On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:08:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:18:50PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > So, the installer needs to be fixed ASAP.
> > Getting a useable kernel into testing is a prerequsite for making the
> > installer use it, not the o
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 05:39:48AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >What do these have to do with getting GNOME 2.10 in? The last two are
> >not in testing at all right now, and I haven't noticed any of these
> >three packages listed in the hint output.
> Perhaps they don't... But they are depen
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:18:50PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, the installer needs to be fixed ASAP.
>
> Getting a useable kernel into testing is a prerequsite for making the
> installer use it, not the other way around.
sure, will happen as soon as it gets hinted in.
>
Sven Luther wrote:
> So, the installer needs to be fixed ASAP.
Getting a useable kernel into testing is a prerequsite for making the
installer use it, not the other way around.
In other words, the changes you recently made to base-installer for
powerpc to make it install the new kernel that is no
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 11:09:45AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > (CCing debian-release, as this may concern them, or they might have input,
> > so
> > i hope they will also pick up the hppa flavour rename hint above, oh, and we
> > should kill all 2.6.8 and 2.6.11 packages from
Sven Luther wrote:
> (CCing debian-release, as this may concern them, or they might have input, so
> i hope they will also pick up the hppa flavour rename hint above, oh, and we
> should kill all 2.6.8 and 2.6.11 packages from etch and sid now).
No, existing kernels that are a) sources of udebs of
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 04:14:36AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 11:52:53AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 02:32:34AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > I don't see any reason here for the release team to override the
> > > out-of-date hppa packages
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 02:32:34AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:54:09AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Now that linux 2.6.12-6 is ready to enter testing, (just waiting an RM
> > override for the hppa flavour rename)
>
> I don't see any reason here for the release tea
Hi,
Could you please allow dhcp3 to enter testing?
Thanks
Andrew
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 11:52:53AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 02:32:34AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't see any reason here for the release team to override the
> > out-of-date hppa packages. Removing them is an ftp team task, not a
> > release team task.
> Wh
>What do these have to do with getting GNOME 2.10 in? The last two are
>not in testing at all right now, and I haven't noticed any of these
>three packages listed in the hint output.
Perhaps they don't... But they are dependencies of meta-gnome2, which *does*
show up as broken in the hint output
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 02:32:34AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't see any reason here for the release team to override the
> out-of-date hppa packages. Removing them is an ftp team task, not a
> release team task.
Why are they listed as out-of-date? There is no version in testing.
Bastia
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:54:09AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Now that linux 2.6.12-6 is ready to enter testing, (just waiting an RM
> override for the hppa flavour rename)
I don't see any reason here for the release team to override the
out-of-date hppa packages. Removing them is an ftp team t
13 matches
Mail list logo
