Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:18:18AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 08:59:54AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Nothing stops me from using Version 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.
> >
> > It's sure that this system of numeration only works
Eric Valette wrote:
This shows that very basic feature are not working with debian provided
mozilla packages whereas they *do work* with the official mozilla binary
and are therefore either due to maintainer changes (the uncompressed
diff is about 3Mb in size which is not reasonable I think!!!
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 08:59:54AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Nothing stops me from using Version 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.
It's sure that this system of numeration only works for non-native
Debian packages. It's not clear at all how to distinguish a NMU or a
binary NMU on a native Debian pack
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 12:44:57AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> - pre/postinst/rm scripts that worked from release to release fail on
> the version jump in testing
Nice catch. This even points to a flaw in the rule that only wants
the upgrade to work fine from the latest stable, and fr
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 12:44:57AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> - Foo depends on Bar and new version of Foo entering testing breaks
> Bar
I guess you mean "new version of Bar breaks Foo" ?
Regards,
--
Yann Dirson<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-rel
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 05:13:24PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Independent of your suggestions:
> > It's never a good idea to use a version number namespace that is already
> > occupied for something different.
>
> OK, good point.
>
> So maybe pre-tes
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:18:18AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 08:59:54AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Nothing stops me from using Version 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.
>
> It's sure that this system of numeration only works for non-native
> Debian packages. It's not clear
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 04:42:44PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > Why does testing get out of a releasable state?
> > o RC bugs are found after entering testing
> > what else?
>
> - Maintainers sometime miss versionned deps
> - Build-deps are ignored by t
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 05:12:24PM -0500, Enrique Robledo Arnuncio wrote:
>...
> Meanwhile, since fftw3 seems to keep failing to build in some archs
> due to test bench errors, I should probably rebuild freqtweak using
> fftw2...
Looking at the log of the failed ftw3 builds on arm and powerpc, the
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:32:38AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:26:45AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> >...
> > > Binary NMU for unstable:
> > > Version: 1.0-2.0.1
> > >
> > > Your suggested pre-tesing package:
> > > Version: 1.0-2.0.1
> > >
> > >
> > > IOW:
> > > There ar
[Please CC: me, I am not subscribed to these lists.]
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 11:02:17AM +0100, guenter geiger wrote:
> Do we agree on removing packages in order to get JACK into testing ?
> As we have to discuss this with the affected maintainers, I'm CC'ing
> this to Enrique, who is the maintaine
On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 05:13:24PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Independent of your suggestions:
> It's never a good idea to use a version number namespace that is already
> occupied for something different.
OK, good point.
If we were to use a different component of the Debian revision for
pre-te
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 10:13:47AM -0700, Andre Lehovich wrote:
> > > 3. Tag the bug sarge-ignore:
> > 3. Have the bug tagged sarge-ignore:
> better would be:
> 3. Ask the release team to tag the bug sarge-ignore:
> Even if you beat the obvious over the head some still won't
> ge
13 matches
Mail list logo
