[ Assuming is not too late to proposed release goals of course ]
Hi, a long time ago we were wondering to have DEBIAN/md5sums generated
for all packages in the archive ... and we are still wondering!
Can we make it a release goal for lenny?
Cheers.
PS thanks to Romain Francoise which reminded m
On Thursday 16 August 2007, maximilian attems wrote:
> please note that i'm not a d-i expert.
> klibc produces udebs which are in use in rootskel irc
> i don't know of the d-i consequences of an klibc upload.
In Etch we still have programs in rootskel-bootfloppy that are compiled
against or direc
D-I team,
On Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 23:57:03 +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> [trimmed long reviewer cc, added debian-boot and fjp ]
>
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
>
> > On Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 18:27:58 +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > dann frazier wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 16
Hi,
glibc 2.6.1-1 will reach 10 days into unstable very soon and is in a
good shape to go into testing. We are only missing the alpha package,
but the buildd maintainer has been pinged.
Could you please unblock it?
FYI this version removes SPARC v8 support, and refuse to be installed on
such CPU
[trimmed long reviewer cc, added debian-boot and fjp ]
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> On Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 18:27:58 +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > dann frazier wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 04:05:12PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > > could you please review #438
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 11:11:31PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> >flashplugin-nonfree is still unusable in stable :-(
> >
> >> >Remove the package from etch or upload a fixed version?
> >> >I vote for the later.
> >
> >> So can you please either show that the fixed t
Please binNMU gnome-python package on all architectures (rebuild will add
support for python2.5)
gnome-python-2.18.2-1, Rebuild to get python2.5 extensions, 1, alpha amd64 arm
hppa i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc m68k
--
:wq!
pgpvxd1cRBsvD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Steve Langasek wrote:
>> >flashplugin-nonfree is still unusable in stable :-(
>
>> >Remove the package from etch or upload a fixed version?
>> >I vote for the later.
>
>> So can you please either show that the fixed tarball would only have few
>> differences with the existing one or that the new v
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 05:20:02PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Holger Levsen wrote:
> >flashplugin-nonfree is still unusable in stable :-(
> >Remove the package from etch or upload a fixed version?
> >I vote for the later.
> So can you please either show that the fixed tarball would only have few
Hi,
On Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 18:27:58 +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> dann frazier wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 04:05:12PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > hello stable rm,
> > >
> > > could you please review #438123 ?
> > > the fix propagated in new upstream and is thus in testing / sid.
Hi,
On Thursday 16 August 2007 19:51, dann frazier wrote:
> ... but it seems like removing a package within a
> stable release should be a near last-resort - especially when it may
> leave our users running systems with open security vulnerabilities.
Yes.
But doing nothing has the same effect, o
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:24:02PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thursday 16 August 2007 17:20, you wrote:
> > So can you please either show that the fixed tarball would only have few
> > differences with the existing one or that the new version is tested
> > enough to be considered?
>
Hi,
it's also important to note that this is a cross plattform remote exploit,
which affects a very great percentage of the web population and therefore is
very likely to be activly exploited.
http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb07-12.html was issued more
than a month ago.
And
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 17:20 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > flashplugin-nonfree is still unusable in stable :-(
> >
> > Remove the package from etch or upload a fixed version?
> > I vote for the later.
>
> So can you please either show that the fixed tarball would
dann frazier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 04:05:12PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > hello stable rm,
> >
> > could you please review #438123 ?
> > the fix propagated in new upstream and is thus in testing / sid.
> > the consequences are that currently nfsroot on mips/mipsel fails.
> >
>
Hi,
On Thursday 16 August 2007 17:20, you wrote:
> So can you please either show that the fixed tarball would only have few
> differences with the existing one or that the new version is tested
> enough to be considered?
Nope. So please remove it from etch. Currently that package is completly
un
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 04:05:12PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> hello stable rm,
>
> could you please review #438123 ?
> the fix propagated in new upstream and is thus in testing / sid.
> the consequences are that currently nfsroot on mips/mipsel fails.
>
> i'd consider the backport of the p
Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
flashplugin-nonfree is still unusable in stable :-(
Remove the package from etch or upload a fixed version?
I vote for the later.
So can you please either show that the fixed tarball would only have few
differences with the existing one or that the new version is tes
hello stable rm,
could you please review #438123 ?
the fix propagated in new upstream and is thus in testing / sid.
the consequences are that currently nfsroot on mips/mipsel fails.
i'd consider the backport of the patch as low risk,
as it is not fixing anything else than the *arch*
dependent soc
Hi,
flashplugin-nonfree is still unusable in stable :-(
Remove the package from etch or upload a fixed version?
I vote for the later.
regards,
Holger
pgp4EpzUSD0V4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
20 matches
Mail list logo
