On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 14:16 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> So, it's not always a purely technical decision whether a port
> remains a release architecture. It's also often highly political and
> somehow also influenced by commercial entities.
Please don't make implications like that unl
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 11:44 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Adam D. Barratt
> wrote:
>
> > > what is the reason why that package is not moving forward?
> >
> > I assume you're referring to the dpkg upl
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 10:20 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> debian-riscv has been repeatedly asking for a single zero-impact
> line
> to be included in *one* file in *one* dpkg-related package which
> would
> allow riscv to stop being a NMU architecture and become part of
> debi
On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 19:04 +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> As for "porter qualification"
> =
>
> We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the
> roll call for sparc and we kept sparc as a release architecture for
> Jessie. However, we ended up wit
On 2015-10-23 13:28, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
[...]
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
It's also not quite that simple, even working things out by hand - see
#599128
for example.
Hm, I’m still under the impression that the +bN suffix to the Debian
version of the package i
On 2015-10-23 12:02, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
wanna-build does, yes, but at least the Release Team tend to use the
"wb"
wrapper tool which automatically works out the next free number on
each
architecture.
Ah, cool – so we have only to
On 2015-10-23 11:56, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
I didn't say once per arch. I said once per package, which is worse. I
normally
schedule binNMUs for several dozens packages. Multiply that by several
But you need to look the number up anyway? The
On 2015-03-10 12:38, Christoph Egger wrote:
Ansgar and me have been discussing the archive setup for
jessie-kfreebsd yesterday. Basically there's going to be a
jessie-kfreebsd and jessie-p-u-kfreebsd thing on ftp-master where the
jessie-p-u-kfreebsd automatically pulls in new uploads from jessi
On 2014-11-10 7:05, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi Steven,
On 10/11/2014 10:15 AM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
We discussed kfreebsd at length, but are not satisfied that a
release with Jessie will be of sufficient quality. W
On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 13:16 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 12/10/14 02:00, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > kfreebsd-kernel-headers >= 10.1~ adds a sys/counter.h, used in various
> > places including net/route.h. It requires a kernel type uint64_t
> > (from sys/kglue/sys/types.h) without which
On 2014-07-10 12:38, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
On 10/07/14 09:07, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
That package is not marked as auto-buildable, which means it doesn't
build on
the Debian buildds and thus it can't be binNMUed. So you'll have to
upload it
manually, or ask the wanna-build team to m
On Sat, 2014-05-31 at 00:42 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 30/05/14 17:57, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > On 16:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >> Just a reminder: there are still various things depending on the removed
> >> packages, preventing things from migrating to testing.
> >
Control: tags -1 + pending
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 22:12 +, Robert Millan wrote:
> Adam D. Barratt:
> >Please feel free to upload; the package will then be
> > processed after the point release.
>
> Fine. Thank you!
Flagged for acceptance; thanks.
Regards,
Adam
--
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 22:12 +, Robert Millan wrote:
> Adam D. Barratt:
> >>> In that case, the status of that package needs clarifying. Releasing .5
> >>> via p-u if .4 is then going to appear via security doesn't really work.
> >>
> >> .4 jus
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 20:58 +, Robert Millan wrote:
> Adam D. Barratt:
> >> There is a 9.0-10+deb70.4 upload in Secre^WSecurity Team's queue since
> >> 23 days ago but I've no idea the status if this. [rt.debian.org #4671]
>
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 20:00 +, Robert Millan wrote:
> Adam D. Barratt:
> >> I guess this part will require manual handling by -release? (CCing)
> >>
> >> Otherwise we'd have to make those packages kfreebsd-any...
> >
> > It'd need a forc
On 2013-10-07 14:08, Robert Millan wrote:
Steven Chamberlain:
http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=kfreebsd-9
Updating kfreebsd-9 makes 5 non-depending packages uninstallable on
i386: cuse4bsd-dkms, fuse4bsd-dkms, kfreebsd-headers-486,
kfreebsd-headers-686, kfreebsd-headers-xe
On 2013-10-01 11:53, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
Is it going to be a problem that testing still has only
1.99-27+deb7u1
and this stable pu has higher version number? What will happen;
must
it be copied to testing first as part of the point release process?
If testing still has +deb7u1 at the
On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 21:59 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 02/08/13 21:47, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Meh, looks like something went wrong with the BTS. Not sure what, but
> > it turns out 9.1-2 migrated to testing today, despite having RC bugs
> > in it :-(
>
> Yes that's odd, freebsd-utils/
Control: tags -1 + pending
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 01:13 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> 2013/7/1 Adam D. Barratt :
> > Thanks; please go ahead.
