Re: debram and packages temporarily absent from sarge

2005-04-09 Thread Thaddeus H. Black
For those following this thread [1], the advice I have received suggests option (3), > (3) to purge metadata for packages not presently in > sarge. and no one suggests otherwise, so this is what I have done. With Giacomo Catenazzi's sponsorship, the resultant final debram (0.6.4) is in sid n

Re: debram and packages temporarily absent from sarge

2005-04-05 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:57:15PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 05:06:11AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:48:16PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote: > > > This mail is somewhat lengthy, and most of you do not > > > need to read it. You want to

Re: debram and packages temporarily absent from sarge

2005-04-05 Thread Thaddeus H. Black
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 05:06:11AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hi Thaddeus, > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:48:16PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote: > > This mail is somewhat lengthy, and most of you do not > > need to read it. You want to read this mail if you > > maintain packages which (as of

Re: debram and packages temporarily absent from sarge

2005-04-05 Thread Steve Langasek
Hi Thaddeus, On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:48:16PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote: > This mail is somewhat lengthy, and most of you do not > need to read it. You want to read this mail if you > maintain packages which (as of 2 April) sarge > temporarily lacks. These are packages which used to be >

debram and packages temporarily absent from sarge

2005-04-04 Thread Thaddeus H. Black
This mail is somewhat lengthy, and most of you do not need to read it. You want to read this mail if you maintain packages which (as of 2 April) sarge temporarily lacks. These are packages which used to be in sarge and still have hope to join the official sarge release but, for whatever reason (p