of dpkg's status file at http://www.wiggy.net/tmp/status.bz2 .
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
would be somewhat unfortunate to have stricter
checking in libxslt1.1 break db2latex while there is no fix for it yet.
Alternatively, is there a hinting option to do that instead?
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/
Previously Colin Watson wrote:
> There's no hint type that covers this case.
Sillyness ensues. I dropped a new version on newraff which should work
around this problem in testing.
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>It is simple to make things.
http:/
oned yet again there is no hurry at all :)
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
Previously Peter Palfrader wrote:
> I intended to ask for removal of this list but Joey sugested to ask
> first whether anybody intents to use this list or finds it useful as it
> is now.
I think it would be useful, but if the release manager doesn't use it
we might as well remove it I guess.
Wic
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> In fact, I wonder whether all the ports still have the capability
> (machine around running Potato, with root access) to build.
For the next release they will have to (otherwise the security team
won't be able to support them) so they might as well practice now :)
As people have probably noticed we've done a number of security
advisories over the last few days, and doing those has made it
clear that the way we currently do those will not scale with
future release.
The problem is the number of architectures we have to support.
For potato we have to recompil
Previously Josip Rodin wrote:
> For the record, I counted that 2.2r3 included 38 new security advisories,
> up to DSA-047. We're at DSA-066 right now, that's 19 more.
We're working on that :(
Wichert.
--
_
/ Nothing is foo
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Should I prepare new Potato boot-floppies with 2.2.19 for i386?
Not right now, I expect we'll need updated kernel packages soon.
Wichert.
--
_
/ Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently tal
Previously Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Not right now, I expect we'll need updated kernel packages soon.
Ok, forget about that. Yes, new package would be nice ;)
Wichert.
--
_
/ Nothing is fool-proof to a suff
Previously Richard Hirst wrote:
> So, I guess it is the [i386] it doesn't like. I'm guessing I need
> a newer dpkg, but I don't see a 1.9.8 for m68k yet. Can someone
> confirm that, before I chew up another 9hrs of cpu?
Someone is confusing Build-Depends syntax with Depends syntax there.
You can
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Ok. I am not moving i386 to straigh 2.2.19 right now, btw, since I'm
> pretty sure that kernel has issues.
What kind of issues are you referring to?
Wichert.
--
_
/ Nothing is fool-proof
Previously Nate Duehr wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:37:33PM +0200, Bernd Hentig wrote:
> > AFAIK, the only kernels worth having in either binary or source
> > are (in release order) 2.0.36, 2.0.17, 2.0.19, 2.4.2.
>
> You don't like *any* of the 2.2 series?
Considering he said `in release o
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> --- glibc_2.1.3-18_arm.changes
> --- glibc_2.1.3-18_i386.changes
> --- glibc_2.1.3-18_powerpc.changes
I uploaded alpha as well
> --- kernel-image-2.2.19pre11-i386_2.2.19pre11-1_i386.changes
> --- kernel-image-2.2.19pre13-alpha_2.2.19pre13-1_alpha.changes
> --- ke
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> That must be a typo -- i386 you mean.
Not really, ia32 is technically correct.
> > 2. glibc 2.1.3-18 is missing for alpha, delaying its installation
I am uploading this one right now
> > 3. e2fsprogs 1.18-3.0potato1 is missing for alpha, delaying its
> >
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Still waiting for the pcmcia packages...
They should be there now..
Wichert.
--
_
/ Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> FYI, I used the following packages (and only the following packages)
> from Potato proposed updates when building 2.2.21. Let me know if I
> am missing any.
Please use libc 2.1.3-18 instead, it fixes an interesting ldd bug.
Wichert.
--
_
Previously Adrian Bunk wrote:
> But the following packages seem to be missing there (the versions in
> potato are too old):
> - util-linux
util-linux is there, look at the optional subdirectory. I'm not sure
from memory if we also did ppp, if not I'll make sure that will be
added.
> - pcmcia-cs
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Ah! Someone needs to let me know when this is robust enough for us to
> put a mention on http://www.d.o/releases/potato/ about it, for Potato
> users wanting to run 2.4.
All I can say is `it works for me'. I've set the maintainer address
of those packages to me a
Previously Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Two questions:
> - I understand it right: You can't use a modular 2.0 kernel with the
> latest modutils?
Right.
> - Shall I create an apt-able archive with the packages needed for kernel
> 2.4 recompiled for potato? If noone has a good reason against this I'll
Previously Adrian Bunk wrote:
> To support Kernel 2.4 you we need to upgrade at least:
> - modutils
Won't happen for potato: it's either 2.0+2.2 kernel support or 2.2+2.4,
and I refuse to drop 2.0 kernel support from potato for modutils (there
are stil lots of people relying on that).
