On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 23:16 +0100, Michael Prokop wrote:
> Uh, I think it's me who is responsible for not uploading Christian's
> work targeted towards the ACKed version for stable.
>
> IIRC there was an open question regarding how to proceed WRT to the
> version for unstable and I was waiting for
* Adam D. Barratt [Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 08:56:39PM +]:
> On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 21:49 +0100, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > * Adam D. Barratt [120112 22:41]:
> > > On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 19:44 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > > In that case, let's just stick with #632749 for the moment. P
* Adam D. Barratt [120112 22:41]:
> On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 19:44 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 20:21 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > > * Adam D. Barratt [110803 19:50]:
> > > > I'd be happy with the fix for #632749, certainly. What's the practical
> > > > impact
On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 21:49 +0100, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Adam D. Barratt [120112 22:41]:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 19:44 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
> > > In that case, let's just stick with #632749 for the moment. Please feel
> > > free to upload that (which I assume is the u
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 19:44 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 20:21 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > * Adam D. Barratt [110803 19:50]:
> > > I'd be happy with the fix for #632749, certainly. What's the practical
> > > impact of #635553? Particularly given that it is s
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 20:21 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Adam D. Barratt [110803 19:50]:
> > I'd be happy with the fix for #632749, certainly. What's the practical
> > impact of #635553? Particularly given that it is still open in
> > unstable, I'm inclined to say we should skip it,
* Adam D. Barratt [110803 19:50]:
> On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 15:24 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> [..]
> > The debdiff would fix both things, if this is not acceptable, I can
> > prepare another version only fixing #632749.
>
> I'd be happy with the fix for #632749, certainly. What's the
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 15:24 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> I'm proposing to update procps in stable to have it support kernels
> which advertise them as "3.0-something" instead of "2.6.x-something"
> or "3.0.0-something". (There are some other packages that need
> fixing, so this is a first
Hi!
I'm proposing to update procps in stable to have it support kernels
which advertise them as "3.0-something" instead of "2.6.x-something"
or "3.0.0-something". (There are some other packages that need
fixing, so this is a first step.)
The required patch has already landed in unstable (#632749)
9 matches
Mail list logo
