On 01/21/2013 10:23 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
I've been pondering this and arguing with myself a little. There is the
potential for confusion if the version in t-p-u goes backwards, so let's
go with the unstable route; thanks.
Just uploaded 1.0-1.2 into unstable.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul
On 21.01.2013 00:42, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 01/20/2013 11:06 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
That would work, yeah; it's not the cleanest solution ever, but the
tpu
appears to have built on the majority of architectures already. The
alternative is we drop the earlier tpu packages follow
On 01/20/2013 11:06 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
That would work, yeah; it's not the cleanest solution ever, but the tpu
appears to have built on the majority of architectures already. The
alternative is we drop the earlier tpu packages followed by a
re-versioned upload.
Sure, if you can simply r
On Sun, 2013-01-20 at 15:15 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 01/20/2013 12:40 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Thanks. It looks like that was as "1.0-1.1+wheezy1" however, which means
> > its version is higher than unstable.
>
> Well, damn, I was too quick, should have used a ~ instead o
On 01/20/2013 12:40 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sun, 2013-01-20 at 02:59 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Rebuilt for testing now and uploaded into t-p-u.
Thanks. It looks like that was as "1.0-1.1+wheezy1" however, which means
its version is higher than unstable.
Well, damn, I was
On Sun, 2013-01-20 at 02:59 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Rebuilt for testing now and uploaded into t-p-u.
Thanks. It looks like that was as "1.0-1.1+wheezy1" however, which means
its version is higher than unstable.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...
Rebuilt for testing now and uploaded into t-p-u.
Cheers,
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
`-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
On 01/19/2013 01:06 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Control: reopen -1
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 23:59 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Please unblock package connman
connman/1.0-1.1 contains just one patch from upstream which fixes the
vulnerability CVE-2012-6459 [1]. I am attaching the debdiff
Processing control commands:
> reopen -1
Bug #697957 {Done: "Adam D. Barratt" }
[release.debian.org] unblock: connman/1.0-1.1
Bug reopened
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #697957 to the same values
previously set
--
697957: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=69795
Control: reopen -1
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 23:59 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Please unblock package connman
>
> connman/1.0-1.1 contains just one patch from upstream which fixes the
> vulnerability CVE-2012-6459 [1]. I am attaching the debdiff.
Unfortunately it's also picked up a dep
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package connman
connman/1.0-1.1 contains just one patch from upstream which fixes the
vulnerability CVE-2012-6459 [1]. I am attaching the debdiff.
Cheers,
Adrian
unblock c
11 matches
Mail list logo
