On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Tom Turelinckx wrote:
> Jessie is not available for sparc.
If you are actually using sparc I would recommend you look at
migrating to and assisting the sparc64 porting efforts. Or reviving
sparc if you need 32-bit SPARC. Or switch to another architecture.
https:/
returned in the buffer.
Additional information about these issues can be found in the OpenSSL
security advisory at https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20160503.txt
Markus,
If I do that, apt-get update can't find any of the Packages files.
There is no wheezy nor wheezy-updates on archive.debian.org/debian...
Tom
-Original Message-
From: Markus Koschany [mailto:a...@debian.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 6:35 PM
To: Tom Turelinckx
Cc: debian-lts@l
Am 03.05.2016 um 18:37 schrieb Moritz Muehlenhoff:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 06:28:03PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> The second best solution would be to backport either the 1.0.x branch or
>> your jessie-backport packages to Wheezy. Since you actively maintain
>> them, what do you think, how c
Hello Markus,
Jessie is not available for sparc.
My /etc/apt/sources.list looks like this:
deb http://ftp.be.debian.org/debian wheezy main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.be.debian.org/debian wheezy main contrib non-free
deb http://ftp.be.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-updates main contrib non-f
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 06:28:03PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> The second best solution would be to backport either the 1.0.x branch or
> your jessie-backport packages to Wheezy. Since you actively maintain
> them, what do you think, how complex is the task to backport the
> packages from jessi
Hello Tom,
Am 03.05.2016 um 18:23 schrieb Tom Turelinckx:
> Hello Markus,
>
> Jessie is not available for sparc.
True. sparc64 is the only non-official release architecture that comes
somewhat close.
>
> My /etc/apt/sources.list looks like this:
>
> deb http://ftp.be.debian.org/debian wheezy
Am 03.05.2016 um 17:49 schrieb Guilhem Moulin:
> On Tue, 03 May 2016 at 10:47:31 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> I agree, however I suspect most people using roundcube in production are
>> probably using the backport... There's even a dangling backport in
>> wheezy right now (0.9)... a little mess
On Tue, 03 May 2016 at 10:47:31 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> I agree, however I suspect most people using roundcube in production are
> probably using the backport... There's even a dangling backport in
> wheezy right now (0.9)... a little messy.
Sorry, I meant oldstable-backports not oldstable
On 2016-05-03 04:07:08, Brian May wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Raphael Hertzog asked me to post the debdiff of the Ubuntu package I am
> working on here.
>
> He had some concerns with using the Ubuntu version like this. In
> particular Ubuntu does some things differently with respect to init.d
> scripts, ha
On 2016-05-02 18:58:23, Gabriel Filion wrote:
> Oops, I forgot to mention that I am not subscribed to the mailing list.
> So please include me in CC for replies.
>
>> thanks alot for testing the package, I really appreciate it.
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Gabriel Filion wrote:
>>
>>>
> https://peopl
On 2016-05-02 15:31:39, Guilhem Moulin wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On Mon, 02 May 2016 at 21:19:13 +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> Would you like to take care of this yourself?
>
> Not replying in the name of team (however I'm the one who pushed for
> Roundcube in jessie-backports and who is trying to
Bonjour,
Je viens de voir mon annonce pour le job de security updates. Je suis en
fait développeur Debian 'retired', est-ce que cela vous convient pour le
poste?
Amitiés,
2016-05-02 11:41 GMT+02:00 Raphael Hertzog :
> Hello,
>
> the amount of sponsorship for Debian LTS[1] has increased over the
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 11:01:16AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I don't think that any Xen experience makes a big difference here as
> the problem I pointed out are in the packaging and not in the upstream
> source code. I still believe that we should update to the latest 4.1.x
> release.
FWIW,
On Tue, 03 May 2016, Brian May wrote:
> I have a suspicion that many of these installs may be due libav being
> installed to satisfy dependancies. There are a large number of packages
> that do depend on libav.
Yes, that's obvious, a library is usually installed by way of
dependencies. But if you
On Tue, 03 May 2016, Brian May wrote:
> He had some concerns with using the Ubuntu version like this. In
> particular Ubuntu does some things differently with respect to init.d
> scripts, has a different changelog, and there are some changes other
> changes here that may not be security related.
J
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> We have 15% of the sponsors listing at least one of the binary packages
> built by libav in their package list. That's relatively close to Xen
> (17.4%) where we are going to spend money for external help. That said
> none of the customers expressed their reliance on thi
On Mon, 02 May 2016, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > Send them first only to debian-lts-changes@ as it might be that the
> > tracker gets them that way too.
>
> Now I already set both mail addresses. Should I change that to only
> debian-lts-changes@?
> Note that security.d.o doesn't sent mail to @pac
18 matches
Mail list logo