Wichert.
-
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> install joe_2.8-15.1_arm.changes
> install joe_2.8-15.1_m68k.changes
> install joe_2.8-15.1_sparc.changes
> install joe_2.8-15.1_security.changes
Please replace with 2.8-15.2, which I just uploaded for all archs.
Wichert.
--
_
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> Well, maybe not *quite* final, but near enough for government work.
I'm fixing a bug in the joe security fix and have an bugreport for
the modutils security fix I'm looking into as well. Should both
be done in 2 hours.
> # pandora security fixes
> install fsh_1.0
I don't see any non-US things in this list.. is that an oversight?
Wichert.
--
_
/ Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2F
Previously Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> I'm very curious to know what's going on here. Care to tell the story,
I'm actually surprised modutils 2.3.11-12 did accept that line. What
happened is that years ago the syntax for conf.modules changes, and
a couple of months ago that file was renamed
Previously Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> ### update-modules: start processing /etc/modutils/pcmcia
> path[pcmcia]=/lib/modules/`uname -r`
>
> ### update-modules: end processing /etc/modutils/pcmcia
There you go, that line is broken. File a bugreport for pcmcia
and remove /etc/modutils/pcmcia
Previously Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> from 2.3.11-13.1 in proposed-updates vomits tons of bogous errors like
> "... header not ELF format ..." or similar.
Show me your /etc/modules.conf file.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uni
I just got this while upgrading an alpha:
sgml-tools: Depends: libc6.1 (>= 2.1.94) but 2.1.3-13 is to be installed
Oops?
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Heh, we got lucky :)
Wichert.
- Forwarded message from Andreas Hasenack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Andreas Hasenack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: typo in modutils-2.3.20
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:20:32 -0200
It's out.
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/kernel/modutils/v2.3/modut
I just uploaded modutils 2.3.11-13 which is the bug and security fixed
version based on the changes Keith made in 2.3.21.
I can't do the rebuilds and announcements for it until something like 9
hours from now though. Anyone from the security team who wants to is
free to beat me to it though :)
W
Previously Ben Collins wrote:
> - Security updates affecting base packages, Wichert. How long till this
> is done? What packages should we be watching for?
New modutils (current security fix breaks some things in nasty ways),
libncurses (dan), elvis-tiny (uploaded, needs to be rebuild).
> - Res
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> I'm building and will upload tonight boot-floppies 2.2.18. This
> includes the 2.2.18 kernel and other bug fixes and such.
Euhm, please don't upload them until I have a final security fix
for modutils done. There is a real option that local users can
get root tri
Is it a known problem that I can't install libgtk1.2-dev and
libglib1.2-dev on sparc potato? The -dev package depends on version
1.2.7-2 of libgtk1.2, but only version 1.2.8-1 is available,
which makes it completely impossible to compile any gnome app
including the ssh security fix I'm trying to b
Found problem with 2.2r1 as it is now:
* pcmcia package were installed that use a kernel that was rejected
* sparc dpkg uses a woody libc
* 5 outsatnding security problems
As a result of this sparc can't be installed and i386 boot-floppies
can't be build.
No further comment.
Wichert.
--
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> auric:~ajt/chkproposedupdates.sh and auric:~ajt/chkproposedupdates2.sh
> might (or might not) be informative to people trying to grok what updates
> are about and what arches haven't been doing recompiles. quinn-diff is
> operating on stable+proposed-updates so aut
Previously Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Thinko? APT will not break, anything using APT will not break. It does not
> even look like dpkg-ftp will break.
Oh right, I missed a `not' in there.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting si
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> All who're interested: katie (ie, the new dinstall, ie package pools)
> will be rolled out when James has enough time to cope with any unforseen
> problems. Hopefully in the next week or two. "testing" will be rolled out
> shortly afterwards, in all probability.
D
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> All the security team need to do is upload the fixes into proposed-updates.
> There's no reason for that to ever be done later rather than sooner.
That too, but you also should post the list of package you want
accept and refuse so people can comment on them. Rele
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> 2.2r1 is underway (ie, the ftpmasters are cleaning up the archive and
> moving things around). Most of the proposed updates have been accepted.
In that case I'm upset, since there has be no involvement of the security
team at all and there are security fixes invol
Previously Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I seriously need to fix a bug I introduced in modutils for 2.2r1,
> I'll work on that tonight.
Fixed and uploaded.
Wichert.
--
_
/ Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently ta
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> My plans to get 2.2.18 tested and release have not worked out. My
> time has been virtually non-existant and the testing I hoped others to
> do didn't happen.
I seriously need to fix a bug I introduced in modutils for 2.2r1,
I'll work on that tonight.
> Anyhow,
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> We'll be building 2.2.18 hopefully within a few days, so please try
> this out quickly so we can see if it has any bad bugs.
I'll be uploading dpkg 1.6.15, a new modutils and a new base-passwd
for stable today as well. I'll also do the recompiles for other
archit
I'm gettings requests for a trivial change in /etc/init.d/modutils to
make it do nothing if the kernel does not support modules. This prevents
some annoying warnings messages from appaering.
Do people think I should bother to such a change? I won't bother unless
I know it'll be accepted.
Wichert
Previously J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> I have a fairly important, big data set stored in PostgreSQL 7 with the
> woody packages installed on top of an otherwise potato system for quite some
> time though, with no real problems. There is a problem with VACUUMing a
> database with a lot of indices o
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> That is, there shouldn't be any reason to run r0 instead of r1 or r3
> instead of r8.
Other way around: there shouldn't be a reason to run rN instead of r(N-x)
as well except for bugfixes. This is still potato folks, not potato-and-a-half
or so.
> Even adding alt
Previously Adrian Bunk wrote:
> - It's still extremely unstable (e.g. ext2 file system corruption very
> recently).
> - You have to update several other packages to provide the right
> infrastructure (e.g. ppp).
modutils as well, pcmcia also I think. Als 2.4.0 renamed some
drivers so the pcmci
Previously Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> by woody release (at least 6 - 8 months) Xfree 4 should be safe enough for
> everyone to use.
By woody freeze I'm quite sure there are still lots of drivers that are
not in Xfree 4.
Wichert.
--
__
Previously Sean Perry wrote:
> This is all moot if we move to X 4. X does it own monitor / vid card
> detection now.
I wonder if it doesn't make more sense to use a mixed X3/X4 setup for
woody and base the decision on which server to use on the installed
videocard?
Wichert.
--
__
Previously Brooks R. Robinson wrote:
> Just couldn't help but add my $0.02! For the M$ server products (NT and
> 2000), the initial release is always Service Pack 1.
That is not true. A service pack is a collection of hotfixes and other
(sometimes major) changes. For example the first servi
Previously Philip Hands wrote:
> Shouldn't that be 2.2 r1?
The first revision will be 2.2r1, but we'll do a second revision
as well at some point.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \
Can someone please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as soon
as i386 and source CD images for TC3 are finished? Bradley kindly
agreed to produce TC3 CDs for us so we can hand them out at LinuxWorld,
but he needs the images quickly seens LinuxWorld isn't very far away..
Also please tell him where
Previously Stephen R. Gore wrote:
> All except xcdroast and strace. Both of these packages need wichert's
> attention wrt building on sparc. He's aware of this, and should be able
> to take a look at them when he get's home.
Aie, hope I'm not becoming a bottleneck here. I'll look at them
on tues
Previously Brooks R. Robinson wrote:
> It seems that the installation scripts are not passing these
> parameters on to the actual 'insmod' when attempting to load the module.
This has been fixed already I think.
Wichert.
--
_
/
Fun for the whole family :)
Wichert.
- Forwarded message from "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: autofs mailing list
Subject: autofs 3.1.6-pre1 released (LDAP support)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:04:10 -0700
Hi all,
I have released a p
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> In particular, TC3 looks like involving:
>
> * The traditional random updates to the install system
> (boot-floppies, CD scripts, base-config, dpkg; if the people
> involved could start finalising these now ready for midweek that
>
Previously Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> We already had such a problem in the first version of static dpkg that we
> provided on Anne's page, but I recompiled it and it should be ok now ...
> unless the bad one has been installed...
Grmbl. Do people test things before they upload? I'm going to be extre
Previously J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> Well, it has taken some time because nobody felt like recompiling i386
> apt/dpkg, but things are finally ready.
Oh come on!
a) As dpkg maintainer I never got a request to rebuild it
b) As far as I know the release manager never agreed that this was going
to be
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Do you need a list of stuff from Incoming (base) that must be
> installed for boot-floppies fixes?
dpkg 1.6.13 is currently also stuck in Incoming, and I intend to
reupload it with improved translations. Do you want to include that as
well in the bootfloppies? If
Previously Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Why keep the new one? The 'updates' version has existed for ages and ages.
Mostly because I used it myself on a couple of machines, I'll remove
it before the release.
Wichert.
--
_
/ Generally
Previously Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> If you don't mind not making more pointless, needless changes, please use
> potato/updates not potato/security, then things will work fine when you
> add the stable symlink.
