Re: Description-less packages file

2012-02-08 Thread Philipp Kern
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 08:30:47AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Regarding squeeze: Could somebody give some reasons for refusing an > additional field in the Packages files? It is hard to cope with "it is > unlikely". A yes or no would be more helpful to find a reasonable > decision for the UDD

Re: Description-less packages file

2012-02-08 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Philipp Kern (08/02/2012): > On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 08:30:47AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > Regarding squeeze: Could somebody give some reasons for refusing an > > additional field in the Packages files? It is hard to cope with "it > > is unlikely". A yes or no would be more helpful to find

Re: Fwd: Bug#647563: laptop-mode-tools: incompatible with linux 3.0 and later

2012-02-08 Thread Ritesh Raj Sarraf
On Sunday 05 February 2012 08:56 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Thanks for the diff. > > I'm guessing there's been a copy-n-waste error. Diffing the old and new > "enable" sections looks wrong: Thanks Adam, again, for catching it. New diff attached and hopefully this time I haven't done anything w

Processed (with 1 errors): SONAME bump of libcryptsetup

2012-02-08 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 659094 release.debian.org Bug #659094 [libpam-mount] libpam-mount: depends on libcryptsetup1, which is obsolete Bug reassigned from package 'libpam-mount' to 'release.debian.org'. Bug No longer marked as found in versions libpam-mount/2.

Re: Description-less packages file

2012-02-08 Thread Joerg Jaspert
On 12750 March 1977, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 10:29:50PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 23:26 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 22:59:25 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Regarding squeeze: Could somebody give some reasons for refu

Re: Description-less packages file

2012-02-08 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi Jörg, On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 08:51:26PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > Regarding squeeze: Could somebody give some reasons for refusing an > > additional field in the Packages files? It is hard to cope with "it is > > unlikely". A yes or no would be more helpful to find a reasonable > > de

Re: getting Debian Edu related updates into squeeze before next point release (was Re: gosa update for squeeze-proposed-updates)

2012-02-08 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 20:23 +0100, Mike Gabriel wrote: > On #debian-edu IRC we have discussed and wondered lately if and if > yes, how it might be possible to get the gosa update (and possibly > other updates for squeeze) into squeeze, squeeze-updates resp. before > point release 6.0.5. I'm

Processed: block 659094 with 659182

2012-02-08 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > block 659094 with 659182 Bug #659094 [release.debian.org] binNMUs for libcryptsetup bump Was not blocked by any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 659094: 659182 > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 659094:

Bug#659202: transition: t38modem 2.0.0

2012-02-08 Thread Michael van der Kolff
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition opal (3.10.1) (dependency) ptlib (2.10.2) (dependency) ekiga (3.3.1) (depends on libopal) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubs