-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Per Olofsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 15:00 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> According to http://packages.qa.debian.org/libp/libpqxx.html>,
>> version 2.2.1-2 is out of date on i386.
>
> Not when I look. I see:
>
> out of da
Hello Debian-project (Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:39:43 -0100)
Hi,
Apologies for following up on myself, but I'd like to have some input
from you :-) See below.
Remco van de Meent wrote:
Joey Hess wrote:
Package: pciutils
Version: 1:2.1.11-10
Severity: critical
This version of pciutils depends on two new packages, libpci2 and
libpci1. pciutils is part
On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 19:15, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:57:14AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:10:00AM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> > > As you know, the Debian GNOME team has been working on packaging
> > > GNOME 2.6 during the last weeks. While
Remco van de Meent wrote:
> I have implemented the changes as mentioned above, and put the resulting
> pciutils 1:2.1.11-10.999 package on http://people.debian.org/~remco/
>
> This version removes (replaces, conflicts) libpci2, and does not mention
> libpci1. It also does not warn for missing /s
The 0nly multiple 0rgasm supplement for
men!
Have amazing s.ex up to 2O times per day.
Prevent pre.mature eja.culation.
Maintain harder, stronger ere.ctions for
hours.
Multiple 0rgarms with N0 ere.ction
loss.
1OO% Sa fe To Take, With NO
Sid.e Eff.ects
Fast Sh.ipping W0rl.dWide
D0ct.or App
Joey Hess wrote:
Package: pciutils
Version: 1:2.1.11-10
Severity: critical
This version of pciutils depends on two new packages, libpci2 and
libpci1. pciutils is part of the base system, and these packages are
not, and thus it broke the base system dependency freeze announced by the
release mana
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
> As long as the upload to unstable is clean, we can make a final decision on
> GNOME 2.6's inclusion closer to the freeze.
I find this answer quite acceptable and rather wise indeed: pointless to declare
that package X won't go in when we clearly have n
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin-Éric Racine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040418 20:10]:
> > On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Please take into account that there is no way we would update an entire
> > > GNOME system in such an update. The updates are only meant to suc
9 matches
Mail list logo
