On 28/04/12 16:47, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> Since there is an upstream bugfix release (non-serious, though) for
>> guitarix available that I would like to upload, I kindly ask you for
>> information about the boost1.49 transition: Which timeframe do I need to
>> schedule before I can do the next g
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 05:00 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I think we're going to need to do another kernel upload before the point
> release to revert a fix that is worse than the original bug:
>
> > Subject: Revert "autofs: work around unhappy compat problem on x86-64"
> >
> > This reverts commi
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 21:06 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> 6.0.5 is somewhat overdue now and I've been procrastinating over
> organising it for a while. So before I find something else to distract
> myself with, some suggested dates:
It looks like the discussion has converged towards:
> May 12/
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 16:31 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> To what we had for a1 basically:
>
> get CD images built (Steve, yey!);
> test them
> finish announce mail
> mail to to d-d-a if all above work
How are things going with that?
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-rel
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 09:58 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> for GNOME 3.4, we need newer clutter-1.0 and cogl versions:
[...]
> Packages which need sourceful uploads:
> ==
> mutter (3.2.2-2 from exp)
Will that resolve #669441?
> Packages which can be binNMUed:
>
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 04:49:40PM +0100, Adam Barratt wrote:
>On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 16:31 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> To what we had for a1 basically:
>>
>> get CD images built (Steve, yey!);
>> test them
>> finish announce mail
>> mail to to d-d-a if all above work
>
>How are things goi
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 13:21:09 +0200, Fathi Boudra wrote:
> I would like to prepare Qt multiarch transition.
>
I think we can go ahead with this now.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 16:54 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 04:49:40PM +0100, Adam Barratt wrote:
> >On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 16:31 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> To what we had for a1 basically:
> >>
> >> get CD images built (Steve, yey!);
> >> test them
> >> finish ann
tag 655912 + pending
thanks
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 11:57 +0100, Nick Leverton wrote:
> Sorry for delay, I had a bug on the transition from one of my
> dependencies, and have been away+offline much of the last two weeks.
> Both problems should be sorted this weekend though - will get onto it
> as so
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 655912 + pending
Bug #655912 [release.debian.org] transition: libupnp3 -> libupnp6
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #655912 to the same tags previously set
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:07:54 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> Hallo Julien,
>
> seems that bogofilter can be fixed soon, it seems that Steven found an
> workaround in the sqlite3 library. (See #665363)
>
> So it seems like a few more days and/or NMU'ing sqlite.
What's up with that?
Cheers,
Jul
2012/4/22 Robert Millan :
> I notice that my initial patch didn't handle the library dependency
> part. I'm attaching a new patch that fixes this issue. This makes new
> packages built against the patched libc0.1-dev depend on libc0.1 >=
> 2.13-31.
>
> VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE: if this patch
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: rm
X-Debbugs-Cc: n...@packages.debian.org
Hi,
Please remove the ham radio server "node" from testing. The
release-critical bug #614907 has had no action for several months
despite a starting patch and various comp
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 01:27:32PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Please remove the ham radio server "node" from testing. The
> release-critical bug #614907 has had no action for several months
> despite a starting patch and various compromises offered, and I am not
> confident that the bug will
Your message dated Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:25:15 -0500
with message-id <20120429222514.GA2554@burratino>
and subject line Re: RM: node/0.3.2-7.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #670858,
regarding RM: node/0.3.2-7.1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 16:36 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 05:00 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > I think we're going to need to do another kernel upload before the point
> > release to revert a fix that is worse than the original bug:
> >
> > > Subject: Revert "autofs: work
16 matches
Mail list logo
