Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello RM team,
>
> Here goes a small hintset that unblock few packages ready to go and
> that were being blocked due udeb binaries:
>
> unblock dmraid
> unblock e2fsprogs
> unblock expat
> unblock fbset
> unblock hdparm
> unblock libusb
> unblock thaifonts-scalable
unblo
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> ltsp is again blocked from migrating into testing, likely due to the
>> ltsp-client-builder udeb, though this udeb is not used by
>> debian-installer by default.
>
>> it has been in unstable for 8 days without introducing
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> pinot & phaseshift should build on mipsel now
given back
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pinot & phaseshift should build on mipsel now
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vagrant Cascadian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ltsp is again blocked from migrating into testing, likely due to the
> ltsp-client-builder udeb, though this udeb is not used by
> debian-installer by default.
>
> it has been in unstable for 8 days with
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:11:22 -0400, Hubert Chathi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello, release team, It looks like the core GNUstep libraries have
> been built on all architectures. Can you please schedule binNMUs for
> the following packages:
[...]
> - gnustep-dl2
Short story: I have NMUed gnuste
ltsp is again blocked from migrating into testing, likely due to the
ltsp-client-builder udeb, though this udeb is not used by
debian-installer by default.
it has been in unstable for 8 days without introducing new problems, and
fixes several bugs.
thanks!
also, i noticed that even though the pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello RM team,
Here goes a small hintset that unblock few packages ready to go and
that were being blocked due udeb binaries:
unblock dmraid
unblock e2fsprogs
unblock expat
unblock fbset
unblock hdparm
unblock libusb
unblock thaifonts-scalable
Pleas
On Monday 07 July 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> .26 also includes at least one change I know of that is somewhat risky:
> PAT support for x86 (which could be disabled).
#d-uk just gave me this tidbit:
<...> am I missing something or will the move to .26, with libata binding
before most of the IDE stuf
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> * Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-07 17:30]:
>>> In fact, having 2.6.25 in testing would possibly make it easier for
>>> the kernel team to do a final (?) 2.6.25 upload with latest stable
>>> updates.
>> FWIW, I full
On Monday 07 July 2008, maximilian attems wrote:
> > There are valid arguments to be found for staying with 2.6.25 a bit
> > longer, but "D-I has not yet converted to it" is NOT one of them.
>
> testing users are currently on an unsupported kernel.
Eh, how does that follow my last para which I ass
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-07 17:30]:
>> In fact, having 2.6.25 in testing would possibly make it easier for
>> the kernel team to do a final (?) 2.6.25 upload with latest stable
>> updates.
maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> .26 is the release kernel.
> so i'm happy with push on it.
> .25 is a possible backup.
I'd like to get an official statement from RM team about that so we
can move it further.
--
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
-
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:30:09PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> (adding d-kernel and d-release)
>
> On Monday 07 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Thursday 03 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > >> > please hint linux-2.6 2.6.25-6, linux-kbuild-2.6
* Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-07 17:30]:
> In fact, having 2.6.25 in testing would possibly make it easier for
> the kernel team to do a final (?) 2.6.25 upload with latest stable
> updates.
FWIW, I fully agree. In the past, we never waited for all arches in
d-i to move to a new kernel
* Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080707 19:48]:
> Changing kernel at this point of the release would be too destructive,
> so unless there is a big fat problem in the .25 that the .26 should fix
> and is unbackportable (does such a beast even exist ?) I'm rather
> opposed to it. Note that the
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 04:19:01PM +, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Frans Pop a écrit :
> > Se IMO we should take a real good look at .25 and .26 and check what's
> > new, what's important for Lenny and what's risky, and maybe check if some
> > things we do want could be backported.
>
> As the rel
Frans Pop a écrit :
> Se IMO we should take a real good look at .25 and .26 and check what's
> new, what's important for Lenny and what's risky, and maybe check if some
> things we do want could be backported.
As the release team is Cc:ed, I just want to make sure it is aware that
switching to 2
(adding d-kernel and d-release)
On Monday 07 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thursday 03 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> > please hint linux-2.6 2.6.25-6, linux-kbuild-2.6 2.6.25-2,
> >> > linux-modules-extra-2.6 2.6.25-5
> >>
> >> Please wai
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 09:57:26PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> I mean, when a package has stuff in editors, devel, libs, misc, doc,
> x11, kde, gnome, python, graphics, net and libdevel where would it stand for
> buildd ordering?
It uses the section information from Sources, i.e. the one from t
20 matches
Mail list logo
