that some
udebs also build on top of it.
Changelog it at
http://cvs.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/trunk/ChangeLog?rev=179&root=Libgpg-error&view=markup
Thanks,
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
A binNMU of evolution-sharp on i386 is needed, as I uploaded a version
built against experiemental evolution.
Thanks
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Hi,
First of all, sorry if you get this mail more than once.
I have just created the skeleton of what AMD64 certification page will
be [1].
Please, fill in the gaps.
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/amd64EtchReleaseRecertification
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED
El sáb, 11-06-2005 a las 17:30 -0500, Bill Allombert escribió:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 11:26:44AM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> > Why do you want a release with X.org packages and not with . (fill
> > in here). The problem is that Debian is quite huge and have pa
do you want a new release without other new
important packages like, just to make and example, ...?" They will
also need a lot of testing.
That's why large transitions or new packages which will need a lot of
testing need to be treated with care. And X.org have a big advantage...
it can live together in unstable with XFree86
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I have uploaded a new version of asterisk-spandsp-plugins to t-p-u,
fixing a wrong build-dependency in Sarge version of spandsp.
The diff between the two versions uploaded to t-p-u is attached.
Please, approve.
Thanks
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff -urN
Please, allow the following package uploaded to t-p-u, as requested to
circunvent newer version uploaded to unstable.
Thanks,
- Mensaje reenviado
> De: Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Para: Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Debian V
the release team thinks the old one more suitable and thus for my
> > personal point, i'd agree to go through t-p-u if the new SID version is
> > chosen unsuitable.
>
> Yes, you will need to re-upload the old code to t-p-u if you want this in
> sarge. We are not going t
et's use t-p-u. Using t-p-u is not so hard (a bit
messy). If you think that this is the best option, a package for t-p-u
can be prepared this weekend.
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] for that.
You only have to use t-p-u if you have yet a newer version in unstable
than in Sarge and you want to upload a fix for the Sarge version.
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
; Wanna-build never considered a packages' urgency in its ordering. I
> thought it did, but was mistaken.
I could swear that I have seen packages with urgency high slipping
before packages with urgency medium or low in the queue for being
built. This happened when "inminent sarge release" was announced ;-)
But perhaps I'm also wrong, and the myth hit me.
Cheers,
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
>
> RMs, please remove it from sarge, I'll file a RC bug in a minute.
Are you talking about ddt-server and ddt-client? It still works (I'm
using it as my Dynamic IP domain)
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
removed, clearly doesn't want
> responsibility for it and that can't be forced on them.
Reuploaded with me set as maintainer. Please, approve it now.
Cheers
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 05:01:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
> If in doubt, let debian-release know once the package has been uploaded.
doc++ package is in NEW now.
Cheers,
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
has not sent any mail to wnpp telling that. He has only requested
package removal as seen in that bug #.
Regards,
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 02:43:38PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 06:24:15PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> > I have seen that you requested doc++ removal (#265273) which took
> > effect 1 September.
> > This makes openh323 to FTBFS as it w
d gjdoc is no t a
replacement for doc++ as it only understands Java.
Please, reintroduce this package in the archive and make it reach
testing again.
Thanks
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 04:13:41PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> As commented in #debian-release, and elsewhere, cyrus-sasl2 in sarge needs
> updating.
Any news on this? The package is still different in Sid than in Sarge.
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PRO
instead of
> > 3.3.4-9).
>
> Looks like we tracked down the problem to either binutils or gcc in sid.
> The former seems to me more likely.
Thanks for all the testing to you both.
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:44:04PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> [...]
> >
> > So, basically, we're copletely lost with this bug. And to round things
> > a bit more, while trying to debug it, we
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:42:49PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
[...]
> This could be "solved" dropping GnomeMeeting from HPPA, but I don't
> know the Release Managers would accept that, and I don't want to try to
> force that through ftp-masters without
gnugk%20asterisk%20t38modem%20pstngw%20gnomemeeting
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
2.63-1)
# Not considered
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
package must be drop to t-p-u I'll prepare it ASAP. (CC set on
d-release for that)
Cheers,
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ol, which are diferent subsets of experimental. The
policy should say that each subset should be autocontained in addition
with unstable. This means that experimental/gnome2.6 will be built
with packages there in and unstable versions for those that are not in
that subset.
Will th
me that I understand your way of think, but also try to see
our point. We will have GNOME 2.8 in October. Not being even able to
put 2.6 in sarge means that a lot of work made to have 2.6 in a good
shape will be throw away when 2.8 comes out, and later when 3.0 is
ready and even perhaps
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 07:36:33PM +0100, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have been trying to get the meta-gnome2 deps in testing for a long
> while, but for different reasons (libtool, python and gcc breakages, new
> deps being added...) it hasn't happened yet.
>
> Right now, we need the follo
27 matches
Mail list logo