Heh, okay. Renamed & a symlink added so both will work now.
Wichert.
--
___
Since no packages are being installed during the testing cycle
I have started to add security fixes for potato to security.debian.org.
I'm not going to recompile everything on there myself, so for now
only i386 packages are present.
Appropriate line for apt is:
deb http://security.debian.org/
Previously Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The next thing I'm doing is filing RC bugs for priority problems (most
> often: package with priority `optional' depends on package with priority
> `extra').
Noo, please don't do that. File a *single* bugreport for ftp.debian.org
to update the override file.
Wicher
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> On the downside, it doesn't care about priorities, and doesn't list
> explanations (it seems hard to work out what's at fault when conflicts
> are involved).
I'm curious, what exactly do you do with conflicts? Detect depend<->conflict
problems (ie a depends on b w
Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> Well, apache-ssl's Depends line contains "perl | perl5"
> perl5 is provided by perl-5.005 which has "Priority: important", so
> the dependency is actually satisfied, and apache-ssl does not depend on
> an extra package.
We can argue if it is a bug; I wrote the cod
Previously Ben Collins wrote:
> Herbert, is this possible for you?
If we do this I have this little patch that must be put in as well. I'll
mail it to Herbert.
Wichert.
--
_
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your c
Previously Brandon Mitchell wrote:
> I believe the intention is to continue testing with a minor security hole.
However we know there is a major security hole in 2.2.14 for example..
and I won't be surprised if more will be discovered during the testing
cycle. I think we need to have some short-cu
Previously Richard Braakman wrote:
> No. Any such change means aborting the test cycle. This may be reasonable
> if a security problem is big enough, but I'm not going to decide that in
> advance.
I'm certainly very much against releasing with known security holes.
At this moment we already have
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 released, but nobody has done an
announcement about it. Is the
Richard is currently busy with potato and moving. Jamer or Guy, can
you take care of this?
Previously Vincent Renardias wrote:
> Here's again the list of the packages that should go in 2.1r5.
> (I just added htdig on the list since it has been uploaded to fix a
> security bug)
Lets add nmh as we
Previously Ben Collins wrote:
> Wichert, are you doing the compiles for sparc/slink to get sparc
> up-to-date with 2.1r5?
Christian Meder (hope I remembered the name correctly..) was afaik..
Wichert.
--
_
/ Generally uninteresti
Previously Vincent Renardias wrote:
> Ok, we'll see tomorrow if it has been accepted.
Why wait when you can easily check that yourself?
~maor/dinstall/dinstall -n xxx.changes
will tell you what dinstall will do with your upload.
Wichert.
--
___
Previously J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> IIRC, I did report this dependency problem to either you personally or
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (which should have reached you too) only some hours
> after the security fix was released...
Hmm, yes, I remember now. I think I already fixed that on
security.debian.org ba
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 problem? This seems to be the same version that is also
on secu
Previously Vincent Renardias wrote:
> Security updates:
package : lpr
version : 0.48-0.slink1
architectures: alpha i386 m68k sparc
issue: remote exploit
> [Vincent 2000/01/07]
> package : nvi
> version : 1.79-9.1
> architectures: i386
Only i386? I uploaded bin
Previously Vincent Renardias wrote:
> here's the list of packages that I plan to include in 2.1r5:
> http://www.debian.org/~vincent/2.1r5.txt
Euh, could you please mail the whole list as well? I usually do my work
offline so this is somewhat inconvenient for me..
Wichert.
--
Previously Michael Schmitz wrote:
> Format: 1.5
> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:07:21 +0100
> Source: boot-floppies
> Binary: boot-floppies
> Architecture: m68k
> Version: 2.1.9.2 < not a potato version number (slink.r2
> perhaps)
How would he know that's not a potato version number?
Previously Christoph Martin wrote:
> Does that mean I have to release a new version with another corrected
> changelog entry, to get it installed into stable?
No, we are aware of it now. But please remember this for future reference.
Wichert.
--
___
Previously Philip Hands wrote:
> The sparc ones cannot be built at present because lprng depends upon
> a version of libncurses4 (>= 4.2-3.1) that only exists in potato.
Strange, apt showed 19 packages with unmet dependencies but lprng wasn't
among them. How are you able to produce images for
Previously Christoph Martin wrote:
> tetex-bin (0.9.981113-4) stable; urgency=high
>
> * reupload, because of the severity of the problem. it is sort of a Y2K
> problem. older Versions of tetex-bin will *NOT* work if they are newly
> installed after the 1st of December 1999, or if an att
Previously J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> I didn't see any official announcement.
