Dear [Stable] Release Managers,
Please consider the openvpn_2.0-1sarge4 for inclusion in the next Sarge
update. I consists of a very small fix [1] that has been biting users
since the Sarge release, specially those following the security updates.
The bug [2] makes the init.d fail to start the
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:51:38PM +0200, Christian Hammers wrote:
Hi,
> Is bug #383165 worth to be fixed by an upload to stable-proposed-updates?
Yes, I think so.
Cheers,
--
Julien Danjou
.''`. Debian Developer
: :' : http://julien.danjou.info
`. `' http://people.debian.org/~acid
`- 9A0D
Hello Stable-Release-Team
Is bug #383165 worth to be fixed by an upload to stable-proposed-updates?
"mysql-server-4.1 in sarge has a bug that lets the server crash when a
specially crafted query is executed on a host that replicates data
to another mysql host. Getting replication to work again ne
Hello,
I'd like to do an update of the tcpick package for Sarge to close this
following bugs:
- tcpick segfaults on ia64 architecture [1]. The submitter sent me a
simple patch and it was proven to fix the problem ;
- tcpick loops infinitely on ppc [2]. The submitter sent me a one line
patch that
* Colin Watson:
> On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 02:59:13PM +0200, Noèl Köthe wrote:
>> wget <= 1.9.1-4 (which is in sarge and frozen) had a security problem
>> (#261755) which is fixed in -6 and -7 (right now in incoming). -5 had
>> the first fixing patch but was not multibyte aware (#271931).
>> Jan Mi
Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 02:59:13PM +0200, Noèl Köthe wrote:
> > wget <= 1.9.1-4 (which is in sarge and frozen) had a security problem
> > (#261755) which is fixed in -6 and -7 (right now in incoming). -5 had
> > the first fixing patch but was not multibyte aware (#271931).
> >
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 02:59:13PM +0200, Noèl Köthe wrote:
> wget <= 1.9.1-4 (which is in sarge and frozen) had a security problem
> (#261755) which is fixed in -6 and -7 (right now in incoming). -5 had
> the first fixing patch but was not multibyte aware (#271931).
> Jan Minar wrote the fixing p
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 06:52:53PM +0200, Noèl Köthe wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 03.10.2004, 21:38 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> > I'm not going to accept an upload to t-p-u that makes off-point,
> > substantial changes to the build rules. Pushing this from unstable to
> > testing might be doable,
Am Sonntag, den 03.10.2004, 21:38 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> > If you (release and security team) don't have any objections I will
> > upload -7 to testing-proposed-updates in the next 2 days.
>
> You might want to fix the build dependencies first.
>
> dpkg-buildpackage: host architecture i
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 02:59:13PM +0200, Noèl Köthe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> wget <= 1.9.1-4 (which is in sarge and frozen) had a security problem
> (#261755) which is fixed in -6 and -7 (right now in incoming). -5 had
> the first fixing patch but was not multibyte aware (#271931).
> Jan Minar wrote
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 02:59:13PM +0200, Noèl Köthe wrote:
> wget <= 1.9.1-4 (which is in sarge and frozen) had a security problem
> (#261755) which is fixed in -6 and -7 (right now in incoming). -5 had
> the first fixing patch but was not multibyte aware (#271931).
> Jan Minar wrote the fixing p
Hello,
wget <= 1.9.1-4 (which is in sarge and frozen) had a security problem
(#261755) which is fixed in -6 and -7 (right now in incoming). -5 had
the first fixing patch but was not multibyte aware (#271931).
Jan Minar wrote the fixing patches (Thanks!).
Upstream author doesn't respond to this an
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 02:50:30PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
> as i'd like to follow the discussion. Is there any reason
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/09/threads.htm isn't being
> updated anymore since yesterday?
master.debian.org ran out of diskspace. It will be fixed
soon, for
Hi,
as i'd like to follow the discussion. Is there any reason
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/09/threads.htm isn't being
updated anymore since yesterday?
--
Best regards,
Kilian
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040910 02:10]:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 01:34:08AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > O.k. I was confused. But there is something I don't understand:
> > talksoup_0.0.20032712-3 is still in the archive and on the mirrors
> > even though there is a newer vers
> > > geneweb_4.09-25
>
> > WFM, but some warnings
>
> Same version? There's a new version of geneweb in testing/unstable now.
