Re: Compatibility between Debian amd64 and other distributions

On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 02:50:35AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > But running Debian binaries on other distributions remains a > problem. For example static binaries that use libnss* plugins will > fail to find those plugins on other systems. Copying the debian libc6 > to your ~/lib/ dir on a

Re: hint for libofx

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's not consistent with the britney output: > > trying: libofx > skipped: libofx (35 <- 587) > got: 8+0: i-8 > * i386: gnucash, grisbi, kmymoney2 > > Nor is it consistent with what I see currently listed on haxx.se. Grr; I see the same now.

Re: hint for libofx

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:29:24PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 06:33:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >> I think a hint for libofx is in order to complete its transition, if I > >> understand everything right.

Re: hint for libofx

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 06:33:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >> I think a hint for libofx is in order to complete its transition, if I >> understand everything right. > > Your subsequent mails suggest you might already know this, but: > > gnuc

Compatibility between Debian amd64 and other distributions

Dear release team and DDs, I submitted a trivial patch for glibc in bug#387446 to increase the compatibility between debian amd64 and other distributions. The maintainer has reassign this to 'general' saying: Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Actually there is nothing wrong with the gl

Re: Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (II)

Martin Zobel-Helas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Roger, > > On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:07:58AM +0100, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Please could you make sure that devmapper is included in the next >> stable update? It was supposed to be included in the last update, but >> for

Re: Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (II)

Hi Roger, On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:07:58AM +0100, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please could you make sure that devmapper is included in the next > stable update? It was supposed to be included in the last update, but > for some reason was omitted. please go ahead and upload. Greet

Re: Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (II)

Please could you make sure that devmapper is included in the next stable update? It was supposed to be included in the last update, but for some reason was omitted. Thanks, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing o

Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (II)

Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.1r4 = An up-to-date version is at . We are preparing the next revision of the current stable Debian distribution (sarge) and will frequently send reports so people can actually comme

purge failures w/o debconf not RC

severity 388646 important severity 388155 important severity 388603 important severity 388604 important severity 388782 important severity 388610 important severity 388784 important severity 387979 important severity 388600 important severity 388666 important severity 388780 important severity 3886

Re: ICU transition

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 22:12:22 +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > [0] this surprisingly resulted in FTBFS until libicu36-dev has been > uploaded to unstable, i expected buildd to peek libicu34-dev in case > the first was not found. any explaination? > Alternative build dependencies are never tak

Re: ICU transition

On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 01:24:14PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > > I have uploaded ICU 3.6 to sid today and have had the libicu36-dev > package Provide libicu34-dev as previously discussed. Please schedule > binary NMUs for the packages that build depend upon libicu34-dev once > libicu36-dev app

Re: Preparing linux-2.6 2.6.18-1

On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 11:46:06AM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > The ia64/xen folks here think so too - I'm not too familiar with Xen, > but if you want to enable ia64/xen in linux-2.6 I should be able to > get help from HP people if we run into ia64-specific problems. The question is, do we want/c

Re: Preparing linux-2.6 2.6.18-1

On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 06:51:12PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > Xen should be okay. According to the maintainer of this tree, ia64 > should work fine also. The ia64/xen folks here think so too - I'm not too familiar with Xen, but if you want to enable ia64/xen in linux-2.6 I should be able to get

Re: Preparing linux-2.6 2.6.18-1

Hello, On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:13:14PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > And exactly this is what it is all about: find a way to satisfy BOTH > > priorities, not just one. > > No. It is about the definition of "our users". > > If "our users" are dependent on non-free software, then we indir

Re: new mplayer

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/21/06 10:26, Joseph Smidt wrote: > I understand the freeze is probably too soon, but I need mplayer for making > movies I need for my physics research. Please allow this mplayer into > Etch. deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org testing main -

Re: Preparing linux-2.6 2.6.18-1

Arrgh! Please ignore my post a moment ago. In a moment of carelessness I forgot my promise of throwing no more flames in this thread :-( - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eo

Re: Preparing linux-2.6 2.6.18-1

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:16:02 +0200 Frederik Schueler wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:53:21PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > I honestly believe that moving linux-2.6 to non-free hurts our users > > more than stripping non-free parts of the Debian-precompiled kernel. > > of course. > > >

Re: new mplayer

I understand the freeze is probably too soon, but I need mplayer for making movies I need for my physics research.  Please allow this mplayer into Etch. -- -   Joseph Smidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Preparing linux-2.6 2.6.18-1

On Thursday 21 September 2006 19:01, Frans Pop wrote: > It will only hit the mirrors tonight or maybe even tomorrow (not sure). > I will try to run an installation test tomorrow to see if 2.6.17 is > picked up correctly. Tested and OK. pgpygzXh5FPzI.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: hint for libofx

On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 06:33:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > I think a hint for libofx is in order to complete its transition, if I > understand everything right. Your subsequent mails suggest you might already know this, but: gnucash (2.0.1-2 to 2.0.1-3) Maintainer: Thomas Bushnel

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:07:36PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Moreover, there's the matter that this leaves no time for an archive-wide > > check for toolchain /regressions/. As we enter the freeze, i386 and amd64 > > will most likely do whole-arc

Re: Preparing linux-2.6 2.6.18-1

Hello, On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:53:21PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > I honestly believe that moving linux-2.6 to non-free hurts our users > more than stripping non-free parts of the Debian-precompiled kernel. of course. > Also, section 4 of the SC talks equally about users and free softwa

Re: Preparing linux-2.6 2.6.18-1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:58:14 +0200 Frederik Schueler wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 06:16:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:38:50PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: > > > Second: this release contains ALL binary firmwar

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 02:47:47PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > Eh, what are you talking about? Debian is getting way better than it > used to be, at least that's the impression I have. If you have another > opinion, please share that one with me (but that's off-topic for > debian-release as well