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 th
> > >
> > > > NOPE, the updated w3-el-e20 was moved into 'slink-proposed-updates' so
> > > > cd-creation is still broken. It needed to be moved into the main
> > > > archive!
> > > >
> > > > Actually there are a nu
still broken. It needed to be moved into the main archive!
> > >
> > > Actually there are a number of files in slink-proposed-updates .
> >
> > Actually we could call it at least 2.1r8 by now. The symlink for 2.1r5
> > appeared on my mirror Mar 5 and chec
reation.)
> >
> > NOPE, the updated w3-el-e20 was moved into 'slink-proposed-updates' so
> > cd-creation is still broken. It needed to be moved into the main archive!
> >
> > Actually there are a number of files in slink-proposed-updates .
>
> Actual
ion is still broken. It needed to be moved into the main archive!
>
> Actually there are a number of files in slink-proposed-updates .
Actually we could call it at least 2.1r8 by now. The symlink for 2.1r5
appeared on my mirror Mar 5 and checking modify times for directories
along with actua
On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 01:53:12PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> Which only appeared with 2.1r5? Strange indeed. Can you report a bug
> if you want me to look at it, please?
I've tried, but I can't reproduce it. I wanted to connect to
news.megasys.it (public news server, probab
metimes, if I repeat the connection... no problem. :P
Which only appeared with 2.1r5? Strange indeed. Can you report a bug
if you want me to look at it, please?
> Other segfaults with some articles that leafnode doesn't like and it can't
> write id on disk.
I'm pretty s
We haven't don't a 2.1r5 boot-floppies rebuild. Is that a really
nasty oversight?
--
.Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 06:54:44PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> What segfaults? Did it work before? I did actually test this version,
> but it's possible that I missed something. There are a number of bugs
> in 1.6 that cause random segfaults when talking to some remote software,
> but they have
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 06:19:36PM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote:
> Ah, leafnode has strange segmentation fault... :(
What segfaults? Did it work before? I did actually test this version,
but it's possible that I missed something. There are a number of bugs
in 1.6 that cause random segfaults
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 04:52:07PM +, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> 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
On 23-Mar-2000 J.A. Bezemer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> We consider anything to be official ONLY if it is mentioned in the ChangeLog.
> Everything else has been (very!) unreliable in the past.
>
> NOTE: Has the new w3-el-e20 already been installed?? (The "old"
On 23-Mar-2000 J.A. Bezemer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> We consider anything to be official ONLY if it is mentioned in the
> ChangeLog.
> Everything else has been (very!) unreliable in the past.
>
> NOTE: Has the new w3-el-e20 already been installed?? (The "old
Vincent, what about w3-el dependencies?
Ah, leafnode has strange segmentation fault... :(
bye
Christian
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 releas
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 releas
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 04:47:56PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> as far as I know it has been released, but nobody has done an
> announcement about it. Is there a 2.1r5 symlink?
I see it in my mirror, but I didn't see announces. And what about w3-el
dependencies? When I made the up
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 04:47:56PM +0100, 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.
> >
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
ann
Hello,
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?
Thanks,
Jordi
--
Jordi Mallach Pérez || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || Rediscovering Freedom,
ka Oskuro
Phil,
It still is in Incomming.
I wrote to Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and he responded:
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Jim Westveer wrote:
>
>> There is a new version of w3-el-e20 in incomming that fixes
>> a depends error when generating 2.1r5 CD images.
>>
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Philip Charles wrote:
>
> > Still broken!!!
>
> What exactly is broken?
The w3-el and emacs20 dependency problem. I was under the impression that
a compatable version of w3-el had been uploaded. I had updated my mirror
about 2
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
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
> > (o) Can The People Concerned please check the new disks-m68k/current/
> > and see if it looks okay?
>
> CC:ed to debian-68k...
Check it _again_? Still looks OK (on master, that is).
Michael
On 3 Mar 2000, James Troup wrote:
> (o) There is no nmh in proposed-updates, Wichert... (except he's not
> here; anyone care about this?)
It's in ftp://security.debian.org/debian-security/dists/slink/updates/.
All the sources and .deb files are there, but I can't find the .changes
file, so
Hi,
I've gone through and installed almost everything Vincent included on
his list. Couple of things though:
(o) The gs in proposed-updates has a lower version number than that
in slink, so it won't install...
