On Wed, Aug 11, 1999 at 01:04:01PM -0600, Jeremiah Merkl wrote:
> I was just hoping that someone who knew for sure would be able to reply.
> I'm assuming if the autobuilder fails to build a package, SOMEone gets
> notified. Then the question becomes, who does anything get done about
> it. :)
Hart
> > On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 07:10:56PM -0600, Jeremiah Merkl wrote:
> > > Now, I checked the bug list, and it says that the dependency problem for
> > > apache-common on "perl" has been fixed, with apache-common_1.3.6-14.
> > > Message date was July 12th.
> > What stops You from using apache_1.3.6
I'll try to be a little clearer.
Robert Ramiega wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 07:10:56PM -0600, Jeremiah Merkl wrote:
> > Now, I checked the bug list, and it says that the dependency problem for
> > apache-common on "perl" has been fixed, with apache-common_1.3.6-14.
> > Message date was Jul
On Wed, Aug 11, 1999 at 10:39:02AM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> Hey Robert,
>
> I'm writing this because you may not realize that your reply to
> Jeremiah was a little harsh and flip. Maybe you guys know each other,
oops! I *really* didn't realize that and i really didn't mean to
irritat
On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 07:10:56PM -0600, Jeremiah Merkl wrote:
> Now, I checked the bug list, and it says that the dependency problem for
> apache-common on "perl" has been fixed, with apache-common_1.3.6-14.
> Message date was July 12th.
What stops You from using apache_1.3.6-13 ?
And if You ar
Now, I checked the bug list, and it says that the dependency problem for
apache-common on "perl" has been fixed, with apache-common_1.3.6-14.
Message date was July 12th.
So is the autobuilder just not doing its job? Or are there other
concerns why it hasn't been put into our unstable distribution?
6 matches
Mail list logo
