Re: Slony1 friezed in a buggy version

2007-03-02 Thread Steve Langasek
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:24:42AM -0300, Daniel Cristian Cruz wrote: > How do I know if it will enter Etch or not? It won't. If you think there's a bug in slony1 1.2.1 severe enough that it shouldn't be released in this version, talk to the maintainer about getting targetted fixes uploaded via t

Re: Slony1 friezed in a buggy version

2007-03-02 Thread Daniel Cristian Cruz
How do I know if it will enter Etch or not? I'm writing a manual, where I say to install slony from unstable, because slony in testing is buggy... I would like to write that in a few days it wouldn't be necessary to install from unstable (some people are scared about the "unstable" name). Thanks

Re: Slony1 friezed in a buggy version

2007-02-27 Thread Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt
"Daniel Cristian Cruz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Slony1 packages were friezed in a buggy version. I have installed > Slony1 from unstable, and it works. Could you let this package goes > down the river? :) No. The diff is quite long, and I don't know which bug you think has been fixed. Please

Re: Slony1 friezed in a buggy version

2007-02-27 Thread Daniel Cristian Cruz
When using perl tools, the slonik_init_cluster command doesn't create all paths, leaving the replication cluster working, but not replicating. This bug was resolved in 1.2.2: - Fixes to altperl scripts (init cluster, store node) so they would properly generate STORE PATH requests (which had bro

Slony1 friezed in a buggy version

2007-02-27 Thread Daniel Cristian Cruz
People, Slony1 packages were friezed in a buggy version. I have installed Slony1 from unstable, and it works. Could you let this package goes down the river? :) Kind regards... -- Daniel Cristian Cruz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta