I'm curious way e2fpsrogs 1.41.3-1 was allowed to migrat to testing?
I don't mind, so this isn't a complaint, but if it was to fix Debian
Bug #503057, note that I haven't uploaded a package including that
fixes that yet. And there are a number of fixes in the maint branch
of e2fsprogs that, if we
tags 503057 +pending
thanks
Thanks for bug report and for the patch to fix things. I've committed
it into the e2fsprogs source tree for updating.
I'm guessing this blows up the ability to make initrd's on x86_64
systems, so it would be worthwhile to apply for an freeze exception
for this package
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 04:33:20PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> Looking at the diff between the Lenny and Sid versions, I wonder at the
> dropped build dependencies on libdevmapper/libselinux1.
>
>From the release notes:
The blkid library is now much more efficiently handling devicemapper
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 06:02:37PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 24 July 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > I wouldn't dream of asking debian-boot to support ext4dev at this late
> > date --- but there is one thing I would ask. As I recall, there was a
> > temporary
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 03:34:26PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 01:13:06AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> >
> > > In addition 1.41.0 closed a large number of bugs over 1.40.11, and is
> > > the first version to have ext4 support.
>
> Btw, a version of GRUB 2 with ext4dev s
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 01:13:50AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>
> there was one bit about the handling of the freeze that was not well
> communicated in the previous release announcement:
>
> | Packages that are present in unstable the day we freeze will be
> | automatically allowed into tes
Hi, can someone tell me when the udebs have been grabbed for e2fsprogs
1.40.11-1? The release of e2fsprogs 1.41 is *imminent* (with two
previous release candidates having been pushed out to experimental),
so I'd like to know when it might be safe to push this out.
Also, where are we in the Lenny
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 07:34:07PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Yes, there is a 1.40.4-1 which is currently awaiting the ftp-masters'
> > approval (since there is a new binary package, uuid-runtime, involved),
> > but in the meantime, 1.40.3-1 has been in testing for 26 days,
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:05:38PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No strong opinion either way; I'm more concerned that the e2fsprogs upload
> happens sooner rather than later, so that d-i RC2 doesn't get held up
> waiting for it.
I'm uploading it now to unstable.
Thanks,
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 04:54:41PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 10:44:55AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > Yikes, what blkid function is rpc.mountd calling all the time which is
> > causing this kind of memory leakage?
>
> blkid_probe_all_new(
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:08:43PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> Package: libblkid1
> Version: 1.39+1.40-WIP-2006.11.14+dfsg-1
> Severity: grave
> Tags: patch
>
> (RMs: I'm unsure if this should be fixed for etch or not, given that I
> do not know of anything in etch that actually uses this
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 07:12:33PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> There is more to d-i than just the initrds...
> The udebs are loaded in the course of the installation (either from CD or
> over the network), more precisely when the partitioning components are
> being loaded. The initrds only contain
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 02:08:01PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> In this case it is not a problem because, AFAICT, none of the udebs built
> with e2fsprogs are included in any D-I initrd.
> I will reply separately to d-release with my reasons why I feel it would
> be a bad idea if it *had* been inclu
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 09:06:23PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> It's acceptable to me; the final d-i images haven't been spun yet for etch,
> and anyway a one-line change for a shlibs fix isn't exactly a big delta so I
> don't see a reason to respin even if we did have version skew. (I.e., the
>
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 08:57:40PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>
> I talked to the release team -- they'd approve a freeze exception
> for fixing the shlibs entry.
To the Debian-Release team,
Could you please confirm that you'd approve a freeze exception
to fix the shlibs entry f
I would appreciate any comments from the Debian Release Managers and
Debian Masters about whether or not it is required to remove any files
which are legal for us to redistribute (such as RFC's and I-D's), but
which are not DFSG-compliant from source tarballs (but which are not
included in any of p
16 matches
Mail list logo