(o) There is no nmh in proposed-updates, Wichert... (except he's not
here
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)
L
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)
Cordialement,
--
"Si ca sent bon : mange-le, sinon pisse dessus..."
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.
--
_
/ Gen
that emacs19 will _not_ compile on glibc 2.1 systems, and IMO, it needs to
be removed or fixed from potato (off topic, but just thinking out loud).
I'm trying to get the sparc autobuilder cluster back up (dead main board
on the NFS server for this group), and then I can investigate.
Wichert,
> "CM" == Christian Meder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > > [Vincent 2000/01/07]
>> > > package : emacs20
>> > > version : 20.5a-1.99
>> > > architectures: i386 m68k sparc (ALPHA MISSING)
>> > > issue: Y2K fix in lisp/timezone.el
>> >
>> > That's a hard
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> 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 ($ARCH M
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:56:35PM +0100, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
>
>BTW & IIRC, Phil Hands, who does the CD images, is supposed to be skiing this
>week.
That's not necessarily an issue - I've done them in the past...
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's actual
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> unless anyone has objections, my package list for 2.1r5 is definitive...
>
> pkg list: http://www.debian.org/~vincent/2.1r5.txt
There are still a few ($ARCH MISSING) things; if nothing gets done for
them, don't forget to change
unless anyone has objections, my package list for 2.1r5 is definitive...
pkg list: http://www.debian.org/~vincent/2.1r5.txt
relnotes: attached.
Wichert, how do we proceed for the actual release? You push the packages
in slink like you did for 2.1r4, or should I do it (in which case, I'd
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 05:49:32PM +, Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Christian Meder wrote:
>
> > See below on alpha and sparc issues.
> >
> > > [Vincent 2000/01/07]
> > > package : emacs19
> > > version : 19.34-21.1
> > > architectures: i386 (ALPHA, SPARC
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> 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?
T
> > Are there still compiles pending, or can I release 2.1r5 asis?
Correction:
mutt_1.0.0-3.2 for m68k is in proposed-updates, but we need
mutt_1.0.1.0-3.2 instead. Seems I couldn't distinguish those version
numbers :-)
The newer version is currently compiling.
Roman
> Just to be 100% sure: the m68k boot floppies are okay now?
Don't know, I don't do them.
Roman
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
> Are there still compiles pending, or can I release 2.1r5 asis?
Here the m68k answer:
The following packages (you marked as M68K missing) are already in
proposed-updates:
tetex-bin_0.9.981113-4
nethack_3.2.3-3
mutt_1.0.0-3.2
groff_1.15.1.11a.7.Y2K-1
mush_7.2.5unoff2-7.
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.
--
___
On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Christian Meder wrote:
> See below on alpha and sparc issues.
>
> > [Vincent 2000/01/07]
> > package : emacs19
> > version : 19.34-21.1
> > architectures: i386 (ALPHA, SPARC & M68K MISSING)
> > issue: Y2K fix in lisp/timezone.el
>
> The packag
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 04:48:22PM +, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> Are there still compiles pending, or can I release 2.1r5 asis?
See below on alpha and sparc issues.
> [Vincent 2000/01/07]
> package : emacs19
> version : 19.34-21.1
> architectures: i386 (ALPH
Thanks to Christian's compile effort on alpha and sparc, the list of
missing packages to recompile has reduced a lot:
# grep SPARC 2.1r5.txt.1 | wc -l
6
# grep M68K 2.1r5.txt.1 | wc -l
11
# grep ALPHA 2.1r5.txt.1 | wc -l
5
Are there still compiles pending, or can I re
the missing packages or
> release anyway?
Sorry for the delay. I was working on the Alpha and Sparc side of 2.1r5
but got sidetracked. I'll tackle the rest today and tomorrow.
What about the emacs20.5a problem on Alpha I posted a couple of days ago ?
Any suggestions ?
Greetings,
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:18:38PM +, Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> Ok,
>
> besides the missing of many non-i386 packages that I can't recompile
> myself, the list is now stable and I have a proposed release notes
> document. What should I do? wait a bit more for the missing packages or
> rele
Ok,
besides the missing of many non-i386 packages that I can't recompile
myself, the list is now stable and I have a proposed release notes
document. What should I do? wait a bit more for the missing packages or
release anyway?
Cordialement,
--
- Vincent RENARDIAS [EMAIL PROTECTED],pi
> [Vincent 2000/01/07]
> package : emacs20
> version : 20.5a-1.99
> architectures: i386 m68k (ALPHA, SPARC MISSING)
> issue: Y2K fix in lisp/timezone.el
When I tried to build this package on slink Alpha with the default compiler
(egcs 1.1.2) it failed to compile the
Hmm. The distribution list seems a bit excessive, since this build
problem is with the slink NMU version only. The debian/rules in
versions 1.7 and later don't have the problem. Since my development
system is now potato, a second NMU to fix the rules problem would be
fine with me. Then, feel f
On Jan 24, Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>the /usr/share/{doc,man} was already corrected in -3.1. I currently
>uploading a -3.2 with doc-base fixed.
>(I'd very much like mutt to be fixed in slink since many people complained
>on debian-devel about this bug earlier this month).
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 23, Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Huh? what in mutt-1.0.0 makes it improper for use in slink?
> If you compile it on slink it will install the documentation part in
> /usr/doc, part in /usr/share/doc. Man pages will go in /u
> will have a look at it.
Just a mkdir -p debian/y2k is needed in debian/rules (before the dir
is used).
> the only m68k version of mutt I see is 1.0.0-1.100. It's severely
> buggy and 1.0.0-3.1 must be used.
Hmm... wasn't there a mail from the maintainer that -3.1 shouldn't be
used??
> huh? i
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Roman Hodek wrote:
> > package : tetex-bin
> > version : 0.9.981113-4
>
> already uploaded (tetex-bin_0.9.981113-4_m68k.changes)
list updated.
> > package : emacs19
> > version : 19.34-21.1
> > architectures: i386 (ALPHA, SPARC & M68
> which version of adjtimex are you talking about?
-2.1, same as you. debian/rules does the following:
debstd README debian/README.debian
mv debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/adjtimex/* debian/tmp/usr/doc/adjtimex/
rm -r debian/tmp/usr/share/doc/
mv debian/tmp/usr/share/ma
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Roman Hodek wrote:
> Update:
>
> > adjtimex: will do today
>
> This version of adjtimex has a bug, too. It was to do something with
> docs in /usr/share/doc, but the slink debstd install them to /usr/doc.
> The package needs to be fixed.
$ dpkg -c adjtimex_1.6-2.1*deb
Update:
> adjtimex: will do today
This version of adjtimex has a bug, too. It was to do something with
docs in /usr/share/doc, but the slink debstd install them to /usr/doc.
The package needs to be fixed.
Roman
Hi Vincent!
Here's the status for m68k:
> In Incoming:
> slrn
slrn_0.9.5.7-16.0.9.5.3.6 recompiled today (will be uploaded soon).
> package : tetex-bin
> version : 0.9.981113-4
> architectures: i386 (ALPHA, SPARC & M68K MISSING)
> issue: y2
Since we have a new kernel, do you need a new 2.1r5 boot-floppies with
that kernel?
If so, what date do you need it by? I'm rather busy with the potato
boot-floppies
--
.Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
On Jan 23, Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Huh? what in mutt-1.0.0 makes it improper for use in slink?
If you compile it on slink it will install the documentation part in
/usr/doc, part in /usr/share/doc. Man pages will go in /usr/share/man,
and there are problems with doc-base to
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Vincent Renardias wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 21, Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > [Vincent 2000/01/18]
> > > > package : mutt
> > > > version : 1.0.0-3.1
> > >
Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> > On Jan 21, Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > [Vincent 2000/01/18]
> > > package : mutt
> > > version : 1.0.0-3.1
> > > architectures: i386 (ALPHA, SPARC & M68K MISSING)
> > >
On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 21, Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [Vincent 2000/01/18]
> > package : mutt
> > version : 1.0.0-3.1
> > architectures: i386 (ALPHA, SPARC & M68K MISSING)
> > issue: Y2K fix
> PLEASE REMOVE THIS
On Jan 21, Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Vincent 2000/01/18]
> package : mutt
> version : 1.0.0-3.1
> architectures: i386 (ALPHA, SPARC & M68K MISSING)
> issue: Y2K fix
PLEASE REMOVE THIS PACKAGE! mutt 1.0.0 is not suitable for slink and the
fix i
Hello,
Unless any other major bug is discovered, here's the list of packages that
will go in 2.1r5 (note: this update fixes y2k bugs in _32_ packages).
