Re: unblock request: mdadm 2.6.9-3

2009-07-14 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Don Armstrong [2009.07.14.1125 +0200]: > > Hm, so the BTS pays attention to changelog stanza order (which is > > chronological) > > It's not necessarily chronological. It was in this case. > If you're uploading experimental packages, the penultimate version > should either be the pr

Re: unblock request: mdadm 2.6.9-3

2009-07-14 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Adam D. Barratt [2009.07.14.1020 +0200]: > Not quite. It needs to be marked as /fixed/ in 2.6.9-3, rather than > "notfound". > > "notfound" simply removes the version from the list of versions in > which the bug has been explicitly marked as present; it has no effect > on the changel

Re: unblock request: mdadm 2.6.9-3

2009-07-14 Thread Don Armstrong
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, martin f krafft wrote: > Hm, so the BTS pays attention to changelog stanza order (which is > chronological) It's not necessarily chronological. > without differentiating between experimental and unstable? Sort of. See http://wiki.debian.org/BugsVersionTracking part two. In

Re: unblock request: mdadm 2.6.9-3

2009-07-14 Thread Adam D. Barratt
martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Adam D. Barratt [2009.07.13.1938 +0200]: Looking more closely, the reason it's not migrating is that the changelog has made the BTS believe that mdadm 2.6.9-3 is a descendent of 3.0~devel3-1, and thus affected by #526806. [...] Thanks for spotting this. I ho

Re: unblock request: mdadm 2.6.9-3

2009-07-13 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Adam D. Barratt [2009.07.13.1938 +0200]: > Looking more closely, the reason it's not migrating is that the > changelog has made the BTS believe that mdadm 2.6.9-3 is > a descendent of 3.0~devel3-1, and thus affected by #526806. Hm, so the BTS pays attention to changelog stanza order (

Re: unblock request: mdadm 2.6.9-3

2009-07-13 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 19:19 +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > Otavio Salvador wrote: > > martin f krafft writes: > > > >> Please unblock mdadm 2.6.9-3 to that I can move 3.0 into unstable. > > > > Ack > > Already unblocked since May 26th ... Looking more closely, the reason it's not migrating is that

Re: unblock request: mdadm 2.6.9-3

2009-07-13 Thread Luk Claes
Otavio Salvador wrote: > martin f krafft writes: > >> Please unblock mdadm 2.6.9-3 to that I can move 3.0 into unstable. > > Ack Already unblocked since May 26th ... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contac

Re: unblock request: mdadm 2.6.9-3

2009-07-13 Thread Otavio Salvador
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 martin f krafft writes: > Please unblock mdadm 2.6.9-3 to that I can move 3.0 into unstable. Ack - -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - - E-mail: ota...@debian.org UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux Us

unblock request: mdadm 2.6.9-3

2009-07-12 Thread martin f krafft
Please unblock mdadm 2.6.9-3 to that I can move 3.0 into unstable. -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better thing

Re: unblock request: mdadm 2.6.9-3

2009-05-26 Thread Luk Claes
martin f krafft wrote: > ... has been in testing for 20 days. Should not affect d-i. unblocked cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

unblock request: mdadm 2.6.9-3

2009-05-26 Thread martin f krafft
... has been in testing for 20 days. Should not affect d-i. mdadm (2.6.9-3) unstable; urgency=low * Fix the multipath prereq patch (#516605) and make it exit after printing the prerequisites (closes: #526793). * Change my previous recommendation for postfix over to the new virtual