On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 01:13:09PM +0100, Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:43:15AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> > Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote:
> > > Given all this, would still be possible to consider this for etch ?
> > ...which would require another round of main
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:43:15AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote:
> > Given all this, would still be possible to consider this for etch ?
>
> ...which would require another round of main and non-free conglomeration
> packages in NEW, together with removals in testin
Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote:
> Well, what does -release have to say about this?
just for the sake of clarity: the conglomeration packages i can upload
myself, but i have (oviously) no influence on NEW handling and testing
migration, so RM may say if they would like to help getting it in.
> Btw
Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote:
> Given all this, would still be possible to consider this for etch ?
...which would require another round of main and non-free conglomeration
packages in NEW, together with removals in testing and unstable of the
non-free ones. Don't know if we can make this happen
It seems that the changes between pre9 and pre10 for code we already had
are purely non-technical (license change, etc). See attached diff.
Other than this, we just have changes in documentation/makefiles and
replacement of object code with a newer version of its corresponding
source. I think w
5 matches
Mail list logo
