Last week I started a discussion[1] to find out the current status of key
management in Secure APT which is a release goal for etch and said to
be included in the next release of Debian. I don't find the situation
terribly promising, though, but here's a summary, so we may come to a
solution some
Marc Haber wrote:
(2) Update exim3 with the warning message in sarge via s-p-u and a
point release.
If this is a required step upon the upgrade/removal, then your path
is flawed. You cannot expect all users who upgrade from sarge to
etch to have the most recent updates installed. There
Joey: Thanks for the Bcc.
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 12:56:26PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
The way he envisions key management is that every Debian machine
trusts the SPI CA. Debian should provide a webpage for downloading
and verifying keys, protected by SSL/TLS. The use would require
I
also sprach Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2006.07.30.1408 +0100]:
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 12:56:26PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
The way he envisions key management is that every Debian machine
trusts the SPI CA. Debian should provide a webpage for downloading
and verifying keys,
(CC'ing the maintainers)
Dear Release Managers,
the last upload of directfb made libsdl uninstallable on all archs,
blocking many otherwise unrelated packages. I just did a testbuild of
libsdl1.2 in my amd64 chroot. The test showed that this gets the
binaries correct dependencies on
Btw, this is http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=380315
Greetings,
Reinhard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday 30 July 2006 16:50, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
the last upload of directfb made libsdl uninstallable on all archs,
blocking many otherwise unrelated packages. I just did a testbuild of
libsdl1.2 in my amd64 chroot. The test showed that this gets the
binaries correct dependencies on
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Btw, this is http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=380315
There are no bug reports needed if binNMUs fix the problem. I already
asked for binNMUs for libsdl1.2 yesterday, btw...
Cheers
Luk
--
Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key
Frans Pop wrote:
On Sunday 30 July 2006 16:50, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
the last upload of directfb made libsdl uninstallable on all archs,
blocking many otherwise unrelated packages. I just did a testbuild of
libsdl1.2 in my amd64 chroot. The test showed that this gets the
binaries correct
Here's the status of the lkdi rebuilds for 3.1r3.
l-k-di-${arch}: accepted into stable (no rebuild necessary)
l-k-di-amd64-2.6: build available in gluck:~dannf/3.1r3-lkdi-rebuilds
amd64 guys: should i upload this somewhere?
l-k-di-m68k-2.6: porter poked for update
On Sunday 30 July 2006 21:00, dann frazier wrote:
Here's the status of the lkdi rebuilds for 3.1r3.
Thanks Dann.
l-k-di-amd64-2.6: build available in gluck:~dannf/3.1r3-lkdi-rebuilds
amd64 guys: should i upload this somewhere?
They should preferably end up in:
On Sunday 30 July 2006 21:00, dann frazier wrote:
Here's the status of the lkdi rebuilds for 3.1r3.
Now that we are really getting closer, I propose to upload base-installer
to stable (proposed-updates) so it can be autobuilt.
The reason it needs to be updated is that otherwise kernel selection
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 02:08:23PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Marc Haber wrote:
(2) Update exim3 with the warning message in sarge via s-p-u and a
point release.
If this is a required step upon the upgrade/removal, then your path
is flawed.
No, it is not requied, but an additional
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 02:39:28PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
is it ok to have temporary packages for oot-modules build against kernel
2.6.16 (temporary as in 'as soon as waldi has his linux-modules-extra
ready)? squashfs and unionfs can't go into testing without dropping
archs atm,
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
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 10:36:24AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2006-07-20 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 11:02:49AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
could you trigger BinNMUs for the following library packages as they are
still linking against libtasn1-2?
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 06:14:23PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
The only version of libsilc-1.0-2-dev in the archive seems to be
0.9.12-4.2, so the versioned build-dependency makes silky unbuildable.
I just uploaded 0.9.12-4.3 which fix #331630.
So a binNMU of silky should fix #333907.
18 matches
Mail list logo
