On dim, 2009-10-18 at 23:28 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > If you choose to unsubscribe from
> > debian-kernel then don't complain that you don't hear what the
> kernel
> > team is doing.
>
> wrong; i complain because the kernel team is apparently not
> communicating to ot
On Sun, 2009-10-18 at 23:28 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > If you choose to unsubscribe from
> > debian-kernel then don't complain that you don't hear what the kernel
> > team is doing.
>
> wrong; i complain because the kernel team is apparently not
> communicating to othe
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> If you choose to unsubscribe from
> debian-kernel then don't complain that you don't hear what the kernel
> team is doing.
wrong; i complain because the kernel team is apparently not
communicating to other teams about stuff that is critical for them. if
you maintain such a c
* Ben Hutchings (b...@decadent.org.uk) [091018 20:17]:
> There was a build failure for linux-2.6 on alpha which needs to be fixed
> somehow.
Alpha is no longer an release architecture, so I doubt that the
release team would care.
Cheers,
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...
On Sun, 2009-10-18 at 22:56 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >> where was this discussed?
> >
> > Bug report #517130
>
> which is one single message, not a discussion.
>
> > and the Debian kernel team meeting in Portland.
>
> in private then, behind 'closed doors'. :/
It w
Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> where was this discussed?
>
> Bug report #517130
which is one single message, not a discussion.
> and the Debian kernel team meeting in Portland.
in private then, behind 'closed doors'. :/
>> how will be binary modules provided in the future?
>
> In general they should
On Sun, 2009-10-18 at 21:55 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > I'll be requesting removal of
> > linux-modules-extra-2.6 rather than updating it.
>
> where was this discussed?
Bug report #517130 and the Debian kernel team meeting in Portland.
> how will be binary modules pro
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 08:34:05PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Ben Hutchings [2009-10-18 19:17]:
> > There was a build failure for linux-2.6 on alpha which needs to be fixed
> > somehow.
>
> Fixed for what? 2.6.30 or 2.6.31? I don't think we need another
> 2.6.30 upload to fix alpha sinc
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I'll be requesting removal of
> linux-modules-extra-2.6 rather than updating it.
where was this discussed? how will be binary modules provided in the
future? why was debian-live not informed about it, it's critical part of
the distribution for building live images.
--
Addr
[Andreas Barth]
> Comments?
The idea seem reasonable, but it might be hard to decide when "equally
sufficient" is the case or not.
I suspect it is better to make this a release goal as the first step,
and then see if it make sense to make it a release requirement when it
is better known how many
Hi Adam,
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 20:16 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote:
>
>> I have uploaded a revision of scalapack in mentors.d.n:
>> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/scalapack/
>>
>> If I understood #549707 correctly scalapac
* Ben Hutchings [2009-10-18 19:17]:
> There was a build failure for linux-2.6 on alpha which needs to be fixed
> somehow.
Fixed for what? 2.6.30 or 2.6.31? I don't think we need another
2.6.30 upload to fix alpha since it's being dropped from testing
anyway.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyri
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 07:17:19PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> There was a build failure for linux-2.6 on alpha which needs to be fixed
> somehow.
will disable that stupid snd driver on alpha.
> I also need to add a conflict to firmware-linux-nonfree.
> Other than that I think we're ready t
Linux 2.6.31 seems to be in fairly good shape now. I have updated
linux-kbuild-2.6 to 2.6.31.2 and refreshed firmware-linux-nonfree from
the linux-firmware repository. I'll be requesting removal of
linux-modules-extra-2.6 rather than updating it.
Also, the stable series 2.6.30.y has now ended.
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 13:38:24 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after some discussion we had today on IRC, I tend to think we should
> put a section within "security" of the release policy that says
> something like "Packages must not open listening sockets at localhost
> where usage of a
Your message dated Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:24:21 -0400
with message-id <1255886661.3941.368.ca...@workhorse>
and subject line Re: blacs-mpi/scalapack transition
has caused the Debian Bug report #550648,
regarding RM: blacs-pvm-test, scalapack-lam-dev, scalapack-lam-test,
scalapack1-lam, scalapack-mpic
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 20:16 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Luk Claes wrote:
> > Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> blacs-mpi and scalapack have been in transition for over four months.
> >> AFAICT, it's because of old binary packages in testi
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: rm
Hello,
please remove tork from testing/squeeze.
Reasons:
1) It still lacks a Qt4 port and is not very compatible with KDE4
2) Upstream is not very reponsive
3) Bug #529908 has become critical,
Andrew Pollock wrote:
> I'm in the process of packaging ISC's DHCP 4.1. It's currently in
> dhcdbd
Don't care for dhcdbd. It's dead and removed in squeeze and sid.
It previously was a dependency of network-manager, but it's obsolete now.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Why is it that all of the instrument
* Luk Claes (l...@debian.org) [091018 14:51]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > after some discussion we had today on IRC, I tend to think we should
> > put a section within "security" of the release policy that says
> > something like "Packages must not open listening sockets at localhost
> > where usage
Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:33:11 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>
>> Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
>>> Hello,
>
>
>>> I have a migration unstable => testing issue with Scilab. I would like
>
>>> to see it into testing but, for now, it does not respect the rule
>
>>> "It must be avai
Andreas Barth wrote:
> after some discussion we had today on IRC, I tend to think we should
> put a section within "security" of the release policy that says
> something like "Packages must not open listening sockets at localhost
> where usage of a unix domain socket (in the filesystem) would be
>
Hi,
after some discussion we had today on IRC, I tend to think we should
put a section within "security" of the release policy that says
something like "Packages must not open listening sockets at localhost
where usage of a unix domain socket (in the filesystem) would be
equally sufficient".
Reas
23 matches
Mail list logo
