Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:04:09 -0600
Sir:
We have had trouble getting a hold of you by phone. As we promised, your
morttgage app was apprroved with 3.9 %
Please correct your info here, so we can start
http://www.wtljnb.com/
Thank you
Antone Goode
PZHKK
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 07:29:17PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:17:36AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Of these packages, one is essential and one is virtually essential. The
> > other two (libgcc1 and libstdc++5) are neither; although in this case they
> > *should*
Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:04:09 -0600
Sir:
We have had trouble getting a hold of you by phone. As we promised, your
morttgage app was apprroved with 3.9 %
Please correct your info here, so we can start
http://www.wtljnb.com/
Thank you
Antone Goode
PZHKK
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTEC
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 07:29:17PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:17:36AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Of these packages, one is essential and one is virtually essential. The
> > other two (libgcc1 and libstdc++5) are neither; although in this case they
> > *should*
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:00:37 +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Wouldn't it be
> much better to actually depend on the precise kernel image that the package
> is known to be compatible with, to avoid bugs from users who install them on
> systems running custom kernels and expect them to work? (I think
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:00:37 +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Wouldn't it be
> much better to actually depend on the precise kernel image that the package
> is known to be compatible with, to avoid bugs from users who install them on
> systems running custom kernels and expect them to work? (I think
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:17:36AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Of these packages, one is essential and one is virtually essential. The
> other two (libgcc1 and libstdc++5) are neither; although in this case they
> *should* work just fine in a half-configured state, that seems like a hairy
> sol
Hello,
exim4 currently has three major upgrades pending:
#1 Upgrade to 4.43.
4.43 has been in experimental with no problems at all for quite some
time. The current 4.43-2 package is almost identical to 4.34-10
(approved to sarge) except for adaptations to new upstream (mainly
dropped patches), add
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:10:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Adam C Powell IV has reported a problem (bug #289702) when upgrading
> from Woody to Sarge.
> Background:
> The packages below in woody had buggy postinst/postrm scripts that does
> not check whether update-menus was executable befo
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:44:26PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op di, 11-01-2005 te 17:39 +0100, schreef Richard Atterer:
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:10:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > So what would you advise me to do ?
> >
> > Why don't you ship a dummy "update-menus" command? In
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:44:26PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op di, 11-01-2005 te 17:39 +0100, schreef Richard Atterer:
> > Why don't you ship a dummy "update-menus" command?
>
> Because that would break other packages.
Sorry if I'm being dumb, but in what way would it break other packages?
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:44:26PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op di, 11-01-2005 te 17:39 +0100, schreef Richard Atterer:
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:10:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > So what would you advise me to do ?
> >
> > Why don't you ship a dummy "update-menus" command? In
Op di, 11-01-2005 te 17:39 +0100, schreef Richard Atterer:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:10:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > So what would you advise me to do ?
>
> Why don't you ship a dummy "update-menus" command? In the unpacked package,
> the command could be a shell script which does noth
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:10:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> So what would you advise me to do ?
Why don't you ship a dummy "update-menus" command? In the unpacked package,
the command could be a shell script which does nothing. The postinst could
then replace that script with the correct bin
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:17:36AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Of these packages, one is essential and one is virtually essential. The
> other two (libgcc1 and libstdc++5) are neither; although in this case they
> *should* work just fine in a half-configured state, that seems like a hairy
> sol
Dear debian-release team,
Adam C Powell IV has reported a problem (bug #289702) when upgrading
from Woody to Sarge.
Background:
The packages below in woody had buggy postinst/postrm scripts that does
not check whether update-menus was executable before calling it:
ghostview gwm joe vim-gtk vim-p
Hello,
exim4 currently has three major upgrades pending:
#1 Upgrade to 4.43.
4.43 has been in experimental with no problems at all for quite some
time. The current 4.43-2 package is almost identical to 4.34-10
(approved to sarge) except for adaptations to new upstream (mainly
dropped patches), add
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:10:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Adam C Powell IV has reported a problem (bug #289702) when upgrading
> from Woody to Sarge.
> Background:
> The packages below in woody had buggy postinst/postrm scripts that does
> not check whether update-menus was executable befo
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:44:26PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op di, 11-01-2005 te 17:39 +0100, schreef Richard Atterer:
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:10:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > So what would you advise me to do ?
> >
> > Why don't you ship a dummy "update-menus" command? In
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:44:26PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op di, 11-01-2005 te 17:39 +0100, schreef Richard Atterer:
> > Why don't you ship a dummy "update-menus" command?
>
> Because that would break other packages.
Sorry if I'm being dumb, but in what way would it break other packages?
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:44:26PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op di, 11-01-2005 te 17:39 +0100, schreef Richard Atterer:
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:10:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > So what would you advise me to do ?
> >
> > Why don't you ship a dummy "update-menus" command? In
Op di, 11-01-2005 te 17:39 +0100, schreef Richard Atterer:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:10:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > So what would you advise me to do ?
>
> Why don't you ship a dummy "update-menus" command? In the unpacked package,
> the command could be a shell script which does noth
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:10:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> So what would you advise me to do ?
Why don't you ship a dummy "update-menus" command? In the unpacked package,
the command could be a shell script which does nothing. The postinst could
then replace that script with the correct bin
Dear debian-release team,
Adam C Powell IV has reported a problem (bug #289702) when upgrading
from Woody to Sarge.
Background:
The packages below in woody had buggy postinst/postrm scripts that does
not check whether update-menus was executable before calling it:
ghostview gwm joe vim-gtk vim-p
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:55:03AM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> Please consider approving atari-bootstrap for sarge.
> atari-bootstrap_3.3-5 has been in the archive 19 days and closes all
> outstanding bugs on the package. It is currently used on the m68k
> daily d-i builds and I've had no r
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 10:39:53AM +0100, Per Olofsson wrote:
> There's still some kind of hint on pcmcia-cs which makes it migrate to
> testing way too fast:
> $ grep-excuses pcmcia-cs
> pcmcia-cs (3.2.5-8 to 3.2.5-9)
> Maintainer: Per Olofsson
> Too young, only 0 of 10 days old
> Sho
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 04:23:16PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-01-08 at 02:44 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > To alleviate this problem, I request that alsa-modules-2.4.27-1* be
> > > removed from sarge.
> >
> > Is this an issue with the current version of alsa-modules-2.4.27-1 be
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:55:03AM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> Please consider approving atari-bootstrap for sarge.
> atari-bootstrap_3.3-5 has been in the archive 19 days and closes all
> outstanding bugs on the package. It is currently used on the m68k
> daily d-i builds and I've had no r
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 10:39:53AM +0100, Per Olofsson wrote:
> There's still some kind of hint on pcmcia-cs which makes it migrate to
> testing way too fast:
> $ grep-excuses pcmcia-cs
> pcmcia-cs (3.2.5-8 to 3.2.5-9)
> Maintainer: Per Olofsson
> Too young, only 0 of 10 days old
> Sho
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 04:23:16PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-01-08 at 02:44 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > To alleviate this problem, I request that alsa-modules-2.4.27-1* be
> > > removed from sarge.
> >
> > Is this an issue with the current version of alsa-modules-2.4.27-1 be
30 matches
Mail list logo
