fixes but also database updates and like.
>>> Importa
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 06:33:39AM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Otavio Salvador (ota...@ossystems.com.br):
> > > 'Urgent bug fixes', or something to that effect?
> > They're not only bug fixes but also database updates and like.
> > Important system updates?
> One might argue that they
Quoting Otavio Salvador (ota...@ossystems.com.br):
> > 'Urgent bug fixes', or something to that effect?
>
> They're not only bug fixes but also database updates and like.
>
> Important system updates?
One might argue that they're not important as well (think about the
updates we plan to do for
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 00:41, Joey Hess wrote:
> Julien Cristau wrote:
>> Is there any chance we can update the apt-setup debconf templates to
>> stop talking about volatile?
>
> Since squeeze-updates (volatile) vs squeeze/updates (security)
> are now being seen as confusingly similar names --
>
Julien Cristau wrote:
> Is there any chance we can update the apt-setup debconf templates to
> stop talking about volatile?
Since squeeze-updates (volatile) vs squeeze/updates (security)
are now being seen as confusingly similar names --
And, since this thread demonstrates that we don't have an ag
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 21:02, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 21:52:53 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
>
>> In short, I know that "volatile" is now named "squeeze-updates"...but
>> how is it called more generically?
>>
> 'Urgent bug fixes', or something to that effect?
They're no
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 21:52:53 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> In short, I know that "volatile" is now named "squeeze-updates"...but
> how is it called more generically?
>
'Urgent bug fixes', or something to that effect?
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@li
Quoting Julien Cristau (jcris...@debian.org):
> > Please take a look and comment on those. If you think anything is
> > missing please say so.
> >
> Is there any chance we can update the apt-setup debconf templates to
> stop talking about volatile?
I'm afraid I can't find any good formulation th
Otavio Salvador a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:19, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 22:46:07 +, Otavio Salvador wrote:
...
Is there any chance we can update the apt-setup debconf templates to
stop talking about volatile?
I guess so. It is more a translation issue then
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:19, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 22:46:07 +, Otavio Salvador wrote:
...
> Is there any chance we can update the apt-setup debconf templates to
> stop talking about volatile?
I guess so. It is more a translation issue then a technical one.
Christi
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 22:46:07 +, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I have prepare some branches that has what I am intending to upload to
> stable-proposed-updates. The modules I have changed are the following:
>
> grub-installer
> linux-kernel-di-sparc-2.6
> tasksel
> cdebconf
>
* Otavio Salvador [2011-02-12 22:46]:
> Please take a look and comment on those. If you think anything is
> missing please say so.
I just made a change to linux-kernel-di-armel-2.6 that should be
included too.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-rele
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 20:45, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> I've created a squeeze branch for console-setup branched from the
> version in squeeze with only the change to fix #610843 and pushed this
> branch to the d-i repo.
Thanks by doing that.
Cheers,
--
Otavio Salvador
Hi
Excerpts from Otavio Salvador's message of 2011-02-14 16:47:00 +0100:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 14:51, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > IMHO console-setup should be uploaded as well to fix #610843. AFAIR it
> > was agreed that this is 6.0.1 material when the bug first appeared.
> >
> > If you want
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 19:49, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> My fault. Please take a look.
>
> Just the debconf title fix so far? That looks fine; thanks.
Up to now, yes.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:23 +, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 00:03, Adam D. Barratt
> wrote:
> >> > grub-installer
> >
> > There doesn't appear to be a squeeze branch for this listed on gitweb;
> > for a stable update, the hurd fixes wouldn't be appropriate for
> > instance
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 15:15, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 15:51:50 +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
>
>> IMHO console-setup should be uploaded as well to fix #610843. AFAIR it
>> was agreed that this is 6.0.1 material when the bug first appeared.
>>
>> If you want I can prepare
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 14:51, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> IMHO console-setup should be uploaded as well to fix #610843. AFAIR it
> was agreed that this is 6.0.1 material when the bug first appeared.
>
> If you want I can prepare a branch and upload the fix.
Please prepare the branch so near of 6.0
Excerpts from Otavio Salvador's message of 2011-02-12 23:46:07 +0100:
> Hello folks,
>
> I have prepare some branches that has what I am intending to upload to
> stable-proposed-updates. The modules I have changed are the following:
>
> grub-installer
> linux-kernel-di-sparc-2.6
> tasksel
> cdebc
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 15:51:50 +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> IMHO console-setup should be uploaded as well to fix #610843. AFAIR it
> was agreed that this is 6.0.1 material when the bug first appeared.
>
> If you want I can prepare a branch and upload the fix.
>
It needs to be fixed and tes
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:57, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>>> tasksel
>>
>> I'd prefer to note remove software from packages in stable that users
>> could already expect to get installed. #611951 can wait until wheezy.
>
> I'd say xsane is installed rather *unexpectedly*. Having to save space by
> de
tasksel
I'd prefer to note remove software from packages in stable that users
could already expect to get installed. #611951 can wait until wheezy.
I'd say xsane is installed rather *unexpectedly*. Having to save space
by deleting the release notes and on the other hand installing two
scanni
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 00:03, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 23:13 +, Jurij Smakov wrote:
>> > I have prepare some branches that has what I am intending to upload to
>> > stable-proposed-updates. The modules I have changed are the following:
>
> The below shouldn't be assumed
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 02:52, Joey Hess wrote:
> Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> grub-installer
>
> I don't see a squeeze branch, but assuming it's fixing the debconf title
> bug, all for it.
humm. My bad. I am uploading the branch right now.
>> tasksel
>
> I'd prefer to note remove software from pac
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 23:13, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 10:46:07PM +, Otavio Salvador wrote:
...
>> linux-kernel-di-sparc-2.6
>
> This should probably be uploaded once the update kernel for 6.0.1 is
> available?
Yes. But all kernel udebs will be uploaded again but sparc i
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> grub-installer
I don't see a squeeze branch, but assuming it's fixing the debconf title
bug, all for it.
> tasksel
I'd prefer to note remove software from packages in stable that users
could already expect to get installed. #611951 can wait until wheezy.
Any changes to
On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 23:13 +, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> > I have prepare some branches that has what I am intending to upload to
> > stable-proposed-updates. The modules I have changed are the following:
The below shouldn't be assumed to be an ack or nack for the particular
uploads at this point.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 10:46:07PM +, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I have prepare some branches that has what I am intending to upload to
> stable-proposed-updates. The modules I have changed are the following:
>
> grub-installer
> linux-kernel-di-sparc-2.6
This should probably
Hello folks,
I have prepare some branches that has what I am intending to upload to
stable-proposed-updates. The modules I have changed are the following:
grub-installer
linux-kernel-di-sparc-2.6
tasksel
cdebconf
debootstrap
kernel-wedge
Please take a look and comment on those. If you think anyt
47 matches
Mail list logo
