Hi Adrian,
On 22-03-2023 12:08, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Suggestions for both
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/ReleaseCheckList
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/ReleaseCheckList/BookwormCheckList
They are Wiki's ;). But thanks for discussing it first.
Before the release
Add
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Suggestions for both
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/ReleaseCheckList
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/ReleaseCheckList/BookwormCheckList
Before the release
Add "Notify the LTS team of the new debian-archive-keyring"
On mån, 2008-09-01 at 21:06 +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
- gem: multiple RC bugs with NMU proposal without comment for more
than
two months, but also seems in bad shape from looking at the
non-RC bugs: a segfault unsanswered by the maintainer for
8 months, a new
Andreas Henriksson wrote:
On mån, 2008-09-01 at 21:06 +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
- gem: multiple RC bugs with NMU proposal without comment for more
than
two months, but also seems in bad shape from looking at the
non-RC bugs: a segfault unsanswered by the maintainer for
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Andreas Henriksson wrote:
On mån, 2008-09-01 at 21:06 +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
- gem: multiple RC bugs with NMU proposal without comment for more
than
two months, but also seems in bad shape from looking at the
non-RC bugs: a segfault unsanswered
Hi,
two removal suggestions for lenny:
- awl: initial upload in mid-July, does not properly build from source,
is RC-buggy (#493687).
- gem: multiple RC bugs with NMU proposal without comment for more than
two months, but also seems in bad shape from looking at the
non-RC
On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 21:06 +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi,
two removal suggestions for lenny:
- awl: initial upload in mid-July, does not properly build from source,
is RC-buggy (#493687).
Hi,
I'll fix the bugs in AWL this week but I'm happy for this, since the
point of having
Andrew McMillan wrote:
On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 21:06 +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi,
two removal suggestions for lenny:
- awl: initial upload in mid-July, does not properly build from source,
is RC-buggy (#493687).
Hi,
I'll fix the bugs in AWL this week but I'm happy
I suggest commenting out the KDE/JACK/unixodbc hint for now, since we know
it won't go in for (a) at least two days and (b) until libpng does (barring
gobs of binNMUs), and we further know that it won't give useful information
until then.
Meanwhile, I suggest uncommenting the imlib/libpng hint so
Riku Voipio wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 05:10:05AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
lsh-utils 2.0-1 needed, have 1.4.2-8.2 for CAN-2005-0389
lsh-utils 2.0.1-1 needed, have 1.4.2-8.2 for CAN-2005-0814
(Also has a RC bug though.)
yeah, that doesn't sound like a win yet (though it's
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 09:06:39PM -1000, Joey Hess wrote:
Packages that have a security fix blocked by arm only:
ltris 1.0.6-1.1 needed, have 1.0.6-1 for CAN-2005-0825
racoon 1:0.5-5 needed, have 0.3.3-7 for CAN-2005-0398
Force hints (but not force-hint hints) added. Feel free to do these
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 09:11:46AM +0200, Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 09:06:39PM -1000, Joey Hess wrote:
Packages that are frozen:
netkit-telnet 0.17-28 needed, have 0.17-26 for DSA-697-1
0.17-27 consisted of misc other changes, but
0.17-28 only
Packages that have a security fix blocked by arm only:
ltris 1.0.6-1.1 needed, have 1.0.6-1 for CAN-2005-0825
racoon 1:0.5-5 needed, have 0.3.3-7 for CAN-2005-0398
Packages that are blocked by arm and m68k:
epiphany-browser 1.4.8-2 needed, have 1.4.7-3 for CAN-2005-0238
lsh-utils 2.0-1
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 08:00:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
two suggestions of me.
# ROM, outdated, #274992
remove python-xml-0.6/0.6.6-3
# RC since long time, #188448
remove abuse-sdl/1:0.7.0-1
Hints added.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital
Steve Langasek wrote:
# RC since long time, #188448
remove abuse-sdl/1:0.7.0-1
Hints added.
Another removal suggestion:
With the removal of doomlegacy, doomlegacy-data become superfluous
for sarge. Probably for sid well as well, if no one wants to reupload
a fixed doomlegacy package without
Hi,
two suggestions of me.
