Re: Forcing in tetex-base doesn't seem to work

On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:02:06AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > although vorlon said he'd force in tetex-base, and although > http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base also says "Should > ignore, but forced by vorlon", tetex-base still didn't enter testing. > The RC bug that it does hav

Re: Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (I)

On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:53:14AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > 2006/01/21 21:45 MET > * Accepted albatross > * Accepted antiword > * Investigation of cernlib > * Investigation of clamav > * Accepted crawl > * Moved evms from further to accept > * Accepted mantis > * Accepted perl > * A

Re: Forcing in tetex-base doesn't seem to work

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:02:06AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > >> although vorlon said he'd force in tetex-base, and although >> http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base also says "Should >> ignore, but forced by vorlon", tetex-base still di

BinNMUs for netcdf transition.

Moi! In a recent NMU, netcdf3g was split and renamed into libnetcdf3, and libnetcdf++3. While libnetcdf3 should still be binary compatible with the old C library in netcdf3g, the C++ library went through a transition. The old package netcdf3g contained both C and C++ libraries, so libnetcdf3 canno

Re: Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (I)

Hi Joey, there was some discussion[1] wether the next stable update could have some timezone data updated in the glibc package. Greetings [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-volatile/2006/02/msg0.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C

Re: BinNMUs for netcdf transition.

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 05:10:28PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote: > In a recent NMU, netcdf3g was split and renamed into libnetcdf3, and > libnetcdf++3. While libnetcdf3 should still be binary compatible with > the old C library in netcdf3g, the C++ library went through a > transition. The old packag

We can force in tetex-base, we just need a better hint

Frank Kuester wrote: > Sorry, I don't understand anything. Do you want to say that we are > somehow tied to hevea's transition? Why so? Yes, that's what he's saying. This sort of thing is routinely hideously complicated. You'll get more information from looking at update_output.txt at the r