I wanna debian history
if exist summarize debian history infomation
forward me plz.. Thanks.
Like Redhat history information.. below here
1991 - Minix-like O/S
1994.3 ? kernel 1.0
1994.11 RHL1.0 (kernel-1.2.8)
1995.3 - kernel1.2
1995.8 RHL1.1 (kernel-1.2.11, kernel-1.2.13)
1995.9 RHL2.0 (kerne
Hi,
directfb 0.9.24-1 is now in experimental. Please test it and report any
problems. I will not move it to unstable for at least a week (plus the
time RMs may need due to other transitions, etc). I'll send another mail
just 2 days before uploading.
For the RMs, when would it be fine with you to
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 07:53:58PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Eric Dorland a écrit :
> >According to http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=firefox
> >firefox is ready to go into testing, except it's blocking on a bunch
> >of translation packages that have been updated and renamed th
Eric Dorland a écrit :
Hello,
According to http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=firefox
firefox is ready to go into testing, except it's blocking on a bunch
of translation packages that have been updated and renamed themselves
already for the most part.
vorlon's hints now contai
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 06:15:26PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> You've filed some bugs requesting to drop support for python
> 2.1/2.2. Would it be useful if there were some NMU's done for
> this?
> Should those bug be marked as release critical instead?
I don't think they should be marked RC at
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 02:05:03AM +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> quoting http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=fribidi :
> "Not touching package, as requested by freeze (contact debian-release if
> update is needed)"
Hint added.
Thanks,
--
St
* Thomas Weber ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060402 19:05]:
> is it possible that the references were mixed up in the previous mail? I
> think [1] and [3] should be switched.
>
> > All packages which we currently consider for R2 are listed at [1].
>
> > sudo: proposed fix exists at [2],
>
> > See [3] for
Hi,
is it possible that the references were mixed up in the previous mail? I
think [1] and [3] should be switched.
> All packages which we currently consider for R2 are listed at [1].
> sudo: proposed fix exists at [2],
> See [3] for a list of packages still missing in s-p-u but availible
> vi
8 matches
Mail list logo