# ROM, outdated, #274992
remove python-xml-0.6/0.6.6-3
# RC since long time, #188448
remove abuse-sdl/1:0.7.0-1
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
# 20041011
# changes to 20041010:
# + add dhcping
# + remove mico (conflict bugs have been fixed in other packages)
# + add amavis-stats
# + add bbdate
# + add ccrypt
# changes to 20041009:
# + don't comment thrust out, only rdepends is a meta-package
# which can easily be fixed
# + don't
Updated my virtual hint file
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 02:58:06PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
I've gathered some removal suggestions (where I was unsure if we should
break the depending packages I left the remove hint commented out, so
that one can dump the following list directly
I've gathered some removal suggestions (where I was unsure if we should
break the depending packages I left the remove hint commented out, so
that one can dump the following list directly into a hint file)
# 20041009
# #274950, unclear license situation
# much rdepends: linda, irssi-scripts, tpp
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 02:23:03AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
# RoM: 271051
remove xen/1.2-4.1
# RoM (me): 270461
# (current discussions with the maintainers indicate that the BR is
# valid)
remove lincvs/1.3.2-3
# unusable in its current state: 218497
remove lids-2.4/1.1.1r2-5
Quoting Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 12:52:55PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
remove ccs/0.cvs20040703-2
# see 262925
remove libroxen-gdbmuserauth/1.0-7
remove libroxen-kiwilogger/1.3-4
remove libroxen-roxpoll-doc/1.3-5
remove
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 12:52:55PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
remove ccs/0.cvs20040703-2
# see 262925
remove libroxen-gdbmuserauth/1.0-7
remove libroxen-kiwilogger/1.3-4
remove libroxen-roxpoll-doc/1.3-5
remove libroxen-templatecreator/0.4-5
remove roxen-fonts-iso8859-1/0-6
remove
remove ccs/0.cvs20040703-2
# see 262925
remove libroxen-gdbmuserauth/1.0-7
remove libroxen-kiwilogger/1.3-4
remove libroxen-roxpoll-doc/1.3-5
remove libroxen-templatecreator/0.4-5
remove roxen-fonts-iso8859-1/0-6
remove roxen-fonts-iso8859-2/0-6
# depend all on removed roxen, should be removed or
The following packages should be removed from testing on RoM:
rrdcollect (see #267585)
omlcs (see #269192)
xsim (see #267291)
removal requests filed for unstable
(but perhaps we want to remove them from testing faster)
vis5d
talksoup
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 01:58:36PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
The following packages should be removed from testing on RoM:
rrdcollect (see #267585)
omlcs (see #269192)
xsim (see #267291)
removal requests filed for unstable
(but perhaps we want to remove them from testing faster)
remove doomlegacy/1.41release-1 doomlegacy-data/1.41release-1
# RC bugs, licensing issues
remove jsboard/2.0.4-1.2
# RC bug, the patch seems somewhat dubios to me and requires testing
# we can't provide atm
remove mindterm/1.2.1-10
# See #263362
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Frank Lichtenheld ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040822 00:55]:
remove jsboard/2.0.4-1.2
# RC bug, the patch seems somewhat dubios to me and requires testing
# we can't provide atm
Needs also to remove
jsboard-theme-diary-ko/0.5-1
jsboard-theme-trash-ko/0.5-1
jsboard-theme-aicom-ko/0.5-1
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 12:36:16AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
remove doomlegacy/1.41release-1 doomlegacy-data/1.41release-1
# RC bugs, licensing issues
remove jsboard/2.0.4-1.2
# RC bug, the patch seems somewhat dubios to me and requires testing
# we can't provide atm
remove
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 03:54:52AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
remove roleplaying/2.0-10
RC bug, ITA, but adopter is slow...
remove lush/1.0+cvs.2003.07.15
RC bug, orphaned, upstream issue, long standing.
