On 04/10/2013 10:00 AM, Demetris Demetriou wrote:
> Since this is a fix for a RC bug can you, as the maintainer, submit an
> unblock request?
The release team already unblocked 0.8.1-1, which resolves the problem
going forward, but #682353 was re-opened against it.
As you can see from http://bug
Processing control commands:
> retitle -1 unblock: isc-dhcp/4.2.2.dfsg.1-5+deb70u5
Bug #704566 [release.debian.org] unblock: isc-dhcp/4.2.2.dfsg.1-5+deb70u4
Changed Bug title to 'unblock: isc-dhcp/4.2.2.dfsg.1-5+deb70u5' from 'unblock:
isc-dhcp/4.2.2.dfsg.1-5+deb70u4'
--
704566: http://bugs.deb
control: retitle -1 unblock: isc-dhcp/4.2.2.dfsg.1-5+deb70u5
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> (sorry for the delay, which was to avoid a rash reply)
> (quotes have been re-ordered)
>
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 08:12:15PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 3, 201
Your message dated Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:53:53 +0100
with message-id <20130411205353.gt11...@ernie.home.powdarrmonkey.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#699109: unblock (pre-approval):
initramfs-tools-tcos/0.89.91
has caused the Debian Bug report #699109,
regarding unblock (pre-approval): initramfs-tools
Your message dated Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:53:53 +0100
with message-id <20130411205353.gt11...@ernie.home.powdarrmonkey.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#699109: unblock (pre-approval):
initramfs-tools-tcos/0.89.91
has caused the Debian Bug report #699109,
regarding unblock (pre-approval): initramfs-tools
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:29:50PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> > On 2013-04-11 11:53, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> > Please prepare a diff against the current package in Wheezy and submit a
> > revised debdiff for consideration. Plea
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 70 unblock: cacti/0.8.8a+dfsg-5
Bug #70 [release.debian.org] unblock: cacti/0.8.8a+dfsg-4
Changed Bug title to 'unblock: cacti/0.8.8a+dfsg-5' from 'unblock:
cacti/0.8.8a+dfsg-4'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact m
On 11-04-13 19:00, Niels Thykier wrote:
> As I approved of the changed that let to this regression, I would like
> to see this mess cleaned up before r0 if possible. :)
Good to hear.
> Paul, seeing some users are surprised that the "folding" is broken on
> upgrades[1], would it be possible to add
On 2013-04-03 21:30, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 03-04-13 01:08, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
>> [...]
>
>> Either way it's rather a large diff, I'm inclined towards deferring to a
>> point release at least...
>
Hey,
As I approved of the changed that let to this regression, I would like
to see this me
On 2013-04-10 20:44, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:12:46PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>> [...]
>> I am tempted to take this fix for Wheezy and be done with it. Can (one
>> of) you please check up on CPAN.pm/CPANPLUS.pm ?
>
> Sorry for the delay and thanks for looking at this.
>
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> On 2013-04-11 11:53, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> Please prepare a diff against the current package in Wheezy and submit a
> revised debdiff for consideration. Please use version number 1.0.2-5+deb70u1
> (the conventional format) as your p
On 2013-04-11 11:53, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package mummy
As explained on 703332#23 I prepared a testing-proposed-update
package. debdiff attached.
unblock mummy/1.0.3-3
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package mummy
As explained on 703332#23 I prepared a testing-proposed-update package. debdiff
attached.
unblock mummy/1.0.3-3
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.7
13 matches
Mail list logo
