Hi Martin!
(CC'ing the people who seem to be interested in your decision)
On 2004-06-13 22:46 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Never the less, I think the original question (whether 7.2.4 should be
> accepted for woody) is a good one. If I understood Martin Pitt's
> explanation correctly, the post
On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 22:46 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 08:33:15PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> > > > Can I put the package in stable-proposed-updates anyway?
> > >
> > > I don't think that's productive. It's probably a lot more producti
Martin Pitt wrote:
> > I don't know what the actual policy they apply regarding what kinds
> > of bugfixes can go in such an update looks like; however, if it is
> > (more or less) the same as the one Debian applies to stable updates
> > (i.e., only patches to fix security holes, bugs that make the
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 11:18:51PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 22:46:48 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Never the less, I think the original question (whether 7.2.4 should be
> > accepted for woody) is a good one.
>
> True, though I think a better question would b
Hi!
On 2004-06-13 22:46 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 08:33:15PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Using s-p-u for that would nullify the security update. Please don't do
> > that.
Okay, I won't do this for the moment. But of course I would
incorporate the changes of the
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 22:46:48 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Never the less, I think the original question (whether 7.2.4 should be
> accepted for woody) is a good one.
True, though I think a better question would be a somewhat more generalised
one: are we happy with the current rules for upda
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 08:33:15PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> > > Can I put the package in stable-proposed-updates anyway?
> >
> > I don't think that's productive. It's probably a lot more productive to use
> > your energy to bring the existence of www.backports.or
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> > Can I put the package in stable-proposed-updates anyway?
>
> I don't think that's productive. It's probably a lot more productive to use
> your energy to bring the existence of www.backports.org (which has 7.4.2
> backports available for i386) to the attention of Pos
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 12:42:30 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hi Debian release team!
debian-release is primarily concerned with the next stable release, not with
point releases of the current stable release. In fact the release manager
and his assistents are not responsible for point releases of t
Hi Debian release team!
PostgreSQL's upstream recently complained that Debian users still
complain about errors in 7.2 which were fixed long ago in bugfix
updates. Stable currently has 7.2.1, but there are three point
releases up to 7.2.4 up to now which only contain bug fixes and no new
features
10 matches
Mail list logo
