+ Steve M. Robbins (Sun, 24 May 2009 22:41:31 -0500):
> Hi,
Hello!
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> > + Steve M. Robbins (Fri, 22 May 2009 00:37:15 -0500):
> > > > * a mass bug filing for packages build-depending on versioned packages
> > > > to build-de
Hi,
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> + Steve M. Robbins (Fri, 22 May 2009 00:37:15 -0500):
> > > * a mass bug filing for packages build-depending on versioned packages
> > > to build-depend on the un-versioned ones instead
>
> > Not yet done.
>
> Okay; the
+ Steve M. Robbins (Fri, 22 May 2009 00:37:15 -0500):
> Hello again, Adeodato,
Hello!
> > * a mass bug filing for packages build-depending on versioned packages
> > to build-depend on the un-versioned ones instead
> Not yet done.
Okay; there're 11 of such packages AFAICS. I hope you'll b
Hello again, Adeodato,
I'm interested in removing some older Boost packages from the
archive, specifically 1.34.1 (source package boost).
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:13:34PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> > Clearly, the strategies will depend on how much breakage is
> > encountered in a typical
+ Steve M. Robbins (Sun, 10 May 2009 22:15:38 -0500):
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 12:21:10PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> > Could you prepare a mail to d-d-a, [ ... ]
> Sure. I'll work on it presently.
Seen, thanks you!
boost1.38 managed to get built on mips in the second try after I gave it
b
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 12:21:10PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> Could you prepare a mail to d-d-a, [ ... ]
Sure. I'll work on it presently.
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
+ Steve M. Robbins (Sat, 09 May 2009 09:55:15 -0500):
> On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 12:09:17PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> > + Adeodato Sim?? (Mon, 04 May 2009 18:18:46 +0200):
> > > Okay, please make a second upload of boost-defaults already (it's okay
> > > to upload multiple versions to NEW), p
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 12:09:17PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> + Adeodato Sim?? (Mon, 04 May 2009 18:18:46 +0200):
>
> > Okay, please make a second upload of boost-defaults already (it's okay
> > to upload multiple versions to NEW), particularly because of the second
> > issue you mention (the
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 12:09:17PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> + Adeodato Sim?? (Mon, 04 May 2009 18:18:46 +0200):
>
> > Okay, please make a second upload of boost-defaults already (it's okay
> > to upload multiple versions to NEW), particularly because of the second
> > issue you mention (the
+ Adeodato Simó (Mon, 04 May 2009 18:18:46 +0200):
> Okay, please make a second upload of boost-defaults already (it's okay
> to upload multiple versions to NEW), particularly because of the second
> issue you mention (the packages not being arch:any).
I've started seeing some FTBFSes because of
+ Steve M. Robbins (Sun, 03 May 2009 00:44:42 -0500):
> > I see you've uploaded boost-defaults already. In your previous mail, you
> > asked whether it was okay to upload already, or if we needed to wait
> > until the latest boost1.38 would migrate to testing.
> Um, yeah ... I was a bit impatient
Hi Adeodato,
Thanks for the arch:any explanation; that makes sense.
On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 08:37:22PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> I see you've uploaded boost-defaults already. In your previous mail, you
> asked whether it was okay to upload already, or if we needed to wait
> until the lates
+ Steve M. Robbins (Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:28:12 -0500):
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:10:41PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Let's make the unversioned development packages arch:any, and
> > build-depend on libboost1.38-dev. That way, even if the intent is to
> > only bump the major version when eg.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:10:41PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> > Basically all it has is a control file with unversioned -dev packages
> > that depend on the corresponding 1.38-dev package. I'd appreciate it
> > if you would give it a glance and see whether I've missed something.
>
> Let's ma
+ Steve M. Robbins (Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:29:04 -0500):
> Hello release team,
Hello,
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:13:34PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> > Once boost1.38 is built in all architectures and migrated to
> > testing, we can proceed with the boost-defaults plans, see below
> > about th
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:29:04AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> P.S. After boost-defaults is uploaded, the archive will have two
> source packages (boost, boost-defaults) that both produce the
> binary package libboost-dev. Won't that cause a problem? Does
> something need to be adjusted to a
Hello release team,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:13:34PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> Once boost1.38 is built in all architectures and migrated to
> testing, we can proceed with the boost-defaults plans, see below
> about this.
OK, boost1.38 is built and in testing, so I'm preparing boost-defaul
Hi again,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:29:51AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Hello Adeodato et al.,
>
I realize the release team is one of the busiest in Debian, but I was
hoping not to have to wait another 2 weeks for a response. Carrying a
conversation at that speed is quite dispiriting. :-
18 matches
Mail list logo
