Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 18 December 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> While I did not take care about the fallout due to time constraints on
>> my side, I did take a look at the meta-gnome2 migration back then. We
>> did not place any approval hint but it seems that the multiple arch:all
>> confus
On Friday 18 December 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
> While I did not take care about the fallout due to time constraints on
> my side, I did take a look at the meta-gnome2 migration back then. We
> did not place any approval hint but it seems that the multiple arch:all
> confused britney sufficiently
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 02:49:47PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > It's almost certain that both the relevant package maintainer and the
> > release team are already aware of this and that it has been a conscious
> > choice to accept the breakage.
> Given that the package version clearly indicat
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:39:39PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> This looks like a fairly likely reason:
> http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/gnome-core
> For some reason the package was forced to testing even though it was not
> available on all architectures.
> If that is the reason, then it means
4 matches
Mail list logo
