On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:15:20AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:05:51PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > That the soversion, being the numeric component of the soname, changed
> > from 3.0.0 to 3.1.0?
>
> The numeric component of the sona
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:08:35AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:33:44AM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:00:25PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Clarification: the libxfixes change is a shlibs change, not an soname
> >
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:00:25PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Clarification: the libxfixes change is a shlibs change, not an soname
> change. ("soversion" normally refers to the numeric component of an soname;
> apparently xorg upstream uses the term differently.)
http://gitweb.freedesktop.or
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 04:16:01AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 17 mai 2006 à 12:26 -0500, Donald King a écrit :
> > Ever since a GNOME upgrade around late April, I haven't been able to use
> > GNOME at all. By downgrading to Sarge versions of the kernel, X, and
> > GNOME, I narrow
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 11:12:45AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > important, at best. I'm not suggesting that the patch shouldn't be
> > applied for 4.3.0-8, which, given Branden's lack of response, I assume I
> &
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 11:30:07AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > I didn't see that; all I saw was 'why is no-one asking to be RM :('.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/debian-x-200403/msg03703.html
Ahr.
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 01:53:53AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:48:15PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > important, at best. I'm not suggesting that the patch shouldn't be
> > applied for 4.3.0-8, which, given Branden's lack of respo
.
important, at best. I'm not suggesting that the patch shouldn't be
applied for 4.3.0-8, which, given Branden's lack of response, I assume I
am release-managing. However, it is most certainly not RC.
Please don't go around making stupid suggestions like this: you might
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:06:21PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 06:39:47AM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > >..
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >...
> > Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which
> > I promptly downgraded; if it didn't go in today, I expect t
ageing.
Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which
I promptly downgraded; if it didn't go in today, I expect that will be
because of the new sppc upload, making it a transitive problem.
--
Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
11 matches
Mail list logo