It didn't happen, Richard is working on it right now (and almost finished)
> If things are ready, please post to debian-cd (and to Phil Hands
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> personally!) so we know that CDs can be made.
I will, we're
The signs are agreeing with a release, since the m68k machine I was
building stuff on crashed today. Figures.
Anyway, the 2.1r4 release will happen tomorrow (Monday). I have all
the packages recompiled now, so everything should be ready. Pending
missing dependencies, those still need to be checke
I just spent a couple of hours going through the list, verifying some
things and fixing stuff. Vincent: frankly I'm annoyed that I had to do
this, since this is your job.
This list assumes that everything that is in Incoming right now has been
processed. I've tested things with dinstall so that
Here's a new list (added htdig securityfix).
Can someone please check the y2k fixes and be a bit more specific
about the problem with each package? No long description needed,
but something more then just `y2k fix' would be nice..
Another one that is missing is a new samba-doc package to bring i
Can someone please check if we need this for the 2.1r4 as well?
Wichert.
- Forwarded message from Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:36:48 +0100 (CET)
From: Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Developer Changes
Subject: sharutils 4.2.1-1 (source all i
Previously Vincent Renardias wrote:
> Here's the current list of packages that should go in 2.1r4.
Please add the new dump, sendmail and sendmail-wide packages. I'll
make sure all architectures are uploaded.
Wichert.
--
/ Gen
Here is an attempt to make a proper list for a release announcement.
This is all from memory so far, so some things are missing or possible
incorrect. Vincent: can you check this list, fix any errors in it
and fill in the blanks?
Security updates:
package : amd
version : 102-23.slin
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> What is your targetted "freeze" date or whatever, so I know when this
> stuff is "due" ?
Let me intervene here and say that I want to see 2.1r4 happen this week,
sunday at the *very* latest. We simply cannot delay y2k updates any
longer.
Wichert.
--
Previously Vincent Renardias wrote:
> Because I wanted to have my y2k "fixes" to be at least roughly tested by a
> few people before to just put them directly in slink (and it seems to have
> been a good idea since the updated gnats introduces a bad bug)
But that's exactly why we have proposed-upd
Previously Vincent Renardias wrote:
> [*] pvm_3.4beta7-4_i386.changes
>- security fix.
>[MISSING: alpha, sparc, m68k]
>[Note: doesn't build on alpha]
Also doesn't build on sparc; it tries to use non-exsiting signals.
Wichert.
--
___
Previously Paul Slootman wrote:
> Maybe you should have looked better. Vincent asked for the compiles,
> and I compiled the following for him (look in ~vincent/INCOMING on
> master):
I hadn't even looked at the y2k stuff, only at the other stuff. And
I'm puzzled why this y2k effort seems to be do
Previously Vincent Renardias wrote:
> Paul Slootman has recompiled all the y2k fixes on alpha. You can find the
> files in master:~vincent/INCOMING. AFAIK, there's nobody else who's
> working on the non-i386 updates.
Can you copy them all into Incoming so dinstall can process them today
then? I wo
I just uploaded alpha versions of nfs-server, netkit-telnet & friends,
and bind. I'll try to get some sparc builds going as well.
Wichert (disappointed nobody else recompiled anything while this list
has been out there for 2 weeks now).
--
Previously Vincent Renardias wrote:
> [*] roxen_1.2beta2-3
>- sync with i386 version.
>[MISSING: m68k, sparc]
Those two were also missing in the original release, I'm thinking of
skipping them.
> [*] bind_8.2.2p5-0slink1.1
>- security fix
>[MISSING: sparc, m68k, alpha]
Only alp
Previously J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> Of course, updates. But are those updates fixing bugs? Critical bugs? Security
> bugs? Or are they only adding features? IMHO&AFAIK: some, very few, none, and
> most, respectively.
some, few, some.
Wichert.
--
Previously Vincent Renardias wrote:
> 2 packages where missing in the list I posted yesterday:
More missing stuff: roxen and pike for m68k and sparc.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience
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 kernel. So I think "a lot of bugs" in 2.2.13 is a little overstated.
> Correct me if I'm wrong...
>
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.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \
|
Vincent, do you have a list of packages you want in 2.1r4 somewhere?
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> The issue of whether or not we strive for both 2.0 and 2.2 linux
> kernel compatability in general is a potato release manager / leader
> issue, not an issue for this list.
Compatibility yes I would say. However we can no longer support 2.0
anymore. In fact it is
s.
Wichert.
--
==
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
pgp2Cmcl04qya.pgp
Description: PGP signature
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
