On Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 12:54:30AM +0200, Christian Meder wrote:
>
> Please include this patch from David Miller. Alan Cox already received
> it (according to davem) and it will be in 2.2.15final. Without the
> patch our two Ultra I sparc boxes didn't even survive a one minute
> crashme run ;-)
>
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:30:27PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> I think we need to get a kernel-source-2.2.15 package in right now, even
> if it means that it is actually a 2.2.15-pre19 (the latest pre). This way
> we can start building images, and have boot-floppies using it. I'm very
> sure it wil
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 08:18:31AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:30:27PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we need to get a kernel-source-2.2.15 package in right now, even
> > > if it means that it is actually a 2.2.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:33:33AM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> > ATTN ftpmasters:
> >
> > To be perfectly clear: contrary to the Subject: line, 2.1r6 should _not_ be
> > released right after the included "wishlist" has been processed.
> >
> > Acco
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 06:28:11PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> Uggh, can you make it kernel-foo-2.2.15_2.2.15-pre19-1? This way in the
> boot-floppies we can actually change the version of the kernel it looks
> for to 2.2.15, which is important to get in now, so we don't have to make
> the chang
On Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 08:18:31AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:30:27PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > I think we need to get a kernel-source-2.2.15 package in right now, even
> > if it means that it is actually a 2.2.15-pre19 (the latest pre). This way
> > we can start
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:30:27PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> I think we need to get a kernel-source-2.2.15 package in right now, even
> if it means that it is actually a 2.2.15-pre19 (the latest pre). This way
> we can start building images, and have boot-floppies using it. I'm very
> sure it
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 07:47:08PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Could you release that list so the packages can be fixed? I don't want
> > potato to be the worst Debian release ever.
>
> http://master.debian.org/~wakkerma/unmet.html
Some of the
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 07:47:08PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Could you release that list so the packages can be fixed? I don't want
> potato to be the worst Debian release ever.
http://master.debian.org/~wakkerma/unmet.html
If you think that's enough to make potato the worst Debian release
Richard Braakman wrote:
> For some values of "relatively". The i386 tree, counting only main,
> currently has 6 unsatisfied Depends relationships that I know of.
> I can probably eliminate all but two of them before the release.
> (The exeptions are libglide2-v3 depending on device3dfx-module,
> w
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 09:26:33AM -0700, Jim Westveer wrote:
> With a big enough hammer, you can force anything.
>
> Yes, you can force the creation of CD's, but then you get
> a CD that has software that is NOT installable, in this case
> w3-el. It would seem that the "correct" thing to do woul
Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:49:03PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > But in fact most of them ARE ironed out - potato CDs have been made by
> > someone or other almost daily for weeks now without major incident.
>
> Presumably using a smarter tool than debian-cd, then.
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 07:39:03PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:49:03PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > But in fact most of them ARE ironed out - potato CDs have been made by
> > someone or other almost daily for weeks now without major incident.
>
> Presumably u
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:49:03PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> But in fact most of them ARE ironed out - potato CDs have been made by
> someone or other almost daily for weeks now without major incident.
Presumably using a smarter tool than debian-cd, then. potato has
a number of open depen
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 06:12:08PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 07:34:11AM -0700, Jim Westveer wrote:
> > I understand that one does not want to update the stable tree
> > without documenting the changes, but the current errors
> > in 2.1r5 are procluding the creation o
Previously Ben Collins wrote:
> Herbert, is this possible for you?
If we do this I have this little patch that must be put in as well. I'll
mail it to Herbert.
Wichert.
--
_
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your c
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 08:13:08AM -0700, Jim Lynch wrote:
> >
> > Date:Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:54:52 +0200
> > To: Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > cc: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-release@lists.debian.org
> > From:Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subje
On 20-Apr-2000 Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 07:34:11AM -0700, Jim Westveer wrote:
>> I understand that one does not want to update the stable tree
>> without documenting the changes, but the current errors
>> in 2.1r5 are procluding the creation of .iso's because of this
>> d
Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 07:34:11AM -0700, Jim Westveer wrote:
> > I understand that one does not want to update the stable tree
> > without documenting the changes, but the current errors
> > in 2.1r5 are procluding the creation of .iso's because of this
> > dependancy pr
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 07:34:11AM -0700, Jim Westveer wrote:
> I understand that one does not want to update the stable tree
> without documenting the changes, but the current errors
> in 2.1r5 are procluding the creation of .iso's because of this
> dependancy problem.
What I don't understand
>
> Date:Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:54:52 +0200
> To: Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-release@lists.debian.org
> From:Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Preparing for first test cycle
>
> Previously Richard Braakman
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm certainly very much against releasing with known security holes.
> At this moment we already have to do 2.2.15+1patch :(
What does this mean? We'll be using 2.2.15 for potato? Or sticking
with a patched 2.2.14?
I relealize different arches are
On 20-Apr-2000 Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:33:33AM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
>> ATTN ftpmasters:
>>
>> To be perfectly clear: contrary to the Subject: line, 2.1r6 should _not_ be
>> released right after the included "wishlist" has been processed.
>
> And have slink cha
Previously Brandon Mitchell wrote:
> I believe the intention is to continue testing with a minor security hole.
However we know there is a major security hole in 2.2.14 for example..
and I won't be surprised if more will be discovered during the testing
cycle. I think we need to have some short-cu
I believe the intention is to continue testing with a minor security hole.
Then, fix all the problems uncovered while testing and start a new cycle.
However a major problem would make all further testing pointless making it
worth it to stop the cycle, fix the problem, and start over. This means we
Previously Richard Braakman wrote:
> No. Any such change means aborting the test cycle. This may be reasonable
> if a security problem is big enough, but I'm not going to decide that in
> advance.
I'm certainly very much against releasing with known security holes.
At this moment we already have
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:33:33AM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> ATTN ftpmasters:
>
> To be perfectly clear: contrary to the Subject: line, 2.1r6 should _not_ be
> released right after the included "wishlist" has been processed.
>
> According to release procedures we're currently trying out, the "
On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 05:15:28PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Will it be possible to stage the first Test Cycle on or near May 2nd?
> > That's two weeks from now.
> >
> > It means that May 2nd is the last day I make any change to potato, except
> > for changes nee
"J.A. Bezemer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please Cc: things like this to -boot and -cd. (I've done this one for you)
That's not necessary since the whole point of debian-release is for
release coordination. Cross-posting is redundant.
--
.Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Will it be possible to stage the first Test Cycle on or near May 2nd?
> That's two weeks from now.
Speaking on behalf of the boot-floppies team, I believe this date is
doable.
boot-floppies 2.2.11 has a *lot* of changes in it (103 line
changelog).
30 matches
Mail list logo