The people compiling for m68k,alpha,sparc can start updating their port.
I'd like to be able to release next wednesday.
Co
You have ignored repeated mail on this topic. If you release this bogus,
> hacked-up, and broken version of slrn in 2.1r5, I will be forced to orphan
> the package. I have provided a proper fix in version 0.9.5.3-6 which is
> under Incoming.
...but it can't be installed since 0.9.5.3-6
On Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 03:38:37PM +, Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> Here's the current list of packages that should go in 2.1r5.
>
> Y2K updates:
>
> [Vincent 2000/01/10]
> package : groff
> version : 1.15-0
> architectures: i386 m68k (ALP
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Remco van de Meent wrote:
>
> > You're not using the slink webalizer. The version that came with slink is
> > 1.20-4 (you're using 1.22), and has been fixed first week of y2k with an
> > upload to proposed-updates. Could you try that one and report
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Remco van de Meent wrote:
> You're not using the slink webalizer. The version that came with slink is
> 1.20-4 (you're using 1.22), and has been fixed first week of y2k with an
> upload to proposed-updates. Could you try that one and report back if that
> one doesn't work?
cked-up, and broken version of slrn in 2.1r5, I will be forced to orphan
the package. I have provided a proper fix in version 0.9.5.3-6 which is
under Incoming.
To repeat,
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> > Here's the current list of packages that should go in 2.1r5. I haven't
> > seen any new y2k bug reported in the last few days, so I guess all the
> > notable problems have been
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> Here's the current list of packages that should go in 2.1r5. I haven't
> seen any new y2k bug reported in the last few days, so I guess all the
> notable problems have been found.
I noticed slink webalizer does not properly
Here's the current list of packages that should go in 2.1r5. I haven't
seen any new y2k bug reported in the last few days, so I guess all the
notable problems have been found.
Things remaining to be done:
- 2 packages still have unfixed y2k bugs:
http-analyze (#54029)
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
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Vincent Renardias wrote:
> > Security updates:
>
> package : lpr
> version : 0.48-0.slink1
> architectures: alpha i386 m68k sparc
> issue: remote exploit
not yet in dists/proposed-updates (but added in my list anyway)
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> 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 pr
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
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
Vincent Renardias wrote:
> Here's my updated list of packages that should go in 2.1r5 (still
> uncomplete; I miss y2k fixes for tetex-extra, cbb, xinetd and
> http-analyze.
> I plan to NMU them on tuesday and then produce the non-i386 packages.
What about slrn?
--
see shy jo
hello,
Here's my updated list of packages that should go in 2.1r5 (still
uncomplete; I miss y2k fixes for tetex-extra, cbb, xinetd and
http-analyze.
I plan to NMU them on tuesday and then produce the non-i386 packages.
Cordialement,
--
- Vincent RENARDIAS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>> "Vincent" == Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Vincent> here's the list of packages that I plan to include in
Vincent> 2.1r5: http://www.d
>>>>> "Vincent" == Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Vincent> hello,
Vincent> here's the list of packages that I plan to include in
Vincent> 2.1r5: http://www.debian.org/~vincent/2.1r5.txt (I'll
Vincent>
Hi,
At Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:50:15 + (GMT),
Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> here's the list of packages that I plan to include in 2.1r5:
> http://www.debian.org/~vincent/2.1r5.txt
[Vincent 2000/01/07]
package : fml
version : 3.0+beta
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
Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> hello,
>
> here's the list of packages that I plan to include in 2.1r5:
> http://www.debian.org/~vincent/2.1r5.txt
> (I'll also probably include the m68k boot-floppies, but the corresponding
> .changes file seems to be missing...)
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
>
> webalyser:http://bugs.debian.org/53820
It's called webalizer :)
And I just made a quick fix to the slink version of webalizer t
hello,
here's the list of packages that I plan to include in 2.1r5:
http://www.debian.org/~vincent/2.1r5.txt
(I'll also probably include the m68k boot-floppies, but the corresponding
.changes file seems to be missing...)
This list is still missing the following y2k fixes:
webalyser:
90 matches
Mail list logo
