Bug#682640: Bug#683244: Bug#682640: binNMU

2012-09-10 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 21:16 -0700, tony mancill wrote: > On 09/08/2012 08:53 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > In any case, to keep things moving I've scheduled binNMUs for bobcat. > > Note that binNMUs can't close bugs, so if the binNMUs are successful > > then you'll need to take care of closing #68

Bug#683049: Bug#683244: Bug#682640: binNMU

2012-09-10 Thread tony mancill
On 09/08/2012 08:53 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 22:06 -0700, tony mancill wrote: >> On 08/18/2012 05:03 AM, Neil Williams wrote: >>> Just to help those scanning the RC bug lists, the binNMU request for >>> bobcat is #683244. The binNMU for c++-annotations would need to be >>>

Bug#682640: Bug#683244: Bug#682640: binNMU

2012-09-08 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 22:06 -0700, tony mancill wrote: > On 08/18/2012 05:03 AM, Neil Williams wrote: > > Just to help those scanning the RC bug lists, the binNMU request for > > bobcat is #683244. The binNMU for c++-annotations would need to be > > requested later. > > > > I've done a simple test

Bug#682640: binNMU

2012-08-27 Thread tony mancill
On 08/18/2012 05:03 AM, Neil Williams wrote: > Just to help those scanning the RC bug lists, the binNMU request for > bobcat is #683244. The binNMU for c++-annotations would need to be > requested later. > > I've done a simple test in a pbuilder chroot and the principle of the > request does fix t