Both hinted.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
remove roleplaying/2.0-10
RC bug, ITA, but adopter is slow...
remove lush/1.0+cvs.2003.07.15
RC bug, orphaned, upstream issue, long standing.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.djpig.de/
Hi,
a next round of removal suggestions. I'm fairly certain that the
removal suggestion on kdebase will not be taken (and I wouldn't put it
in a file if I could directly enter hints), and also the hint on
libdvdnav is doubtable. Also, please note, that, as always, my removal
suggestions
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# Package: gaim (optional; Robert McQueen)remove gaim/1:0.77-1
# 248867 [ ] gaim: Gaim 0.77 crashes with SIGSEGV when entering
text when using MSN over HTTP method
# no maintainer reaction; no dependencies
remove gaim/1:0.77-1
This bug
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:31:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# Package: gaim (optional; Robert McQueen)remove gaim/1:0.77-1
# 248867 [ ] gaim: Gaim 0.77 crashes with SIGSEGV when entering
text when using MSN over HTTP method
# no
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 06:51:27PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
# Package: pbbuttonsd (optional; Jan-Hendrik Palic)remove
pbbuttonsd/0.5.3a-2
# 244361 [ + ] pbbuttonsd: FTBFS: Cannot find depcomp
# no maintainer reaction
remove pbbuttonsd/0.5.3a-2
# kdeutils has an unsatisfied
Hi,
thanks for adding the hints. I have however one question:
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040614 12:25]:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:09:41AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
# segfaults; report from 2004-03-30
# no maintainer reaction
# depends: axkit-language-htmldoc
#
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:09:41AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
# suggestions from 2004-06-09
# build-dependency disappeared; report from 2004-05-02; no maintainer reaction
# no dependencies
# 246963
remove dchub/0.4.5-2
Hinted.
# security issue; report from 2004-04-27; no maintainer
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-03 01:07]:
# undistributable code in non-free, maintainer doesn't take action
remove 3270/3.2.17-2
remove abc2mtex/1.6.1-5
Should this maybe be removed from unstable then? The same question
basically goes for more or all of the other removal
* Martin Michlmayr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040609 18:10]:
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-03 01:07]:
# undistributable code in non-free, maintainer doesn't take action
remove 3270/3.2.17-2
remove abc2mtex/1.6.1-5
Should this maybe be removed from unstable then? The same question
Hi,
some more removal suggestions. I now put my minimum time frame to 21
days. As usual, I consider my suggestions to be a bit agressive.
# suggestions from 2004-06-09
# build-dependency disappeared; report from 2004-05-02; no maintainer reaction
# no dependencies
# 246963
remove dchub/0.4.5-2
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 01:35:05PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
# undistributable code in non-free, maintainer doesn't take action
remove 3270/3.2.17-2
remove abc2mtex/1.6.1-5
At only 22 days, these are currently below my threshold.
What is your current threshold?
Roughly 30, until
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 01:07:02AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
snip
# FTBFS, first reported on 2002-11-20, no success in fixing till now
remove xemacs21-packages/2003.01.27-1.1
Hint added, but this also seems to require removal of xemacs21 itself.
Thoughts?
Xemacs21
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040606 03:55]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# FTBFS, first reported on 2002-11-20, no success in fixing till now
remove xemacs21-packages/2003.01.27-1.1
Hint added, but this also seems to require removal
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 01:07:02AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
I updated my aggressive removal suggestions. Please tell me if there
are any issues with it, so that I can update them. As I said, these
suggestions are quite aggressive IMHO, and I also picked some packages
up with the intention
Hi,
I updated my aggressive removal suggestions. Please tell me if there
are any issues with it, so that I can update them. As I said, these
suggestions are quite aggressive IMHO, and I also picked some packages
up with the intention: It's just long enough, remove it.
New are also ignore
Hi,
as just promised on IRC, here are some aggressive removal suggestions.
They probably need some re-viewing.
# kernels that have already a newer version in testing:
# ignore d-i kernel-image-2.4.25-s390/2.4.25-2
remove kernel-image-2.4.21-s390/2.4.21-2
# ignore version kernel-patch-2.4.25
with kernel issues too make final
suggestions here (but all of them sound reasonable to me).
I would expect that all of these should be removed from unstable, and
suggest that filing a bug against ftp.debian.org for each requesting its
removal would be better than having then hand-processed
).
Four weeks. Hinted.
