Re: Gnumach uploaded [was: Re: X.org uploaded]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 12:43:57AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Hi, > > Guillem Jover, le Thu 12 Jan 2006 01:20:08 +0200, a écrit : > > Just uploaded a gnumach_20050801-3 package with fixes for the io access > > Now only the hurd package needs updated :) I'll do that tomorrow. Michael --

gnumach override disparity

There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): gnumach-dbg_20050801-3_i386.deb: package says section is devel, override says libdevel. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is correct and the

gnumach_20050801-3_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gnumach-dbg_20050801-3_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gnumach/gnumach-dbg_20050801-3_i386.deb gnumach-dev_20050801-3_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gnumach/gnumach-dev_20050801-3_i386.deb gnumach-udeb_20050801-3_i386.udeb to pool/main/g/gnumach/gnumach-udeb_20050801-3_i386.udeb gnumach_20050801-

Bug#46709: marked as done (Mach lets processes write to I/O ports)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:32:18 -0800 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#46709: fixed in gnumach 1:20050801-3 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is no

Bug#226609: marked as done (crosshurd: Problem with much memory)

Your message dated Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:32:18 -0800 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#226609: fixed in gnumach 1:20050801-3 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is n

Re: Gnumach uploaded [was: Re: X.org uploaded]

Hi, Guillem Jover, le Thu 12 Jan 2006 01:20:08 +0200, a écrit : > Just uploaded a gnumach_20050801-3 package with fixes for the io access Now only the hurd package needs updated :) Regards, Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact

Gnumach uploaded [was: Re: X.org uploaded]

Hi, On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 08:11:36PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > thanks to the great work of Samuel Thibault we now have X.org packages > built from unmodified sources. I just uploaded xorg-x11_6.9.0.dfsg.1-3. > > However, if you rely on X, you might want to keep your xserver-xfree86 > packa

Processing of gnumach_20050801-3_i386.changes

gnumach_20050801-3_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: gnumach_20050801-3.dsc gnumach_20050801-3.diff.gz gnumach_20050801-3_i386.deb gnumach-udeb_20050801-3_i386.udeb gnumach-dbg_20050801-3_i386.deb gnumach-dev_20050801-3_i386.deb Greetings, Y

Bug#323315: marked as done (FTBFS: Conflicting declarations of cn_tab)

Your message dated Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:56:28 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#323315: FTBFS: Conflicting declarations of cn_tab has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the

Bug#185094: marked as done (Patch consider_lmm_collect: Test always true)

Your message dated Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:58:58 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line #185094: Patch consider_lmm_collect: Test always true has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the

X.org uploaded

Hi, thanks to the great work of Samuel Thibault we now have X.org packages built from unmodified sources. I just uploaded xorg-x11_6.9.0.dfsg.1-3. However, if you rely on X, you might want to keep your xserver-xfree86 package on hold for a while, as the xorg packages feature a patch for I/O perm