>
> Uploaded. Thank you.
and flagged for acceptance.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
wi
Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 19:39 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> 2013/6/29 Adam D. Barratt :
> > grub2 (1.99-27.1) unstable; urgency=medium
> >
> > Hmmm, this looks to have been based on the wrong version? wheezy has
> > 1.99-27+deb7u1
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo wheezy
On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 01:09 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Version of grub currently in wheezy could break bootability when
> kernel is upgraded to 9.1. This will become specially relevant for
> upgrade path when jessie is released.
+grub2 (1.99-27.1+deb7u1) UNRE
On 2013-06-20 0:25, Robert Millan wrote:
+kfreebsd-downloader (9.0-3+deb70.1) stable; urgency=low
+
+ * Switch to people.debian.org URL for kernel.txz download.
+(Closes: #712816)
Out of interest, where did you get the version scheme "+deb70.1" from?
I don't think I've seen that one befor
Control: tags -1 + pending
On Sun, 2013-05-26 at 11:53 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 17:19 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > > "Adam D. Barratt" writes:
> > >> The version needs to be lower than that in testing, so either -10+deb7u
Control: tags - 1 + confirmed
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 17:19 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > "Adam D. Barratt" writes:
> >> The version needs to be lower than that in testing, so either -10+deb7u1
> >> or -11~deb7u1.
>
> I think we'll go with the l
On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 23:05 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Adam D. Barratt:
>
> > On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 22:20 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Steven Chamberlain:
> >> > I notice a problem though when this was (I think - I'm unsure of the
> >>
On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 22:20 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Steven Chamberlain:
> > I notice a problem though when this was (I think - I'm unsure of the
> > security team's processes here) copied to the main archive, probably so
> > that it can be included in stable-proposed-updates:
>
> Thanks f
On Sun, 2013-05-12 at 18:50 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> This went into sid with version 9.0+ds1-11 and has migrated to jessie.
>
> For a pu upload, would the version number have to be 9.0+ds1-11+deb7u1 ?
The version needs to be lower than that in testing, so either -10+deb7u1
or -11~deb7u1
user release.debian@packages.debian.org
usertags 706414 + wheezy-can-defer
tags 706414 + wheezy-ignore
thanks
On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 23:53 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> I've applied upstream's patch in SVN, I'm running it now on my NFS
> server and seems okay.
>
> Christoph, would you be
On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 17:17 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le jeudi, 18 avril 2013 12.55:09, Steven Chamberlain a écrit :
> > It would be really helpful if you are able to test again with pulseaudio
> > (+ libpulse0) patched with:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=20;filena
Package: freebsd-glue
Version: 0.0.2
Severity: serious
Tags: wheezy sid
Hi,
The recent freebsd-glue upload added a "Breaks: freebsd-buildutils (<<
9.0-10)". However, most architectures only have 9.0-9 and as
freebsd-buildutils Build-Depends on freebsd-glue on !kfreebsd-any, -10
is currently comp
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 13:38 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> The table seems to be missing portbox: io
> As KiBi mentioned they porter boxes are not administered by DSA *yet*.
Thanks to DSA, this is no longer the case - falla and fischer now exist.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi,
Thanks for the quick response.
On 16.05.2012 13:38, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
The table seems to be missing portbox: io
aiui, io's still down to all intents and purposes; if that's correct
then it doesn't really qualify as a porterbox right now.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
Hi,
With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release
architectures for the Wheezy release.
Comments on / additions and corrections to the content of
http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html wou
Hi,
With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release
architectures for the Wheezy release.
Comments on / additions and corrections to the content of
http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html wou
On 03.03.2012 16:19, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
out of date on kfreebsd-amd64: libcam0, libsbuf0, libsbuf0-udeb,
libusb2, libusb2-udeb, libusbhid4 (from 8.3~svn229725-3)
out of date on kfreebsd-i386: libcam0, libsbuf0, libsbuf0-udeb,
libusb2, libusb2-udeb, libusbhid4 (from 8.3~svn229725-3
On 03.03.2012 16:07, Robert Millan wrote:
AFAICS the only remaining issues are:
freebsd-buildutils is only 8 days old. It must be 10 days old to
go in.
kfreebsd-kernel-headers is only 4 days old. It must be 10 days
old
to go in.
Well, there's also freebsd-utils (5/10 days) and:
tag 660403 + pending
thanks
On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 23:06 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 18:59 -0300, Rogério Brito wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 18:07, Adam D. Barratt
> > wrote:
> > > The packages which have not been successfu
On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 18:59 -0300, Rogério Brito wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 18:07, Adam D. Barratt
> wrote:
> > The packages which have not been successfully rebuilt thus far are:
> >
> > - cdparanoia - maintainers, are there plans for an upload to resolve
> &g
On Sun, 2012-02-26 at 11:08 +, Robert Millan wrote:
> Btw, would a new freebsd-libs upload disrupt anything? A fix for
> #661274 is required, although this isn't a transition blocker AFAICT.
