It looks like this bug requests a backport from Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic
Koala). However, as Karmick is no longer supported, such a backport is
no longer possible.
This bug is being set to Won't Fix. If you would still like to move
forward with this backport request, please re-open the bug and adjust
** Changed in: bzr (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete = Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is the registrant for Intrepid Ibex Backports.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302987
Title:
Please backport bzr 2.0.2 from
** Changed in: jaunty-backports
Status: New = Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is the registrant for Intrepid Ibex Backports.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302987
Title:
Please backport bzr 2.0.2 from karmic-updates
Is this meant to have an unending open bzr (Ubuntu) bugtask? I'm marking
it incomplete because it doesn't seem relevant here. If we want to
nominate specific releases, that seems good, but a generic one isn't
worthwhile.
** Changed in: bzr (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Incomplete
--
You
Intrepid - EOL
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
** Changed in: intrepid-backports
Status: New = Invalid
--
Please backport bzr 2.0.2 from karmic-updates
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302987
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team,
@jdong I don't know much about the backports infrastructure, but isn't
there something that could automatically try to rebuild them from
karmic-updates (or lucid-updates) into hardy?
--
Please backport bzr 2.0.2 from karmic-updates
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302987
You received this bug
Fortunately bzr fails in a reasonable manner (for the most part) when an
incompatible plugin exists. But yeah, I'd like to take more of the
plugins from karmic-updates. Ideally in future Ubuntu packaging (I
didn't check if it's already the case), that the plugin packages have
specific enough
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
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
** Description changed:
bzr 2.0.2 is a large improvement over the 1.x features shipped in
earlier releases, and includes supports for the 2a repository format
used for ubuntu distributed development and many other branches.
2.0.2 has passed through the SRU process into karmic-updates.
** Changed in: hardy-backports
Assignee: (unassigned) = Morten Kjeldgaard (mok0)
--
Please backport bzr 2.0.2 from karmic-updates
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302987
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is subscribed to Hardy
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.
** Attachment added: bzr-2.0.2-hardy.debdiff
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/38878361/bzr-2.0.2-hardy.debdiff
13 matches
Mail list logo
