> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:29:55PM -0500, Ming Hua wrote:
> > So from my understanding, it's urgent for libfreetype6 to bump its
> > shlibs from "libfreetype6 (>= 2.1.5-1)" to "libfreetype6 (>=
> > 2.1.10-1)".
>
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:14:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No. See bug #31438
Is the Etch RC Issues list supposed to be:
- A subset of policy
- A superset of policy
- Some hodgepodge I can't quite work out
?
There's some things on it for which I can not find a reference in any
released debian-policy package; I'm trying to figure out if I should
expect them in a future
Quality software at low prices - on time and hassle free.
http://qlv.pwtmao7i4h7wm87.pedaryil.com
Being another character is more interesting than being yourself.
Modesty is the citadel of beauty.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
Hello!
[Mon, 27 Jun 2005] Adeodato Simó wrote:
> When uploading a version coming from experimental, it is normally
> preferred to include in the .changes file all the changelog entries
> since the last upload to unstable. This way people can easily read all
> the changes, and bugs get prop
On Tuesday 28 June 2005 06:14, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:29:55PM -0500, Ming Hua wrote:
> > So from my understanding, it's urgent for libfreetype6 to bump its
> > shlibs from "libfreetype6 (>= 2.1.5-1)" to "libfreetype6 (>= 2.1.10-1)".
>
> No. See bug #314385: this librar
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050628 09:01]:
> >release blockers:
> >pet release goals (aka non-blockers):
> How about a newer glibc version? Not mentioned, but I think a lot of people
> would really like to see it.
That would go as part of "toolchain transition" as far as I understa
6 matches
Mail list logo
