Re: RFS: ceph

2010-02-05 Thread Asheesh Laroia
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Sage Weil wrote: Hello, I am looking for a sponsor for ceph. Ceph is a distributed object store and file system designed for scalability, reliability, and performance. The kernel module for mounting the file system is planned for inclusion in 2.6.34. Hi! That's one awe

RFS: ceph

2010-02-05 Thread Sage Weil
Hello, I am looking for a sponsor for ceph. Ceph is a distributed object store and file system designed for scalability, reliability, and performance. The kernel module for mounting the file system is planned for inclusion in 2.6.34. * Package name: ceph Version : 0.18-1 (*)

Re: how to compare versions

2010-02-05 Thread Hideki Yamane
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:00:47 -0200 Rogério Brito wrote: > > BTW, I would rename tomoyo-ccstools to tomoyo-ccstools1.7 and not > > provide upgrade path for that. If I just would upgrade this pacakge, > > it'll break system that it works with security policies for 1.6.x, so > > I should leave it and

Re: RFS: gnurobbo (updated package)

2010-02-05 Thread Stephen Kitt
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 21:36:55 +0100, Christoph Egger wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:11:57AM +0100, Stephen Kitt wrote: > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.65.6+dfsg-1 > > of my package "gnurobbo". > > Uploaded, looks fine. Thanks! Stephen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debia

Re: how to compare versions

2010-02-05 Thread Wesley J. Landaker
On Friday 05 February 2010 04:43:05 Hideki Yamane wrote: > > This is true in general, although it's perhaps worth noting that a rare > > pre- depends on a priority required package like debconf by a priority > > optional or extra package isn't likely to cause any trouble. > > Yes, it is true in g

Re: how to compare versions

2010-02-05 Thread Rogério Brito
On Feb 05 2010, Hideki Yamane wrote: > BTW, I would rename tomoyo-ccstools to tomoyo-ccstools1.7 and not > provide upgrade path for that. If I just would upgrade this pacakge, > it'll break system that it works with security policies for 1.6.x, so > I should leave it and provide README.Debian for u

Re: Experimental release for IPv6 patched package?

2010-02-05 Thread Asheesh Laroia
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Mats Erik Andersson wrote: Dear mentors, I have taken to addressing the lack of IPv6-support for tftpd from netkit-tftp-0.17 (see #536509). As far as I can tell it seems to work on my machine, including format 3.0-quilt. Would I be correct in guessing that the experiment

Re: RFS: ampache (updated package)

2010-02-05 Thread Andreas Henriksson
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 3.5.4-1 > of my package "ampache". uploaded, thanks. -- Andreas Henriksson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Experimental release for IPv6 patched package?

2010-02-05 Thread Mats Erik Andersson
Dear mentors, I have taken to addressing the lack of IPv6-support for tftpd from netkit-tftp-0.17 (see #536509). As far as I can tell it seems to work on my machine, including format 3.0-quilt. Would I be correct in guessing that the experimental release should be the first entry point for altera

Re: RFS: tacacs+

2010-02-05 Thread Craig Small
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 06:30:26PM +0100, Tourneur Henry-Nicolas wrote: > I just did so and normally, I should have fixed all of the lintian Errors and > Warnings. Could somebody review my package again ? > > Thanks everybody for taking time to help me. I was wondering why you have put the binari

Re: how to compare versions

2010-02-05 Thread Hideki Yamane
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 21:01:12 -0700 "Wesley J. Landaker" wrote: > > It adds additional strong restrictions on the order in which packages > > must be upgraded. Too many such restrictions and there might not be a > > way to upgrade at all. Somewhere before that you (via apt/aptitutde/...) > > get the