On Sun, 20 Nov 2022, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 10:52:39AM +0100, Ansgar wrote:
Source: grub2
Version: 2.04-16
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: ftpmas...@debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org
grub2 currently uses grub-efi-signed-* as source package names for the
S
Hi all,
We haven't had a properly installable stable release for a full month
now, #536312. Applies to both CD/DVD and network installs. I don't see
much activity to resolve this. Are we so busy with squeeze and sid, that
we don't care about lenny any more?
Best regards,
Anne Bezemer
P.S. Ju
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Frans Pop wrote:
> Unfortunately we seem to have missed a change that was needed because of
> the ABI change in 3.1r3. We have not noticed this until now because the
> old kernels were still included in the archive and on CD images. With
> 3.1r5 the old images were removed
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:16:11AM +0200, Martin Schulze écrivait:
> > > Also - is there any chance that .iso images or pseudo image
> > > configurations could be ready _before_ the release is announced - eg
> > > tonight cdimage.debian.org still has
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > * libc6 -18 for alpha, arm, i386, powerpc (already there for m68k
> > and sparc)
> >
> > * updated kernel / pcmcia stuff?
> >
> > * updated boot-floppies?
>
> Joey (Martin Schulz) seems to think the boo
#include
#include
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Anyone have any worthwhile opinions on how 2.2r3 and 2.4.0 should get
> along? There already seems to be an iptables package and adding a new
> devfsd package would have little chance of breaking any existing installs
> (assuming th
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:34:05AM +0100, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
>
> One other note, if you're looking at pandora directly. I've made a Release
> file that describes the current release and authenticates the Packages
> files and s
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 09:14:11PM +0100, Nils Lohner wrote:
> > [ any more comments? IMO its ready to go out when the release is made.
> > --nils ]
>
> Which should be finished now. If the CD people want to start seeing if
> anything's broken, or if
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, lance wrote:
[...]
>You cant
> even download Debian 2.2r0 anymore and you certainly cant make iso images
> using the pseudo image kit because the original ftp files were overwritten
> by 2.2r1 on the mirrors, without the pseudo image kit having caught up,
> there doesnt s
On 13 Nov 2000, Philip Hands wrote:
[...]
> I think we're going to skip actually publishing these [=r1 CDs, JAB],
> because Wichert doesn't want to produce r1 CDs only to replace them with r2
> CDs within a week, because it will piss the CD vendors off.
>
> So, I'll not be showing the CDs I prod
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> Also, if there are any changes (bug fixes, updated docs, etc) to the
> release notes, they'll need to be uploaded by the same time. Josip (who's
> been doing this up 'til now) is away, so someone else will have to handle
> this. Adam? Anne?
I've spe
On 3 Aug 2000, Philip Hands wrote:
> with a space before the r, to emphasise the point that the revision
> number is largely irrelevant to users when it's so easy to use apt-get
Yet someone sometime started to call it "point _
On 3 Aug 2000, Philip Hands wrote:
> "J.A. Bezemer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And IMHO 2.2r0 sounds much better than 2.2_r0 - so I'd suggest having a
> > DEBVERSION="2.2r0" for the official CDs that will be made in 1.5 weeks or
&g
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Philip Charles wrote:
> Let's make it explicit and call it 2.2r0. The "r" should prevent
> confusion with kernels. We know what we mean, but other people could be
> confused.
I agree with that. AFAIK the CD's volume ID (& .disk/info & README) is the
only place this occurs a
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 09:22:13AM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> > > Second, it means we need a final set of release notes for TC3. These will
> > > need to be updated again after TC3 to document any further problems we
> > >
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
> Second, it means we need a final set of release notes for TC3. These will
> need to be updated again after TC3 to document any further problems we
> have, of course, but the TC3 release notes will need to be ready by around
> 16:00 Monday, GMT.
I
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Friedemann Schorer wrote:
> Hi :-)
> I'd like to know if it's predictable how long it will take until I
> can get *.list files for the test-cycle-3-images - I have to hurry
> a little for I won't have long time left with free and fast access
> to the net ...
