Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 04:39:20PM +, Debian testing watch wrote:
>> FYI: The status of the geda-examples source package
>> in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
>>
>> Previous version: 1:1.4.3-1
>> Current version: (not in testing)
>> Hint: Package not in
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> Since 19th of october, never rebuilt. It appears to me a transient
> failure.
>
> https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=libdap&ver=3.9.3-5&arch=kfreebsd-i386&stamp=1255980662&file=log
Please contact buildd maintainers (@buildd.d.o) for these kind of
requests.
C
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 04:39:20PM +, Debian testing watch wrote:
> FYI: The status of the geda-examples source package
> in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
>
> Previous version: 1:1.4.3-1
> Current version: (not in testing)
> Hint: Package not in unstable
I can't work out w
There are only a few udebs left that still depend on libc6 rather than
libc6-udeb. In most cases the reason is simply that they have not been
uploaded since glibc got support for creating the correct dependencies.
A binNMU should solve this.
I'm therefore requesting a binNMU for the following so
Hi,
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you.
On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 09:27 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> We currently FFmpeg version 0.5 in lenny and squeeze. I noticed
> difficulties when trying to update the distro packages to a recent svn
> checkout, because the SONAME of libavutil ha
Ben Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:06:40 +0100
> Luk Claes wrote:
>>> eeepc-acpi-scripts 1.1.4, just released by the debian-eeepc team,
>>> closes RC bug #559578 which inadvertently already migrated to testing
>>> (I still don't know how that happened). However, we neglected to set
>>>
On 21.12.2009 18:04, Luk Claes wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
I believe that we are getting close to uploading Python 2.6 to Unstable and
dropping Python 2.4 as a supported Python version. If we finish preparations
in the next week, are there any ongoing transitions a python2.6/python-
defaults
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:06:40 +0100
Luk Claes wrote:
> > eeepc-acpi-scripts 1.1.4, just released by the debian-eeepc team,
> > closes RC bug #559578 which inadvertently already migrated to testing
> > (I still don't know how that happened). However, we neglected to set
> > urgency=high. Would you
Ben Armstrong wrote:
> Hi,
>
> eeepc-acpi-scripts 1.1.4, just released by the debian-eeepc team,
> closes RC bug #559578 which inadvertently already migrated to testing
> (I still don't know how that happened). However, we neglected to set
> urgency=high. Would you please fix that?
hint added.
Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I believe that we are getting close to uploading Python 2.6 to Unstable and
> dropping Python 2.4 as a supported Python version. If we finish preparations
> in the next week, are there any ongoing transitions a python2.6/python-
> defaults upload would entangle that woul
Hola Adam D. Barratt!
El 13/12/2009 a las 15:05 escribiste:
> On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 11:35 -0300, Maximiliano Curia wrote:
> > I've been looking at bug #545358, it's a bug that only affects lenny, making
> > system-tools-backends quite useless (and also network-admin, shares-admin
> > and
> > time
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 02:59:53PM +0200, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
>
> * Packages which FTBFS with the new gnustep-gui or for other reasons:
>
> - adun.app: #560514
> Fix committed in debian-med SVN; can be uploaded any time as the
> issue is not related to -gu
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:39:19PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> clone 497633 -1
> reassign -1 release.debian.org
> retitle -1 "gnash update in lenny fixing 497633"
> thanks
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sonntag, 20. Dezember 2009, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > would you accept a update of gnash via s-p-u with t
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Please give the green light for a libgnustep-gui0.16->0.17 transition.
This is going to be harder than last time -- more packages are
affected by the incompatible changes, and unfortunate
Hi,
Santiago Vila wrote:
The following packages still depend on libtre4, which prevents tre
0.8.0-2 (providing libtre5) from entering testing:
crm114
elinks
msort
Should I report this as a bug, or should I just ask for a binary-only
NMU? Ideally, they should use the new API, which means using
Hello.
The following packages still depend on libtre4, which prevents tre 0.8.0-2
(providing libtre5) from entering testing:
crm114
elinks
msort
Should I report this as a bug, or should I just ask for a binary-only NMU?
Ideally, they should use the new API, which means using tre/tre.h instead
of
clone 497633 -1
reassign -1 release.debian.org
retitle -1 "gnash update in lenny fixing 497633"
thanks
Hi,
On Sonntag, 20. Dezember 2009, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > would you accept a update of gnash via s-p-u with the attached patch for
> > 497633, severity important, causing ~/.Xsession of a us
17 matches
Mail list logo