And there are many kernel removal suggestions (as RC bugs) for
kernel-headers-2.2.20-sparc
kernel-image-2.2.20-sun4dm-smp
kernel-image-2.4.17-s390
kernel-patch-2.2-lids
kernel-patch-2.2.17-vm-global
kernel-patch-2.2.18-vm-global
kernel-patch-2.2.20-arm
kernel-patch
-release/2004/debian-release-200403/msg00121.html
for a reasoning.
And there are many kernel removal suggestions (as RC bugs) for
kernel-headers-2.2.20-sparc
kernel-image-2.2.20-sun4dm-smp
kernel-image-2.4.17-s390
kernel-patch-2.2-lids
kernel-patch-2.2.17-vm-global
kernel-patch-2.2.18-vm-global
kernel
On Friday 26 March 2004 17.59, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
In the mean time I see Adrian has tagged this bug unreproducible.
Just to make sure nobody misunderstands: I propose downgrading as well, but I
haven't done that as (i) IANADD and (ii) I'm no regular bug-triage/qa
contributor either.
tags 225048 +unreproducible
thanks
On Thursday 25 March 2004 12.28, Pascal Hakim wrote:
[dovecot]
Doesn't this bug only happen in mbox files? You could simply drop mbox
support, it appears to be working fine with maildir (which is how I
suspect how must people are using it (I certainly
Steve Langasek wrote:
= easy lam/7.0.4-2 blacs-mpi/1.1-21 scalapack/1.7-7
python-scientific/2.4.5-2 hdf5/1.6.1-4 netpipe/3.6-1 xmpi/2.2.3b8-3
Lets that whole list in.
Well, this isn't working, apparently, from the big FAILED in
update_output.txt, and I can't tell why from update-output.txt.
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
= remove dovecot/0.99.10.4-3
#225048 (data loss). I know this has been argued, but I still think it's
not right to ship a package with a dataloss bug like this; your mileage may
vary.
My mileage doesn't vary. Package also was not shipped with
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:54:08AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
= remove dovecot/0.99.10.4-3
#225048 (data loss). I know this has been argued, but I still think it's
not right to ship a package with a dataloss bug like this; your mileage
On Thursday 25 March 2004 06.04, Steve Langasek wrote:
= remove sendmail/8.13.11.Beta0-1
#227464. Also #232664
#232664 -- wow, sendmail and uucp, two of my favorite technologies, let
me think about this one. ;p While I see in policy that it states rmail
should be /usr/sbin/rmail, I
On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 16:54, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
= remove dovecot/0.99.10.4-3
#225048 (data loss). I know this has been argued, but I still think it's
not right to ship a package with a dataloss bug like this; your mileage
may
vary.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 11:04:39PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
severity 227464 important
reassign 232664 uucp
I'm reassigning this bug back to uucp. The fact that
mail-transport-agent did correlate with the rmail command in the past
does not seem to impose an obligation on MTA maintainers
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 09:44:35PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
...
| All I can see is that they will become installable in testing ass soon
| as netsaint-plugins enters testing, and netsaint-plugins is waiting for
| PostgreSQL.
You mean nagios-plugins, right?
Yes, my fault.
| What
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:37:15PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Igor Genibel wrote:
Could you explain your motivation about dovecot ?
The upstream seems to be active and aware
( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=225048 )
and the maintainer too ...
The package is up to
Riku Voipio wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:37:15PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Igor Genibel wrote:
Could you explain your motivation about dovecot ?
The upstream seems to be active and aware
( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=225048 )
and the maintainer too ...
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 01:15:55AM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
remove pointless/0.4-3
latex2html transition required, no reaction from maintainer
(#221342)
remove sear-media/0.4.6-1
RoM (#238492)
remove sear/0.4.6-3
RoM (#238493)
All done, thanks.
--
Colin Watson
So, the nagios mess does not look close to being fixed.
The following packages have no installable binaries in 'testing' (except
nagios-nrpe-doc, which seems kind of silly when none of the other packages
are installable.)
remove nagios-nrpe/2.0-2
remove nagios-statd/3.09-3
remove nagios/2:1.1-11
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 06:46:28PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
So, the nagios mess does not look close to being fixed.
The following packages have no installable binaries in 'testing' (except
nagios-nrpe-doc, which seems kind of silly when none of the other packages
are installable.)
