Il giorno 25/ago/2010, alle ore 07.06, Amos Jeffries ha scritto:
> Luigi Gangitano wrote:
>> Il giorno 17/ago/2010, alle ore 09.17, Amos Jeffries ha scritto:
>>> Luigi Gangitano wrote:
In the meanwhile the next debian release has been fixed, so I'm now trying
to push 3.1.6 to it. :-(
>
Luigi Gangitano wrote:
Il giorno 17/ago/2010, alle ore 09.17, Amos Jeffries ha scritto:
Luigi Gangitano wrote:
In the meanwhile the next debian release has been fixed, so I'm now trying to
push 3.1.6 to it. :-(
Sorry should have pointed this out to you end of last week:
http://www.squid-cach
Il giorno 17/ago/2010, alle ore 09.17, Amos Jeffries ha scritto:
> Luigi Gangitano wrote:
>>
>> In the meanwhile the next debian release has been fixed, so I'm now trying
>> to push 3.1.6 to it. :-(
>
> Sorry should have pointed this out to you end of last week:
> http://www.squid-cache.org/Ve
Luigi Gangitano wrote:
Il giorno 28/lug/2010, alle ore 11.43, Amos Jeffries ha scritto:
Luigi Gangitano wrote:
Il giorno 20/lug/2010, alle ore 02.40, Amos Jeffries ha scritto:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:17:20 +0200, Luigi Gangitano
wrote:
Sorry again for bothering you, guys, but next debian rel
Luigi Gangitano wrote:
Il giorno 28/lug/2010, alle ore 11.43, Amos Jeffries ha scritto:
Luigi Gangitano wrote:
Il giorno 20/lug/2010, alle ore 02.40, Amos Jeffries ha scritto:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:17:20 +0200, Luigi Gangitano
wrote:
Sorry again for bothering you, guys, but next debian rel
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 20:30:41 +0200, Luigi Gangitano
wrote:
> Il giorno 28/lug/2010, alle ore 11.43, Amos Jeffries ha scritto:
>
>> Luigi Gangitano wrote:
>>> Il giorno 20/lug/2010, alle ore 02.40, Amos Jeffries ha scritto:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:17:20 +0200, Luigi Gangitano
wrote:
>
Il giorno 28/lug/2010, alle ore 11.43, Amos Jeffries ha scritto:
> Luigi Gangitano wrote:
>> Il giorno 20/lug/2010, alle ore 02.40, Amos Jeffries ha scritto:
>>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:17:20 +0200, Luigi Gangitano
>>> wrote:
Sorry again for bothering you, guys, but next debian release will
Luigi Gangitano wrote:
Il giorno 20/lug/2010, alle ore 02.40, Amos Jeffries ha scritto:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:17:20 +0200, Luigi Gangitano
wrote:
Sorry again for bothering you, guys, but next debian release will ship
with 3.1.3 (and all of it's bugs) if I can't fix this on alpha.
Debian pol
Il giorno 20/lug/2010, alle ore 02.40, Amos Jeffries ha scritto:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:17:20 +0200, Luigi Gangitano
> wrote:
>> Sorry again for bothering you, guys, but next debian release will ship
>> with 3.1.3 (and all of it's bugs) if I can't fix this on alpha.
>>
>> Debian policy states
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:17:20 +0200, Luigi Gangitano
wrote:
> Sorry again for bothering you, guys, but next debian release will ship
> with 3.1.3 (and all of it's bugs) if I can't fix this on alpha.
>
> Debian policy states that building result should not depend on
> build-machine configuration (a
Sorry again for bothering you, guys, but next debian release will ship with
3.1.3 (and all of it's bugs) if I can't fix this on alpha.
Debian policy states that building result should not depend on build-machine
configuration (and enabling ipv6 locally is considered so) and build-machine
admins
Sorry for resuming this old thread, but:
Il giorno 27/mag/2010, alle ore 03.16, Amos Jeffries ha scritto:
> We hit a v6 "bug" in Debian and Ubuntu where the package failed to have
> explicit --enable-ipv6 and one of the 15 or so package build hosts had broken
> v6 support. This resulted in some
tor 2010-05-27 klockan 13:16 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
> Auto-enable is great for encouraging feature use in self-builds, but for
> distros its just added work for the downstream maintainers.
Well, things like IPv6 is auto-enable in most packages now, not just
Squid.
But I have expressed this
> The embeded use-case is only half the pro list. Whats bumped it up to being
> worth mentioning was this case:
>
> We hit a v6 "bug" in Debian and Ubuntu where the package failed to have
> explicit --enable-ipv6 and one of the 15 or so package build hosts had
> broken v6 support. This resulted in
Henrik Nordström wrote:
ons 2010-05-26 klockan 21:43 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
I was hoping that after your autoconf rework it would become a simple
matter of making the initial default setting for most option tests a
simple variable assignment of the value (auto or no) as set by this option.
ons 2010-05-26 klockan 21:43 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
> I was hoping that after your autoconf rework it would become a simple
> matter of making the initial default setting for most option tests a
> simple variable assignment of the value (auto or no) as set by this option.
Not sure it matter
> I was hoping that after your autoconf rework it would become a simple matter
> of making the initial default setting for most option tests a simple
> variable assignment of the value (auto or no) as set by this option.
It will be certainly simpler, but it is one more conditional to
account for f
Kinkie wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
It would be nice for people attempting to build a minimal Squid for embeded
systems and also for some maintainers who want complete control over what
features are enabled.
At present they must identify each feature being auto
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> It would be nice for people attempting to build a minimal Squid for embeded
> systems and also for some maintainers who want complete control over what
> features are enabled.
>
> At present they must identify each feature being auto-enabled
It would be nice for people attempting to build a minimal Squid for
embeded systems and also for some maintainers who want complete control
over what features are enabled.
At present they must identify each feature being auto-enabled and
manually disable them.
What I propose is a configure o
20 matches
Mail list logo
