On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 03:18:25PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:18:23AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 04:58:17PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > uim
> > > scheduled for removal
> > Has reverse deps, though, so it's not going anywhere at th
On 11/4/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 08:04:22AM -0700, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:00:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 05:53:53AM -0700, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 1
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:17:22PM -0600, Eric Shattow wrote:
> I have used miBoot on a nubus ppc mac (6116cd) and it is not the
> optimal solution. My suggestion as a user is that you forget about
> using miBoot at all, and foster development for a new GPL'ed
> bootloader based on EMILE. Laurent (
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 08:04:22AM -0700, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:00:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 05:53:53AM -0700, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:01:17PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 04,
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:08:07PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> This was resolved, only to hit the next problem with amd64: The amd64
> archive signing key is not trusted by apt. So currently testing amd64
> installs only work from the netinst CD, all the other install methods,
> which use apt auth
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 08:04:22AM -0700, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> It is an AmigaOS binary, built from free source with free compilers. So we
> just have to
> include all the free AmigaOS software to be able to ship a precompiled
> amiboot? As I said,
> no problem with me, maybe we include
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Heh. Would it be worth posting summaries of the unfixed RC security bugs
> somewhere from time to time, to try to get more people involved with NMUing
> them? Or are most of these not RC security bugs at this point?
The majority of them are not RC. The majority of them ma
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:00:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 05:53:53AM -0700, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:01:17PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:18:23AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 04:58:17PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > uim
> > scheduled for removal
>
> Has reverse deps, though, so it's not going anywhere at the moment. Frank,
> thoughts on this?
Someone should be begin with actua
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:01:17PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 05:53:53AM -0700, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:01:17PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:45:30AM +0100
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > Actually, we cou
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:27:52PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrot
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 07:07:21PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Would it be possible to allow openssl in testing? It has a udeb
> and is therefor currently frozen. It fixes a grave bug that many
> applications had problems with.
> Note that it has an added dependency on zlib1g, and so does the
>
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 04:58:17PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> enigmail
> 17 days old
> blocked by mozilla and mozilla-thunderbird
> mozilla
> 23 days old
> vorlon is forcing it, hope that works
> mozilla-thunderbird
> 23 days old
> vorlon is forcing it, hope that
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Actually, we could simply make an exception for miboot and get it into the
> > > archive, i think it is no worse than other cases (like amibo
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Actually, we could simply make an exception for miboot and get it
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Actually, we could simply make an exception for miboot and get it into the
> > archive, i think it is no worse than other cases (like amiboot, which is
> > linked to parts of amigaos, an
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> Actually, we could simply make an exception for miboot and get it into the
> archive, i think it is no worse than other cases (like amiboot, which is
> linked to parts of amigaos, and thus non-free), and we do distribute those (or
> at least used to distribu
19 matches
Mail list logo
