On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:35:37AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> clone 265203 -1
> retitle 265203 RM: ruby-beta -- Superseded by ruby
> reassign -1 ruby-beta
> severity -1 serious
> retitle -1 ruby-beta should not be in sarge -- being removed
> thanks
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 03:37:56PM +
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:32:32AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> clone 265257 -1
> retitle 265257 RM: sendmail-wide -- Dead upstream
> tags 265257 sid confirmed
> reassign -1 sendmail-wide
> severity -1 serious
> retitle -1 sendmail-wide should not be in sarge -- being removed
> thanks
> O
clone 265203 -1
retitle 265203 RM: ruby-beta -- Superseded by ruby
reassign -1 ruby-beta
severity -1 serious
retitle -1 ruby-beta should not be in sarge -- being removed
thanks
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 03:37:56PM +0900, akira yamada wrote:
> ruby-beta package provides beta version of Ruby. But new
clone 265257 -1
retitle 265257 RM: sendmail-wide -- Dead upstream
tags 265257 sid confirmed
reassign -1 sendmail-wide
severity -1 serious
retitle -1 sendmail-wide should not be in sarge -- being removed
thanks
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:13:23PM +0900, Fumitoshi UKAI wrote:
> sendmail-wide was fork
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 01:26:59AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> clone 266559 -1
> reassign -1 trm
> retitle -1 trm should not be in Sarge, in process of being removed
> thanks
> RMs, please hint this package out of sarge (RoM)
Hinted for removal.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern pr
clone 266559 -1
reassign -1 trm
retitle -1 trm should not be in Sarge, in process of being removed
thanks
RMs, please hint this package out of sarge (RoM)
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
On Thursday 23 September 2004 06:11 pm, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> There is at least on possiblity to achieve this that I know of:
> aptitude lists all "obsolete" packages in an extra category.
> So one can just start aptitude and remove all packages listed there.
> (of course this only works if yo
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 12:40:39AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> remove lirc/0.6.6-7
>
> lirc-svga hasn't been build fromm lirc sources for a while
> for any other arch than i386, so it should be removed from sarge
> to let the newer lirc in.
This wouldn't work. The outdated binary packages are st
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 12:40:39AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> remove lirc/0.6.6-7
> lirc-svga hasn't been build fromm lirc sources for a while
> for any other arch than i386, so it should be removed from sarge
> to let the newer lirc in.
> We have RC bug in lirc, but the reporter doesnt seem to
[taking the original submitter to CC]
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 11:49:16PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Andreas has a point here, but I don't know how to deal with this
> problem properly. Packages removed from sarge at some time which
> were part of sarge before, will not be security-covered (af
remove lirc/0.6.6-7
lirc-svga hasn't been build fromm lirc sources for a while
for any other arch than i386, so it should be removed from sarge
to let the newer lirc in.
We have RC bug in lirc, but the reporter doesnt seem to be intrested
enough on his report to provide more information to repro
Andreas has a point here, but I don't know how to deal with this
problem properly. Packages removed from sarge at some time which
were part of sarge before, will not be security-covered (after the
release).
Regards,
Joey
- Forwarded message from "\"Dr. Andreas Krüger\"" <[EMAIL PROT
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 08:26:39PM +0200, Frederic Peters wrote:
> > You need to file a RC bug (severity serious) against the package first
> > so that it will not propagate to testing again after the removal.
> > Just include the reasoning above in the bug report.
> Actually it had no chance to p
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> You need to file a RC bug (severity serious) against the package first
> so that it will not propagate to testing again after the removal.
> Just include the reasoning above in the bug report.
Actually it had no chance to propagate to testing again since it now
build-de
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 07:25:20PM +0200, Frederic Peters wrote:
> Could the lasso package (binary packages in Sarge are liblasso0,
> liblasso0-dev and liblasso0-python2.3) be dropped from Sarge ?
>
> It is not used by any application and the API/ABI is not stable enough
> for a stable Debian dist
* Frederic Peters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040923 19:40]:
> Could the lasso package (binary packages in Sarge are liblasso0,
> liblasso0-dev and liblasso0-python2.3) be dropped from Sarge ?
>
> It is not used by any application and the API/ABI is not stable enough
> for a stable Debian distribution.
Hello,
Could the lasso package (binary packages in Sarge are liblasso0,
liblasso0-dev and liblasso0-python2.3) be dropped from Sarge ?
It is not used by any application and the API/ABI is not stable enough
for a stable Debian distribution.
Thanks,
Frederic
signature.asc
Description:
> Changes relative to version in testing:
>
> devfsd (1.3.25-19) unstable; urgency=low
>
> * added po-debconf i18n for my single template, closes: #271943
> - build depend on debhelper (>= 4.1.16)
> - run debconf-updatepo in clean target
> * added german l13n.
Waiting for some l10n
Hi
devfsd was essentially unmaintained until I adopted it. It was
already frozen at that point. My upload fixed lots of bugs and
the package has stabilized in unstable now (apart from
localisations which keep dripping in).
I uploaded something to t-p-u a while ago, it can be ignored, i
didn't kno
Hello,
Openwebmail 2.32 has been in testing for a while with no major
problems. The version 2.40 it is on experimental with no problems as far
as I can see. I am unsure if move forward and send 2.40 to unstable for:
a. be part only of unstable
b. pass through to testing
20 matches
Mail list logo
