Re: Please refrain from non-RC gcc-3.4 uploads until a new version has entered sarge

Andreas Barth writes: > * Matthias Klose ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041217 14:40]: > > [...] > > Is this description for the release update correct? > | Another minor change of the toolchain is pending. Gcc-3.4 started to > | use libunwind, as the internal gcc version was buggy. In the end, this > | tur

Re: Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (III)

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 19:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Not directly related to 3.0r4, but while we are at it: > > > > Would be possible to remove packages in security.debian.org which are > > already part of 3.0r3? > > Isn't that "not correct", since

Re: Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (III)

On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 20:22 +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: > > On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 19:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > Not directly related to 3.0r4, but while we are at it: > > > > > > Would be possible to remove packages in security.debian.org which are > > > already par

Re: Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (III)

Ron Johnson wrote: > On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 19:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Not directly related to 3.0r4, but while we are at it: > > > > Would be possible to remove packages in security.debian.org which are > > already part of 3.0r3? > > Isn't that "not correct", since someone who installs

Re: Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (III)

|| On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:06:13 +0100 || Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ms> Santiago Vila wrote: >> Not directly related to 3.0r4, but while we are at it: >> >> Would be possible to remove packages in security.debian.org which are >> already part of 3.0r3? ms> What would we gain from

Re: Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (III)

Santiago Vila wrote: > Not directly related to 3.0r4, but while we are at it: > > Would be possible to remove packages in security.debian.org which are > already part of 3.0r3? What would we gain from this? I would not like that but maybe you have a good reason for asking. Regards, Joe

Re: Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (III)

On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 19:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > Not directly related to 3.0r4, but while we are at it: > > Would be possible to remove packages in security.debian.org which are > already part of 3.0r3? Isn't that "not correct", since someone who installs from 3.0 or 3.0r[123] disks will

Re: Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (III)

Not directly related to 3.0r4, but while we are at it: Would be possible to remove packages in security.debian.org which are already part of 3.0r3?

Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (III)

Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update == An up-to-date version is at . I am preparing the next revision of the current stable Debian distribution (woody) and will infrequently send reports

Re: Woody->Sarge upgrade claims to break if using devfsd

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 (CC'ing d-release as this is more a release issue than an installer issue) On Saturday 18 December 2004 12:51, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Dec 18, Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > | udev is not configured to use devfs-style devices. >

Re: Please refrain from non-RC gcc-3.4 uploads until a new version has entered sarge

* Matthias Klose ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041217 14:40]: > [...] Is this description for the release update correct? | Another minor change of the toolchain is pending. Gcc-3.4 started to | use libunwind, as the internal gcc version was buggy. In the end, this | turned out to block package transition

Re: Please refrain from non-RC gcc-3.4 uploads until a new version has entered sarge

* Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041217 18:00]: > Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Even for non-frozen packages, please do not suggest "reupload unchanged > > with urgency=high" if the uploader chose a wrong urgency originally, the > > release managers can simply override the urge

Re: Please allow console-data in sarge

Quoting Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Steve Langasek wrote: > > Tentatively approved, pending confirmation from Joey that he's ready to have > > these udebs in testing. > > I'm ok with it, but I don't know about the new version that amck has > just released. So do I. The -48 changes were not

V1AGKRA 80% DISCOUNT

New ClALlS softtabs = lNSTANT R0CKHARD ERECTl0NS Simply disolve HALF A PlLL under your tongue 10min before action, for results that last all weekend. Normal retail is $19/PlLL 0rder from us today at the price of $3.03 not interested(0pt-0ut)

Married whores

Wives looking for fun would you like to start an affair with a local woman? Married ladies looking for a good for an affair http://wifesmile.com/login/here.php   * Membership is required in order to verify legal age, only $1 NEW! Stopping this

CNEL推出广告服务大优惠 14:2:28:706

通栏广告   标题广告 预知详情：http://www.cnelc.com/ad/3.htm 中国工业电器网广告投放报价单