Why
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Adrian Bunk wrote:
| On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 06:46:28PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
|
|So, the nagios mess does not look close to being fixed.
|The following packages have no installable binaries in 'testing' (except
|nagios-nrpe-doc, which seems
remove pointless/0.4-3
latex2html transition required, no reaction from maintainer
(#221342)
remove sear-media/0.4.6-1
RoM (#238492)
remove sear/0.4.6-3
RoM (#238493)
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.djpig.de/
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:22:40PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I see that all my earlier suggestions have been dealt with. Cool!
== remove kmusicdb/0.8.2-4
KDE2 dependency, uninstallable.
== remove ksensors/0.7-6
KDE2 dependency, uninstallable.
Hints added for both of the above
Le Saturday 13 March 2004 03:37, Nathanael Nerode a écrit :
I don't think it's reasonable to release the current version, and the bug
has sat at 'grave' since February 11 (a full month) with no visible
progress.
Yes, I agree. I have seen that no cvs commit was done by the upstream since
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le Friday 12 March 2004 02:27, Nathanael Nerode a écrit :
remove dovecot/0.99.10.4-2
#225048 (data loss) and #232832
Could you explain your motivation about dovecot ?
The upstream seems to be active and aware
(
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:27:48PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
remove boot-icons/0.2
Request of the maintainer, a.k.a. bug 235862
Done.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 08:30:35PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Thanks to Riku Voipio for the basis of these suggestions
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-qt-kde/2004/debian-qt-kde-200402/msg00222.html)
These should not really be done immediately; as noted below, there
are two days left
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:57:18AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 08:30:35PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Thanks to Riku Voipio for the basis of these suggestions
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-qt-kde/2004/debian-qt-kde-200402/msg00222.html)
These should not really
Thanks to Riku Voipio for the basis of these suggestions
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-qt-kde/2004/debian-qt-kde-200402/msg00222.html)
These should not really be done immediately; as noted below, there
are two days left to wait even if all these hints are used, including
the impossible 'urgent
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 08:07:40AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Hi,
As I understand it, the maintainer said remove when new hydrogen is
ready, not remove now ...
hydrogen (0.8.0-1 to 0.8.1-2)
Maintainer: Guenter Geiger (Debian/GNU)
23 days old (needed 10 days)
out of
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 08:07:40AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Hi,
As I understand it, the maintainer said remove when new hydrogen is
ready, not remove now ...
hydrogen (0.8.0-1 to 0.8.1-2)
Maintainer: Guenter Geiger (Debian/GNU)
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 01:38:54PM +0100, guenter geiger wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Colin Watson wrote:
I think I misunderstood, actually: libhydrogen can be marked to remove
even if hydrogen isn't ready yet, and it'll go with the rest of the
hint.
But surely libhydrogen simply ought
previous suggestions have all gone in and been successful. :-)
== remove logtrend-visuapache/0.82.2-1
Necessary to remove libgd-perl. (Although, come to think of it, why was
libgd-perl being removed again?)
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
US citizens: if you're considering voting
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 07:50:34AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
== easy python-qt3/3.8-3 sip-qt3/3.8-2 qscintillia/1.2-4
Should work immediately, now that qt-x11-free is in.
Good call. Done.
== remove libhydrogen/0.8.0-4
Needed for jack-audio-connection-kit transition, which holds up a lot
Hi,
As I understand it, the maintainer said remove when new hydrogen is
ready, not remove now ...
hydrogen (0.8.0-1 to 0.8.1-2)
Maintainer: Guenter Geiger (Debian/GNU)
23 days old (needed 10 days)
out of date on mips: hydrogen (from 0.8.0-1)
out of date on mipsel:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 11:07:12AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
== easy petsc/2.1.6-2 illuminator/0.6.9-2
The maintainer is really frustrated that these aren't in yet, after all
his hard work. And they do need to go in together, not one at a time.
According to bjorn.haxx.se, illuminator
Renders all previous editions obsolete. ;-)
== remove ida/0.12
== easy libpcd/1.0.1 fbi/1.28
== easy openmotif/2.2.2-6 motv/3.88-1
ida is the linchpin which makes this such a mess. It's also a contrib extra
package, and version 0.12 is two years out of date.