Though untested, I'm confident it will build. FTBFS was the reason for
using a new upstream "version" (indeed a CVS snapshot as upstream does
not want to release becau
Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip]
> > > kernel-image-2.4.26-hppa_2.4.26-6
> > > kernel-patch-2.4.25-mips_2.4.25-0.040415.1
> > > kernel-patch-2.4.25-powerpc_2.4.25-8
>
> > 2.4.27 is available, removal?
>
> Not until it's definite that we'll be using 2.4.27 for sarge.
2.4.26-hppa and 2.4.25-powerpc ar
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 09:58:34PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:33:55PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
> > ccs_0.cvs20040703-2
> hinted for removal
Successfully removed as of tomorrow.
> > gconf_1.0.9-5.1
> new version in sid which WFM, RM try to remove it, but can
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 10:41:24PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > kinoplus_0.3.2-1
> new version in sid, waits for m68k (build yesterday)
Propagated with today's britney run.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 01:34:08AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> O.k. I was confused. But there is something I don't understand:
> talksoup_0.0.20032712-3 is still in the archive and on the mirrors
> even though there is a newer version 0.0.20040113-0.1 that is already
> migrated to sarge. Has
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 04:13:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 10:41:24PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > > talksoup_0.0.20032712-3
> >
> > waits for removal
>
> Does it? I don't see any pending hints for this, or any emails
> requesting its removal from sarge. If
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 10:41:24PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:33:55PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
> More observations (still more to come):
> > Failed are:
> > gtkglextmm_1.0.1-2
> I think something about a needed binary NMU around this package
> anyone has a po
After the build logs are available some more comments
to bugs I couldn't reproduce:
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 09:58:34PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:33:55PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
> > firedns_0.9.9-1
>
> WFM
>
> > firestring_0.9.9-1
>
> WFM
both fail with "C
Hi,
logs are at:
http://home.bawue.de/~kk/sarge_ftbfs/
Not that this means it's all that exists in Sarge which would fail. The
large retest is still due, but at least this is a start to get the old
known problems sorted out (or so i hope).
--
Best regards,
Kilian
signature.asc
Description: D
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:33:55PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
More observations (still more to come):
> Failed are:
> gtkglextmm_1.0.1-2
I think something about a needed binary NMU around this package
anyone has a pointer?
> gtkhtml_1.0.4-5.1
new version in sid, but needs libtool update
(I tr
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:33:55PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
Some observations (more to follow):
(note, new != fixed and WFM == builds in a sid pbuilder)
> Failed are:
> advi_1.4.0-7
new version in sid, waiting for mips
> alogg_1.3.3-3
failed to build on arm in sid, but perhaps this needs on
Hi,
as i have helped producing the first FTBFS list, I've taken the failed
list from Bastian's mail
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/09/msg00023.html) and put
them into a sarge sbuild again. The result is:
- 80 failed
- 127 successful
- 31 removed from sarge
of 238 on the previous li
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 12:38:37PM +, Thomas Skybakmoen wrote:
>Hi a question from a "normal" debian user:
>
>As sarge is comming to a server near me..
>I wounder why certian packages are so old when some are bleading new.
>bind (9.2.3) wich in debian is: 8.4.4
>bind9 | 1:9.2.3+9.2.4-
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 12:38:37PM +, Thomas Skybakmoen wrote:
> Hi a question from a "normal" debian user:
>
> As sarge is comming to a server near me..
>
> I wounder why certian packages are so old when some are bleading new.
>
> bind (9.2.3) wich in debian is: 8.4.4
bind9 | 1:9.2.3+
Hi a question from a "normal" debian user:
As sarge is comming to a server near me..
I wounder why certian packages are so old when some are bleading new.
bind (9.2.3) wich in debian is: 8.4.4
dhcp (3.0.1) wich in debian is: 2.0pl5
iptables (1.2.11) 1.2.9
modutils (2.4.27) 2.4.26 etc
I under
30 matches
Mail list logo
