#include
#include
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Anyone have any worthwhile opinions on how 2.2r3 and 2.4.0 should get
> along? There already seems to be an iptables package and adding a new
> devfsd package would have little chance of breaking any existing installs
> (assuming th
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
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > - 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
> > set it up next week.
>
> All the packages are on ftp.vali
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
Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are still planning on waiting till after branching for woody
> before expecting the busybox changes we discussed, right?
Oh, no I'm not really waiting for you (nor you for me, I hope) -- I
just haven't had time to work on bf for a bit
--
On Fri Jan 12, 2001 at 07:04:07PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What's our time frame here? I need to verify that 2.2.18 fixes the
> > current PowerPC installation brown bag.
>
> I dunno. I'd like to get it all taken care of by end of month, d
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 reco
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
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> 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 (the
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > IIRC realplayer is orphaned.
>
> I don't this so:
>
> -rw-rw-r--1 troupdebadmin10924 Dec 31 17:49
> /org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/pool/contrib/r/realplayer/realplayer_8.0.tar.gz
No, I did orphan it. Someone provided a
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 04:10:32PM +1100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> 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 pot
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Brian Frederick Kimball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You may want to include realplayer from unstable; the one in stable is
> > no longer usable.
>
> If this is so, shouldn't someone file a bug and have the maintainer
> upload a version for stable?
See http://bugs.debi
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.
-
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 01:16:18PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > IIRC realplayer is orphaned.
>
> I don't this so:
>
> -rw-rw-r--1 troupdebadmin10924 Dec 31 17:49
> /org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/pool/contrib/r/realplayer/realplayer_8.0.tar.gz
Eh?
% ssh auric dpkg -I
/org/ftp.debian.o
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IIRC realplayer is orphaned.
I don't this so:
-rw-rw-r--1 troupdebadmin10924 Dec 31 17:49
/org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/pool/contrib/r/realplayer/realplayer_8.0.tar.gz
> > How's the way we cope with this kinda issue in the BTS -- "stuff fixed
>
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 01:55:03AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > > I suspect we won't make the end of Jan, but we may as well try for it.
> >
> > You may want to include realplayer from unstable; the one in stable is
> > no longer usable.
>
> If this is so, shouldn't someone file a bug and have
Brian Frederick Kimball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > I suspect we won't make the end of Jan, but we may as well try for it.
>
> You may want to include realplayer from unstable; the one in stable is
> no longer usable.
If this is so, shouldn't someone file a bug and
Anthony Towns writes:
> I suspect we won't make the end of Jan, but we may as well try for it.
Yeah, my point. I need to move on really soon to woody, personally.
> Anyone have any worthwhile opinions on how 2.2r3 and 2.4.0 should get
> along? There already seems to be an iptables package and
Anthony Towns wrote:
> I suspect we won't make the end of Jan, but we may as well try for it.
You may want to include realplayer from unstable; the one in stable is
no longer usable.
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> >...
> > Anyone have any worthwhile opinions on how 2.2r3 and 2.4.0 should get
> > along? There already seems to be an iptables package and adding a new
> > devfsd package would have little chance of breaking
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
>...
> Anyone have any worthwhile opinions on how 2.2r3 and 2.4.0 should get
> along? There already seems to be an iptables package and adding a new
> devfsd package would have little chance of breaking any existing installs
If you look at the bugs page o
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 02:40:12PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Is there any agreement from the release manager on my project to get
> 2.2r3 out?
Hey, this just isn't right. I'm meant to be nagging you, not the other
way around.
Sure, I'll start looking over all the proposed updates now.
I susp
Is there any agreement from the release manager on my project to get
2.2r3 out?
--
.Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What's our time frame here? I need to verify that 2.2.18 fixes the
> current PowerPC installation brown bag.
I dunno. I'd like to get it all taken care of by end of month, does
that sound reasonable?
I personally only have a few more tasks I wann
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 06:49:31PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> Well, I have 2.2r3 pretty much ready to ship on the boot-floppies
> side.
>
> I'm hoping we can get the preparation done so we're ready to go.
>
> The only thing in proposed updates that looks relevant to me is the
> new kernels
Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I also just uploaded a new base-config for stable, which will need
> porting.
Scratch that, I changed my mind and removed this package from
incoming.
--
.Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The only thing in proposed updates that looks relevant to me is the
> new kernels, 2.2.18 (rather than the pre21 version). Clearly we need
> the PCMCIA stuff and the idepci/compact kernels.
New working PCMCIA packages are in the incoming directory. I ca
Well, I have 2.2r3 pretty much ready to ship on the boot-floppies
side.
I'm hoping we can get the preparation done so we're ready to go.
The only thing in proposed updates that looks relevant to me is the
new kernels, 2.2.18 (rather than the pre21 version). Clearly we need
the PCMCIA stuff and
28 matches
Mail list logo
