On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:53:40PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> # Complain to the maintainer about these: zeroc-ice is a metapackage with
> # 'depends' instead of 'recommends'.
> easy zeroc-ice/3.0.1-4 zeroc-ice-python/3.0.1-3 zeroc-ice-php/3.0.1-1
Added.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:52:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Perhaps we disable new kernel features for etch 1/2? e.g., limit new
> > feature to new hardware support. For example, we wouldn't want to
> > turn on something as drastic as preempt in a stable update.
>
> So how do you structu
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:39:40PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 04:16:01AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le mercredi 17 mai 2006 à 12:26 -0500, Donald King a écrit :
> > > Ever since a GNOME upgrade around late April, I haven't been able to use
> > > GNOME at all. By
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 01:09:45PM -0500, dann frazier wrote:
> hey,
> Frans Pop assembled an informal BoF at DebConf to discuss cross-team
> issues related to the kernel[1]. Attendees included:
Sorry I wasn't able to make this meeting, guys.
Random thoughts:
> Kernel Updates During Etch Life
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 02:37:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I feel very lost with this mail. Xorg 7.0 is a goal for the etch release;
> in fact, getting it into testing is a goal for the coming week. Why do you
> want to revert changes for supporting Xorg 7.0 in testing? For that matter,
>
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:30:47PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> The libgcc ABI breakage on hppa (#364231) is currently causing testsuite
> failures in a package of mine (graphicsmagick), and therefore prevents
> progression to testing. The bug log suggests that it'll take at least
> another month
Hi!
The libgcc ABI breakage on hppa (#364231) is currently causing testsuite
failures in a package of mine (graphicsmagick), and therefore prevents
progression to testing. The bug log suggests that it'll take at least
another month to resolve. Is there an interim solution like forcing
affected pac
On 5/21/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 05:34:08AM +, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
(...)
> - The kernel failures (that occurs only on SMP boxes) seems to be gone,
> at least on the build daemons. I don't know what has been done (if
> somebody know, please tell u
8 matches
Mail list logo
