Bug#544894: libtk-filedialog-perl: Unusable in Lenny

clone 544894 -1 reassign -1 release.debian.org retitle -1 pu: libtk-filedialog-perl/1.3-2+lenny1 severity -1 normal reopen -1 tags -1 = notforwarded -1 user release.debian@packages.debian.org usertag -1 + pu thanks Hi, libtk-filedialog-perl is unusable in Lenny [1]: even the examp

Processed: libtk-filedialog-perl: Unusable in Lenny

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > clone 544894 -1 Bug#544894: libtk-filedialog-perl: examples/example.pl fails with message ...can't make ".filedialog" its own master... Bug 544894 cloned as bug 591738. > reassign -1 release.debian.org Bug #591738 {Done: Tim Retout } [libtk-file

Re: Releasability of the kFreeBSD ports

On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 07:52:52PM +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: > Hi, > > * ALSA: Many ALSA dependent packages not working/building/available. > (There is a limited emulation layer called SALSA, but either many > packages don't work with it or nobody tried to get them working with > it. Not su

Re: Releasability of the kFreeBSD ports

Hi, Tuco wrote: > I think as a desktop it's still inmature but as a server it's very > usable and has wonderful capabilities in storage area thanks to ZFS > (for example http://www.ypass.net/solaris/zfsbackup/). Yeah, thanks to Tuco we made big advances with usable ZFS support recently. Thanks! :

Re: Hypre transition

On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 17:38 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > Adam, > > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 11:23:36AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > I'd like to move the hypre package from version 2.4.0b to 2.6.0b. Its > > shared libs are used directly by petsc and elmerfem, and indirectly by a > > handful o

Re: Releasability of the kFreeBSD ports

On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 02:38:42AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > Dear kFreeBSD porters, dear kFreeBSD users, Hi, > the Release Team is currently wondering if it makes sense to release with > kFreeBSD as a regular stable architecture with squeeze. It might be that > it is not yet up to the standar

Re: GNOME 2.32 plans

On 04/08/10 18:14, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 04 août 2010 à 17:21 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit : >> I'd say it depends on when the RT plans to freeze the archive. If soon (e.g. >> this month) maybe we should just release with 2.30? But if they don't plan to >> release anytime s

Re: Releasability of the kFreeBSD ports

I intend to deploy Debian GNU/kFreeBSD as a backup / NAS server. I think as a desktop it's still inmature but as a server it's very usable and has wonderful capabilities in storage area thanks to ZFS (for example http://www.ypass.net/solaris/zfsbackup/). I also think it can be a good firewall with

Re: Releasability of the kFreeBSD ports

Ok my suggestions below may be stating the obvious, if so my apologies. I would suggest, making a list of criteria, that we believe would constitute a stable release. (I personally don't know enough to say what that criteria is, and this email thread may be the first step in creating that list).

Re: GNOME 2.32 plans

Le mercredi 04 août 2010 à 17:21 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit : > I'd say it depends on when the RT plans to freeze the archive. If soon (e.g. > this month) maybe we should just release with 2.30? But if they don't plan to > release anytime soon, updating GLib and GTK+ doesn't bad to me, a

Re: Releasability of the kFreeBSD ports

On 8/4/10, Petr Salinger wrote: > * openjdk on both kfreebsd-i386/kfreebsd-amd64 >man-power is missing, we use gcj similarly as hppa I'm working on openjdk. But progress is slow because it takes a lot of time to build after each fix. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists

Re: GNOME 2.32 plans

Hi, On 04/08/10 10:24, Josselin Mouette wrote: > as some of you might have heard, there is going to be a GNOME 2.32 > release in September, GNOME 3.0 being delayed to next spring. > > For a large number of modules, 2.32 is going to be a pure bugfix release > based on 2.30. Therefore I propose the

Re: Hypre transition

Adam, On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 11:23:36AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > I'd like to move the hypre package from version 2.4.0b to 2.6.0b. Its > shared libs are used directly by petsc and elmerfem, and indirectly by a > handful of petsc's reverse-depends (deal.ii, dolfyn, life, slepc). you didn

Re: Releasability of the kFreeBSD ports

Petr Salinger wrote: Hi, > * openjdk on both kfreebsd-i386/kfreebsd-amd64 > man-power is missing, we use gcj similarly as hppa gcj 4.4 is currently broken on kfreebsd-amd64 per #576335. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - Public key available on

Hypre transition

Greetings, I'd like to move the hypre package from version 2.4.0b to 2.6.0b. Its shared libs are used directly by petsc and elmerfem, and indirectly by a handful of petsc's reverse-depends (deal.ii, dolfyn, life, slepc). The interface has changed only slightly (though enough for a soname bump),

Bug#589689: Bug#590948: Bug#589689: transition to libjack-jackd2-0 breaks many packages

On 03/08/10 17:50, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 17:31:05 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: > >> This doesn't seem to help (I called dpkg-buildpackage -B and doxygen was >> called). How will dh_listpackages know if we called dpkg-buildpackage -B? >> > In 'build', it doesn't. If you w

NEW changes in proposedupdates

Processing changes file: lftp_3.7.3-1+lenny1_i386.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: lftp_3.7.3-1+lenny1_alpha.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: lftp_3.7.3-1+lenny1_amd64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: lftp_3.7.3-1+lenny1_arm.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: lftp_

GNOME 2.32 plans

Hi, as some of you might have heard, there is going to be a GNOME 2.32 release in September, GNOME 3.0 being delayed to next spring. For a large number of modules, 2.32 is going to be a pure bugfix release based on 2.30. Therefore I propose the following approach: * For bugfix releases, we

Re: Releasability of the kFreeBSD ports

Hi, the Release Team is currently wondering if it makes sense to release with kFreeBSD as a regular stable architecture with squeeze. It might be that it is not yet up to the standards of a regular Debian release as it might not contain everything that's expected by users. So, what do you thin