I expect not
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > Le Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:42:48AM +0200, Sven Hartrumpf écrivait:
> > > I just want to report a successful upgrade
> > > from slink to potato-test-cycle-2 (i386) follo
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:42:48AM +0200, Sven Hartrumpf écrivait:
> > I just want to report a successful upgrade
> > from slink to potato-test-cycle-2 (i386) following the instructions
> > in bin1::upgrade/release-notes.en.txt and using bin CDs 1, 2
Both non-US and US-exportable CD images of the Second Test Cycle are
available. For more details, please refer to
http://cdimage.debian.org/potato_pre.html
Regards,
Anne Bezemer
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> Because of a problem with the busybox tar on the boot-floppies, the sparc
> base2_2.tgz, when untar'd, was causing / to become mode 644. I have put a
> minor fix in boot-floppies CVS to fix this, and am recompiling the sparc
> boot-floppies at this very mo
On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Just to make sure that we're all in sync: I'm currently waiting for 2.2.15
> disk sets to be uploaded for each architecture. I'm under the impression
> that these are being built, and that they are necessary to start the
> second test phase. Is that
On Fri, 26 May 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Can I remove all linux 2.2.13 and 2.2.14 related packages from the
> archive prior to the second test cycle? That would zap bug#61544,
> for one thing. It might also make potato one CD smaller :-)
To make potato 2 CDs instead of the current 3, you
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 04:49:54PM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> > Okay. Will a developer-signed "fake" .changes file with md5sum of the
> > upgrade-all.tar do? Does it have to be placed in Incoming (on ftp-master I
> &g
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 04:49:54PM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> > Okay. Will a developer-signed "fake" .changes file with md5sum of the
> > upgrade-all.tar do? Does it have to be placed in Incoming (on ftp-master I
> &g
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Mon, May 15, 2000 at 01:53:52PM +0200, Richard Braakman écrivait:
> > That's a bit of a Catch-22, because everyone else is WAITING for the CD
> > images.
> >
> > > This is my current WaitingFor list: (comments are welcome!)
> >
> > My first comm
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 09:14:54AM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 May 2000, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > All boot-floppies are ready (except ARM, but that's an opaque thing :),
> > > and
> > > the CD
On Sun, 14 May 2000, Josip Rodin wrote:
[...]
>
> All boot-floppies are ready (except ARM, but that's an opaque thing :), and
> the CD images have been created. So, we can test potato installation and
> upgrade with those.
As advertised on cdimage.debian.org, there are (still) _NO_ official CD
Hi!
This may seem a little weird request, but as I'm not (yet) a Debian developer,
I can't do it any other way (or can I?).
As posted to -devel, I've been looking into upgrading procedures, with very
promising results.
Basically, my work is the _only_ way to do upgrades from a CD set (on -cd
we
On Fri, 5 May 2000, David Huggins-Daines wrote:
> "J.A. Bezemer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > How long will it take to get these things fixed? ("large parts" usually need
> > "much time".) This test cycle will only take about 2/3 week
On Fri, 5 May 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 04:23:49PM -0400, David Huggins-Daines wrote:
> > Richard, sorry to bother you with this sort of stuff again, but if we
> > could make an exception for this, that would be great.
> >
> > We can't very well test Debian on Alpha
On Wed, 3 May 2000, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Yust to remember there's bug #57301 that the quake2* packages have to be
> removed from slink (in 2.1r6).
This has been done already (maybe your mirror is out of sync?). Bug should be
closed.
As a side note, non-free is not officially a part of Debian, s
On Tue, 2 May 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
> The first official Test Cycle has started today. It's not entirely my
> doing, but such things gather momentum :-)
>
> The next few days will be dedicated to getting test-ready boot-floppies
> and CD images. I will only make changes to frozen that
(Ftpmasters:) How are things with 2.1r6? Can you give any indication when
it'll be done?
And what about the very new imap (below)? Seems to be available for all
arches.
Regards,
Anne Bezemer
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> imap - remote mail folder access server for Pine
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 08:18:31AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:30:27PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we need to get a kernel-source-2.2.15 package in right now, even
> > > if it means that it is actually a 2.2.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:33:33AM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> > ATTN ftpmasters:
> >
> > To be perfectly clear: contrary to the Subject: line, 2.1r6 should _not_ be
> > released right after the included &q
On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> hello,
>
> Here's the list (attached) of the packages that should be added to slink
> before to release 2.1r6.
