Here is a me too. from the 30th of January 2010, logging on a bunch of networks
including freenode (irc.ubuntu.com) no longer works correctly with the version
of irssi shipped in 8.04lts (0.8.12), which is fixed in 0.8.14.
This version is available in Karmic:
FTR, the package depends on packages with higher versions (why, i'm not
exactly sure - upstreams tarball doesn't depend on those versions).
# dpkg -i irssi_0.8.14-1ubuntu1_i386.deb
Selecting previously deselected package irssi.
(Reading database ... 10121 files and directories currently
I'd be fine with approving the backport as-is due to the launchpad
incompatible usecase, but are we also interested in backporting the most
popular bzr plugins (i.e bzrtools?) as well?
--
Please backport bzr 2.0.2 from karmic-updates
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302987
You received this bug
ACK from backports team.
** Changed in: karmic-backports
Status: Confirmed = In Progress
--
Please backport lintian 2.3.1ubuntu1
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/504512
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is the registrant for Karmic
Now that firefox-3.5 is stable and released in Karmic - would it be less
risky to add to hardy-backports?
--
Please backport firefox-3.5
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/395167
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is subscribed to
@clayg
Firefox 3.6 will be backported to hardy sometime soon. Until then, you can get
it here:
https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/firefox-stable
--
Please backport firefox-3.5
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/395167
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
On 8 February 2010 16:17, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.dk wrote:
I've been running 2.0.2 on my hardy server for a while, no problems
detected. I've attached a debdiff, default format is set to pack-0.92
which is the default for hardy, please review.
I have some real qualms about changing the
On 9 February 2010 04:18, John Dong jd...@johndong.com wrote:
I'd be fine with approving the backport as-is due to the launchpad
incompatible usecase, but are we also interested in backporting the most
popular bzr plugins (i.e bzrtools?) as well?
Yes, it would be good to take them all from
