On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:37:24 +
Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 20/10/14 01:09, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > The new isc-dhcp is now uploaded. Please let me know how your testing goes.
>
> After the upload of bind9/1:9.9.5.dfsg-5, this does seem to be working
> well now in sid d-i. Thanks.
Ju
On 20/10/14 01:09, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> The new isc-dhcp is now uploaded. Please let me know how your testing goes.
After the upload of bind9/1:9.9.5.dfsg-5, this does seem to be working
well now in sid d-i. Thanks.
Regards,
--
Steven Chamberlain
ste...@pyro.eu.org
signature.asc
Descrip
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 00:52, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>> Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> > Would it be ok to stage the changes in unstable to make it somewhat
>> > easy for porters to test?
>>
>> I don't particularly need that as I can build the udebs and d-i ima
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 00:52, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>> Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> > Would it be ok to stage the changes in unstable to make it somewhat
>> > easy for porters to test?
>>
>> I don't particularly need that as I can build the udebs and d-i ima
On 00:52, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > Would it be ok to stage the changes in unstable to make it somewhat
> > easy for porters to test?
>
> I don't particularly need that as I can build the udebs and d-i image
> from them myself. But doing so would allow others to be te
Steven Chamberlain (2014-10-07):
> I will try to find time to do this. Probably it is desirable, because
> it should reduce the overall size of udebs in the installer ramdisks?
I'm not sure how moving from an embedded code copy to shared libraries
across several udebs but used by a single udeb i
Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > I'm not going to go through building this on a kfreebsd porterbox to try
> > and figure out how isc-dhcp would look if rebuilt against such packages,
> > but that looks a saner base for porters to build upon.
> >
>
Michael Gilbert (2014-10-05):
> Would it be ok to stage the changes in unstable to make it somewhat
> easy for porters to test?
Since D-I Jessie Beta 2 is out I can't think of a reason why that
wouldn't be a good idea.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> I'm not going to go through building this on a kfreebsd porterbox to try
> and figure out how isc-dhcp would look if rebuilt against such packages,
> but that looks a saner base for porters to build upon.
>
> That doesn't make the timing issu
Michael Gilbert (2014-10-05):
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > If parallel building worked before you changed things, you get to fix
> > the issues rather than working around them. bind9 is a pain to build,
> > so having to deal with a forced -j1 is a nasty regression.
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Michael Gilbert (2014-10-05):
>> Dear hurd and kfreebsd porters. I plan to upload the attached patch,
>> which along with the previous upload introduces a bind udeb, which
>> will be dynamically linked by the dhcp udeb. Please let me know
Michael Gilbert (2014-10-05):
> Dear hurd and kfreebsd porters. I plan to upload the attached patch,
> which along with the previous upload introduces a bind udeb, which
> will be dynamically linked by the dhcp udeb. Please let me know if
> this looks ok.
NAK.
> +bind9 (1:9.9.5.dfsg-4.2) unsta
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> AFAICT isc-dhcp is only used on non-linux archs, through that part of
> Depends:
> isc-dhcp-client-udeb [kfreebsd-any hurd-any]
>
> You definitely want to get porters involved in checking the resulting
> udebs, and I've therefore added the
Michael Gilbert (2014-10-02):
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >> I've uploaded an nmu fixing the issues revealed by the previous nmu to
> >> delayed/5. Please let me know if I should delay longer. See attached
> >> patch.
> >
> > The udeb handling is crazy.
>
> Please
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> I've uploaded an nmu fixing the issues revealed by the previous nmu to
>> delayed/5. Please let me know if I should delay longer. See attached
>> patch.
>
> The udeb handling is crazy.
Please clearly describe what is actually wrong and I'
Michael Gilbert (2014-09-28):
> control: tag -1 patch, pending
>
> Hi,
>
> I've uploaded an nmu fixing the issues revealed by the previous nmu to
> delayed/5. Please let me know if I should delay longer. See attached
> patch.
The udeb handling is crazy.
Also, please explain why you're still k
16 matches
Mail list logo