The other four have been held up
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 11:07:12AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Renders all previous editions obsolete. ;-)
== remove ida/0.12
== easy libpcd/1.0.1 fbi/1.28
== easy openmotif/2.2.2-6 motv/3.88-1
ida is the linchpin which makes this such a mess. It's also a contrib extra
package, and
These hints really should go in ASAP; I'm waiting to see how things work out
on some of the other groups, which still have RC bug issues.
== easy libdumbnet/1.7-3 libevent/0.7c-1 farpd/0.2-4 fragroute/1.2-7
honeyd/0.6a-4.1 labrea/2.5-stable-1 trickle/1.06-4 stegdetect/0.5-5
This should
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 08:52:53PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
These hints really should go in ASAP; I'm waiting to see how things
work out on some of the other groups, which still have RC bug issues.
== easy libdumbnet/1.7-3 libevent/0.7c-1 farpd/0.2-4 fragroute/1.2-7
AJ, thanks for the pointer to
http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/README; I'd never seen it
before, because it isn't linked to by anything.
==? reassign bug 224599 (and mergee 224602) to nvidia-glx or something
These are known not to be bugs in the python-qt3 package. The
maintainer
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 02:01:34AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
==? Ignore RC bugs for kdebase/4:3.1.4-1
Neither of the RC bugs are present in sid (only in woody); it seems to
be a failing of the current 'testing' scripts that they don't recognize
this, given that both bugs are tagged
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 02:01:34AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
==? Ignore RC bugs for kdebase/4:3.1.4-1
Neither of the RC bugs are present in sid (only in woody); it seems to
be a failing of the current 'testing' scripts that they don't recognize
this, given that both bugs are tagged
== remove rocks-n-diamonds/2.0.0-0.2
May not be distributable; see bug #210233
== remove mindi-kernel/1.0-1
No source; see bug #217160
== remove kernel-image-3.4.18-i386bf
Boot-floppies image, useless in sarge
== remove iraf/2.11.3-2
FTBFS, major FHS violation, binary with same name as one in
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
== remove kernel-image-3.4.18-i386bf
Boot-floppies image, useless in sarge
3.4-2.4? :)
--
bye Joerg
elmo [..] trying to avoid extra dependencies on gnumeric is like trying to
plug one hole in the titantic with a bit of tissue paper
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 02:01:34AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Some comments:
==? Ignore RC bugs for kdebase/4:3.1.4-1
Neither of the RC bugs are present in sid (only in woody); it seems to
be a failing of the current 'testing' scripts that they don't recognize
this, given that both
Woo-hoo; beautiful hinting. :-) Nice to see zlib in.
Looks like s390, arm, and sparc were put on the out-of-date architecture
list, right?
Lots of stuff should start going in automatically, such as apache.
--
So, it's time to hint mozilla in together with its locale packages.
I have been
considering reformatting your mails so your suggestions are
more obvious? eg by writing them as:
] == remove orp-classpath/1:0.02.1-3
] Not updated since stable, depends on orp which is trying to be removed.
ie, a highlighted line appropriate for a hints file, followed by the
justification for that hint
OK, I'm trying to figure out the holdups with this. So much depends on libxml2
that it seems worth removing a few things from 'testing' to get it in ASAP.
rubrica
---
Ties the whole thing into the python2.3 transition.
Suggestion: Remove from testing temporarily to allow these transitions
to
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 01:48:19PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
OK, I'm trying to figure out the holdups with this. So much depends on
libxml2
that it seems worth removing a few things from 'testing' to get it in ASAP.
rubrica
---
Ties the whole thing into the python2.3 transition.
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 01:48:19PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
OK, I'm trying to figure out the holdups with this. So much depends on
libxml2
that it seems worth removing a few things from 'testing' to get it in ASAP.
rubrica
---
I don't think this is a problem any more. The
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 11:16:03PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Steve Langasek writes:
whether it will happen before python2.3 is ready in its own right. The
python2.3 transition is probably a little over 10 days out at this
point.
why 10 days? are these packages entering unstable from
Steve Langasek writes:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 11:16:03PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Steve Langasek writes:
whether it will happen before python2.3 is ready in its own right. The
python2.3 transition is probably a little over 10 days out at this
point.
why 10 days? are these
95 matches
Mail list logo