That rather depends on how long we think it's likely to take to get the
rest of the transition done, an
On 25.02.2012 16:03, Rogério Brito wrote:
Hi there.
On Feb 25 2012, Robert Millan wrote:
El 25 de febrer de 2012 13:46, Adam D. Barratt
ha escrit:
> On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 12:20 +, Robert Millan wrote:
>> 660403: cdparanoia: FTFBS on kfreebsd-*
>> -> Unless there&#x
tag 660403 + patch
thanks
On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 16:19 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> However, the build failure doesn't look like it's unfixable
> (or incredibly hard to fix), so I imagine they'd suggest fixing the bug
> instead; it's certainly what I'd suggest
On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 16:19 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> However, the build failure doesn't look like it's unfixable
> (or incredibly hard to fix), so I imagine they'd suggest fixing the bug
> instead; it's certainly what I'd suggest.
Specifically, all of the
On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 15:44 +, Robert Millan wrote:
> El 25 de febrer de 2012 13:46, Adam D. Barratt
> ha escrit:
> > On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 12:20 +, Robert Millan wrote:
> >> 660403: cdparanoia: FTFBS on kfreebsd-*
> >> -> Unless there's further act
On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 12:20 +, Robert Millan wrote:
> 660403: cdparanoia: FTFBS on kfreebsd-*
> -> Unless there's further activity I recommend removing of kfreebsd-*
> binaries from testing. See
> http://bugs.debian.org./cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660403#12
That doesn't work. The choices would
On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 20:45 +, Robert Millan wrote:
> El 14 de febrer de 2012 20:53, Adam D. Barratt
> ha escrit:
> > I've scheduled binNMUs for the first level of packages on the transition
> > tracker (URL above). Note that in the process I discovered that
> >
Package: release.debian.org
Tags: pending
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Filing this as a transition bug so we can block related issues against
it. Will fix up submitter once I have a bug number.
On Sat, 2012-02-04 at 19:09 +, Robert Millan wrote:
> FYI aft
On Sun, 2012-02-12 at 16:23 +, Robert Millan wrote:
> El 12 de febrer de 2012 12:53, Adam D. Barratt
> ha escrit:
> > Looking at
> > http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/freebsd-libs.html , there are
> > several packages which build-depend on a -dev package prod
Source: freebsd-libs
Version: 9.0-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
The new upload of freebsd-libs FTBFS on all Linux architectures. From
the amd64 build log:
debian/rules build
COPTS="-Wall -g -pipe -fPIC -I.
-I/build/buildd-freebsd-libs_9.0-1-amd64-6Fe1Hd/freebsd-libs-9.0/sys
-D_GNU_SOURCE -isystem
On Sat, 2012-02-04 at 20:07 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-02-04 at 20:00 +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Anyhow, is there something I can do to help at this point? Just let me
> > know.
>
> Being prepared to handle any issues quickly when they come up, mai
On Sat, 2012-02-04 at 20:00 +, Robert Millan wrote:
> El 4 de febrer de 2012 19:44, Adam D. Barratt
> ha escrit:
> The libraries produced by freebsd-libs are
> > used by other packages, some of which will at various points be involved
> > in other transitions (and in
On Sat, 2012-02-04 at 19:36 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-02-04 at 19:09 +, Robert Millan wrote:
>> > Should we wait until the current transition is
> > > over, or upload to unstable with the new sonames as soon as possible?
So, re-reading this, I realis
On Sat, 2012-02-04 at 19:09 +, Robert Millan wrote:
> FYI after freebsd-libs 8.3 has migrated to testing, freebsd-libs 9.0
> has been uploaded to unstable.
Out of interest, how did the lack of an ACK or NACK to your question,
less than a week ago, of:
> Should we wait until the current transi
On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 14:13:24 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I believe manual removal of kfreebsd-* binaries from testing is
needed
so that gpe-shield can migrate (if that's not the case then sorry for
bothering)
For details, see http://bugs.debian.org/647655
Close - manual removal of kfreebsd-* b
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 23:12 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> 2011/10/6 Julien Cristau :
> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 07:20:50 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> >> Attached patch should fix the problem. I can upload a fixed
> >> kfreebsd-8 this evening (feel free to NMU if someone has time to
> >> veri
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 07:20:50 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
2011/10/6 Adam D. Barratt :
test -e ./tmp/cdrom/tree/boot/zfs || rmdir ./tmp/cdrom/tree/boot/
rmdir: failed to remove `./tmp/cdrom/tree/boot/': Directory not
empty
[...]
$ debdiff kernel-image-8.1-1-486-di_0.6_kfreebsd-i386.udeb
k
[tl,dr; these changes broke d-i in stable]
On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 00:25 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> 2011/9/27 Adam D. Barratt :
> >> > - Does this affect which modules end up in the udebs?
