Re: SableVM stalled in SID again?

Hi Grzegorz, On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:36:58PM -0400, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote: > sorry for bothering you, but there's something wrong (again) w/ migration > of SableVM packages to testing. Last time 1.1.0-5 was "hinted", so I > though that the "hint" is permanent and it would work this time

The new Social Contract and releasing Sarge

[ Please respect the Mail-Followup-To header, and reply to -vote. I will inform debian-devel and debian-release regularly with updates and new arguments in a concise and hopefully balanced way ] Dear developers, As was seen in another thread[1], the recent change to the Social Contract also influ

SableVM stalled in SID again?

Hi, sorry for bothering you, but there's something wrong (again) w/ migration of SableVM packages to testing. Last time 1.1.0-5 was "hinted", so I though that the "hint" is permanent and it would work this time also. But the packages seem to be stalled again and for a reason no better than previo

RE: Mail Delivery (failure rep.huebsch@legis.state.wi.us)

Thank you for writing me! Your views are important and I appreciate the time you took to share them with me. Although I receive hundreds of e-mails every week, eventually I do read each of them. If you are from the Coulee Region, please include your name and community so I may respond. If you

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote: > What about making experimental "chunks". > [...] > IMHO this could be fixed if we had experimental/gnome2.6 and > experimental/libtool, which are diferent subsets of experimental. This looks a bit like Progeny's components idea discussed

Debian, best meds

You would, would you?Every silver lining has a cloud.People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. Debian, need cheap super-VIA? http://reader.gfd-online.com/cia/?dcent tendrilly Start with what is right rather than what is acceptable.Only law can give u

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:39:15AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:11:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:04:16PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > This suggestion has been made before, but I'm not in favour of > > > implementing it. > > >

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:11:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:04:16PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > This suggestion has been made before, but I'm not in favour of > > implementing it. > > That's fair. I'd only consider it appropriate if the experimental > builddi