hi,
desktop-base for etchr1 was rejected. BTW, this is just a call to SRM team to
know if Martin is alone to think desktop-base must be rejected ?
Please, give your POV you on the subject, maybe it can help ... or not ;)
cheers,
Fathi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a sub
On Saturday 02 June 2007 09:46, Fathi Boudra wrote:
> desktop-base for etchr1 was rejected. BTW, this is just a call to SRM
> team to know if Martin is alone to think desktop-base must be rejected
> ?
IMHO, the endless requests for this are getting annoying. AFAIK changes of
this kind have _never
Fathi Boudra wrote:
> desktop-base for etchr1 was rejected. BTW, this is just a call to SRM team to
> know if Martin is alone to think desktop-base must be rejected ?
Come on people! Can't you accept a decision others have to make?
Regards,
Joey
--
Every use of Linux is a proper use
Le samedi 02 juin 2007 à 10:17 +0200, Martin Schulze a écrit :
> Come on people! Can't you accept a decision others have to make?
We can't accept a decision that goes completely against what we have
been told by people in charge.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surre
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 11:33:17AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> We can't accept a decision that goes completely against what we have
> been told by people in charge.
When did people in charge tell anyone that stable update policy changed?
I didn't see them... there was a mail from Luk Claes th
libnetfilter-log_0.0.13-1, rebuild against libnfnetlink0, 1, alpha amd64 arm
hppa i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
6 matches
Mail list logo