> >
> > It looks like this was missed in the original follow-up. As a related
On Sun, 2011-10-02 at 14:37 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> 2011/10/1 Adam D. Barratt :
> > If there are changes which need propagating to the udebs
>
> Yes. The if_msk update is specially important for the installer.
>
> > If the aim is to do that for 6.0.3 then thos
On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 23:02 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> 2011/10/1 Adam D. Barratt :
> > If you mean in to 6.0.3, is there any particular benefit to trying to
> > push that particular update at this late stage in the process, given
> > that the partman-* changes won't
On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 22:59 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> 2011/10/1 Adam D. Barratt :
> > On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 12:23 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> >> 2011/10/1 Adam D. Barratt :
> >> > Please go ahead, bearing in mind that the upload window for the Squeeze
> &g
On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 18:09 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> 2011/9/22 Arno Töll :
> > To achieve that, we would need to backport at least the following bug
> > fixes and improvements. Note #635627 is already on its way to p-u (#637020):
> >
> > Bug # -- package -- title
> > 635384 -- parted -- detec
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:49:03 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
It seems that libgeom1 (freebsd-libs) won't migrate to testing
because
this would render many packages uninstallable:
http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=freebsd-libs
which in turn won't migrate because they depend on
On Sun, 2011-06-26 at 23:32 +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > That issue has been corrected, and the point release is being
> > re-published this morning as 6.0.2.1. There are no changes in package
> > content; the only difference from the origi
[I'm not subscribed to -bsd; please Cc me on any replies originating
from there, if relevant]
On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 12:55 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 00:09 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > the second Squeeze point release (6.0.2) is now scheduled for
>
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the
> next
> two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the
> default
> compiler for almost any other distribution, so there shouldn't be man
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 15:11 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> 2011/3/4 Petr Salinger :
> >
> > After rebuild of php5 against such header, apache responds.
>
> "build-rdeps libapr1-dev" lists 25 more packages, how would we go
> about having all them binNMUed, contact buildd admins?
No, you ask debian-
> > found 605605 8.1+dfsg-7.1
> Bug #605605 [apt] apt: uninteresting NEWS.Debian
*sigh* Let's fix that...
user release.debian@packages.debian.org
notfound 605605 8.1+dfsg-7.1
tag 605605 - squeeze-ignore
usertag 605605 - squeeze-can-defer
found 605065 8.1+dfsg-7.1
tag 605065 + squeeze-ignore
u
user release.debian@packages.debian.org
found 605605 8.1+dfsg-7.1
tag 605605 + squeeze-ignore
usertag 605605 + squeeze-can-defer
found 605777 8.1+dfsg-7.1
tag 605777 + squeeze-ignore
usertag 605777 + squeeze-can-defer
thanks
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:56 +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> >> 1) plain
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 10:15 +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> The plain FreeBSD kernel generates different sequences
> for Backspace and Delete keys compared to Linux (and required by Policy).
> Generated sequences can be altered by kbdcontrol (from freebsd-utils
> source package) and the default sequ
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 00:17 +0200, Modestas Vainius wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On trečiadienis 05 Sausis 2011 00:09:21 Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 20:07 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > > On 2010-12-29 00:36 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > > On
On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 20:07 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2010-12-29 00:36 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2010-12-27 at 20:44 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> >> On 2010-12-27 19:51 +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> >> > So best option for now seems be to p
On Mon, 2010-12-27 at 20:44 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2010-12-27 19:51 +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> > So best option for now seems be to prevent
> > freebsd-utils 8.1-3 from entering testing and a new upload of
> > kfreebsd-8.
>
> For the record, freebsd-utils 8.1-3 will migrate in three da
On Mon, November 15, 2010 15:58, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 16:51:37 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>> Le lundi 15 novembre 2010 Ã 13:20 +0100, Robert Millan a écrit :
> > I'd recommend removing kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} gdm binaries
> > from testing and then forgetting about th
Sorry for the slight delay in responding to this.
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 14:16 +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> >> Now we have to somehow prune current source tree and disable some
> >> modules. Could we get squeeze-ignore tag for some of the affected
> >> files or is it necessary to prune all affect
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 10:48 +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> > For the remainder of the files, whilst we may consider granting a
> > squeeze-ignore tag, we would like to come to an agreement as to how we
> > can resolve these issues in the medium term. We appreciate that the BSD
> > kernel has not re
On Sun, 2010-10-03 at 13:04 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Ben Hutchings (30/08/2010):
> > The following C files contain firmware images in binary-equivalent
> > form but are not obviously accompanied by the corresponding source
> > code: […]
>
> Hi,
>
> and thanks for your report. I'm not sur
On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 22:41 +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > So, what do you think is still missing? What would we need to communicate
> > > as a disclaimer to the users if releasing kFreeBSD in this state?
[...]
> With my DSA hat on I have to say that I'm not entirely happy with what
> we ha
77 matches
Mail list logo