ATTN ftpmasters:
To be perfectly clear: contrary to the Subject: line, 2.1r6 should _not_ be
released right after the included "w
Package: ftp.debian.org
Version: n/a
Severity: critical
It has been a _long_ time since 2.1r5 was ""released"" and multiple mails have
gone to many addresses. Still issues are not resolved. So I'll try it this
way:
For the generation of the Official Debian CD images the following things are
of CR
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Jordi wrote:
> > I thought 2.1r5 had been released already, but I can't find it on the ftps.
> > The changelog does not mention a release neither so I guess it didn't
> > happen.
> > Will it be released?
>
> as far as I know it has been r
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Philip Charles wrote:
> Still broken!!!
What exactly is broken?
Regards,
Anne Bezemer
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Philip Charles wrote:
[...]
> Questions.
> What is the status of the present 2.1r5?
I asked this before, but didn't get any answer.
Release-people or ftpmaster:
IF we have 2.1r5
THEN
mention it in the ChangeLog
ELSE
what are we waiting for?
> Are officia
On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Philip Charles wrote:
> I notce that 2.1r5 is out with new boot-disks and there are quite a few
The overall ChangeLog does not yet mention that 2.1r5 is released.
Release people: does this mean that we DO or DON'T have 2.1r5 at this moment??
And what about the two sets of i
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >
> > > The stable release of Debian which is distributed in CDs does not have a
> > > working TeX (!).
> > >
> > > This is fixed in tetex-bin_0.9
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> unless anyone has objections, my package list for 2.1r5 is definitive...
>
> pkg list: http://www.debian.org/~vincent/2.1r5.txt
There are still a few ($ARCH MISSING) things; if nothing gets done for
them, don't forget to change these notes to
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Roman Hodek wrote:
>
> > Are there still compiles pending, or can I release 2.1r5 asis?
>
> Here the m68k answer:
Just to be 100% sure: the m68k boot floppies are okay now?
Regards,
Anne Bezemer
one have a better suggestion?
- Should we have "official names"? (i.e. "recommended names" in the
CDimages FAQ section)
Regards,
Anne Bezemer
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> About identification: my personal favorite is
>
>Debian GNU
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Vincent Renardias wrote:
> > [Vincent 1999/12/20]
> > package : lprng
> > version : 3.5.2-2.1
> > architectures: sparc only
> > issue: fix dependency problem preventing the creation of sparc CDs
>
> Euh, what
My customers want m68k r4 CDs and they want them NOW. Please take whatever
action is necessary to provide them ASAP.
See threads
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-68k-9912/msg00056.html
and
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-68k-9912/msg00087.html
Regards (and being a bit
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Anyway, the 2.1r4 release will happen tomorrow (Monday). I have all
I didn't see any official announcement.
If things are ready, please post to debian-cd (and to Phil Hands
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> personally!) so we know that CDs can be made.
Regards,
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Joel Klecker wrote:
> > Strongly disagree, 2.2.5 has a lot of bugs, some of them security related.
>
> The same can be said for 2.2.13 btw.
I don't follow kernel development, but 2.2.13 has been out since 20 Oct, and
>1 month without upd
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> > I don't follow kernel development, but 2.2.13 has been out since 20 Oct, and
> > >1 month without update (or errata on www.linux.org.uk) is really long for
> > >any
> > stable
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 16:11 + 1999-11-24, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> > [*] kernel-source-2.2.5_2.2.5-2_i386.changes
> > - needed for SMP machines, fixes lots of bugs, source-only package.
> > [OK]
>
> Strongly disagree, 2.2.5 has a lot of bugs, some of them securi
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> However, we may try to release a "slink-and-a-half" later featuring a more
> extensive update (At least: 2.2 based, XFree 3.3.5, October GNOME)
Ehh, could you specify "later" more precisely? Otherwise "later" = "potato"...
> 2/ non-i386 people
How are things with 2.1.1 (="stable update" w/ new X,gnome,...)? Release date?
And will potato still freeze on 1 nov?
Regards,
Anne Bezemer
(.nl CD vendor)
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Previously Vincent Renardias wrote:
> > > 2.1r3 is the next release of slink;
> >
> > Right. It's the third point-release of slink, and point-release only
> > have security-fixes and very important bu
55 matches
Mail list logo
