On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:48:28AM -, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Hmm, LaMont, would it be possible for you to reupload with fixed PO
> > files (I think you just need to dig them out from the BTSthey have
> > probably been broken by the infamous mutt encoding bug)? This,
> > assuming the rel
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 07:36:19PM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Julien Cristau (jcris...@debian.org):
> Or grab the PO file from the BTS web interface
Yeah - files grabbed, I need to build the debs and I'll get them uploaded.
that should happen within the next 12-14 hours. (sleep
.P1-3) unstable; urgency=low
* package -2 for unstable
-- LaMont Jones Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:40:18 -0600
bind9 (1:9.5.1.dfsg.P1-2) stable; urgency=low
[Juhana Helovuo]
* fix atomic operations on alpha. Closes: #512285
[Dann Frazier]
* fix atomic operations on ia64. Closes: #5
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 09:48:30AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I'd like to upload 1:9.5.1.dfsg.P2-1 to stable-proposed-updates (as
> 1:9.5.1.dfsg.P2-1+lenny1) to fix a bug in DLV processing. We can then
> point users to this version if they use dlv.isc.org and experience
> resolution failures f
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 09:49:34PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> The failure on caballero is due to the infamous alternatives problem [2] but
> nobody seem to care. I wish I could ask for this:
> 2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-wb-team/2009/06/msg00058.html
I'll go fix caballero tonight -
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 02:06:36PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:06 PM, dann frazier wrote:
> What happened to sarti? Loosing a box like that would certainly add
> load to the others.
Sarti failed to power on one day.
> >> >> Are you allowed to boot a kernel/initrd tha
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 02:35:00PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> That would prevent it from getting uploaded, but won't that package
> get marked as built, preventing other buildds from trying?
Yep. If you just want to build packages over and over, then don't start
the buildd up, and just run sbui
After discussions with the affected security teams (debian and ubuntu),
postfix 2.6.5.3 was uploaded to sid, with the presumption that I would
contact -release to get the fix for my ancient screwup into the next
point release.
* SECURITY-UPDATE: correct permissions on /var/spool/postfix/pid
* Correct check for new (empty) answer to root alias debconf question.
Introduced in 2.3.6-2. Closes: #413610, #413086
-- LaMont Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 5 Mar 2007 21:43:22 -0700
And would you like -2? I was stalling waiting for -1 to hit etch, but
can upload the
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 09:13:55PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 07:57:00PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> > libvirt isn't an arch specific package, so the buildds should build it.
> > How can I get libvirt out of PAS?
> By mailing the p-a-s maintainers. Lamont, could you ple
arge monolithic .diff.gz, making
it much easier to maintain down the road.
thoughts?
lamont
util-linux (2.12p-4) unstable; urgency=low
* Depend on newer libblkid1.
-- LaMont Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:50:49 -0700
util-linux (2.12p-3) unstable; urgency=low
* Add an
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 05:16:14PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Additional con:
> - depends on a newer version of e2fsprogs than we currently have in
> testing, which requires updating roughly a half dozen frozen libraries
> Hrm, this looks like a bug in libblkid1 to me, since the shlibs were no
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 03:49:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 09:39:41AM -0700, LaMont Jones wrote:
> > An alternative that is less invasive to sarge would be to drop libblkid1
> > support from a t-p-u upload.
> Well, the version of mount currently
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 11:45:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> LaMont Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A source of many issues, and divergence from upstream, was the hurd
> > patch, which was dropped in 2.12l-1. Having that code, with it's bugs,
> >
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 10:03:57AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Oh, it seems [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the canonical address, CCing there.
Yeah - I'm not actively reading debian-hppa, if I'm even subscribed to
it.
> Hi hppa buildd maintainers. We have a problem with the ocaml packages on hppa,
> since
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 10:13:41AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> line 495: 1.399 (lamont 05-Mar-04): %libmail-cclient-perl: !ia64 # [ANAIS]
> So, this package is marked as 'not for ia64', this line should be
> removed if that's no longer the case, or the ia64 binary should be
> removed if t
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 07:37:24PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> I'm just curious since I sent a patch for this bug to #263224 almost a week
> ago, sent a mail to debian-release [1] and nobody has taken action. Is
> nobody (not even the maintainers!) addressing RC bugs in base pa
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 11:50:04PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 09:13:56PM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote:
> Um. I had been under the impression that the latest version *fixed* this
> bug, which was one of the reasons I pushed it through to sarge.
> LaMont?
The bug r
I just uploaded 2.12-8 with Samuel Thibault's patch to sid. The only
change from 2.12-7 is the fix for the 5 (duplicate) serious bugs in
getty. #226443 has the patch from Samuel.
Once it's built on the buildd's, please snap it into sarge.
thanks,
lamont
elog
index 13f278e..2ef9801 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+bind9 (1:9.7.3.dfsg-1~squeeze9) squeeze-proposed-updates; urgency=low
+
+ * Update db.root with new IP for D.root-servers.net. Closes: #697352
+
+ -- LaMont Jones Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:07:02 -0700
+
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 08:44:55PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Debian admin has deployed the patch at [2] to the bind running the
> debian.org nameservers - else debian.org's nameservers would not have
> any resources left to answer legitimate queries.
>
> We think it important that the bind v
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 09:09:50AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> I've been looking into Postfix RC bug #700719. In short, my proposal is to
> fix the maintainer field and then unblock the package. Please see my message
> in the bug log for details.
wheezy has 2.9.3-2.1, sid has 2.10.0-1. Given
diff -u postfix-2.9.6/debian/control postfix-2.9.6/debian/control
--- postfix-2.9.6/debian/control
+++ postfix-2.9.6/debian/control
@@ -1,8 +1,7 @@
Source: postfix
Section: mail
Priority: extra
-Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers
-XSBC-Original-Maintainer: LaMont Jones
+Maintainer: LaMont Jones
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 05:59:32PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> A debdiff against the current wheezy package (possibly minus the .po
> changes and some of the repetitive documentation updates) would probably
> have been more useful, fwiw.
Noted for the future.
> > The source and amd64 binaries
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:22:10PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Indeed. In any case, were the new version to be accepted in to the
> release then the appropriate route would be via unstable, not direct
> to t-p-u.
Works for me. I'll toss 9.8.4 into sid. As for getting it into wheezy,
it'll ma
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 07:28:02PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> testing currently has bind9 version 1:9.9.5.dfsg-5
>
> Upstream released 9.9.6 fixing some bugs with an impact on compatibility
> and at least one appears to be security related
> "Corrected bugs in the handling of wildcard records b
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 08:06:02PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> In the particular case, it has been suggested that the final changes
> compared to testing will be 87 000 (or more) lines. Unless 97+% of this
> is pure documentational/auto-generated changes, which can be filtered
> out and turn thi
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:52:22PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > Lamont, would it be possible to prepare an upload fixing just the
> > security bug for squeeze (so based on 1:9.7.1.dfsg.P2-2)?
>
> I looked into it a bit, but couldn't pinpoint the exact changes for
> CVE-2010-3752 (not with
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 03:10:09PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> 1:9.7.2.dfsg.P3-1 unblocked.
Thanks - the specific patch for the first CVE was not forthcoming. And
the others just combined to make it more sensible to just unblock it, IMO.
lamont
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-r
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 08:03:55PM +, Mark Purcell wrote:
> I'm also a little curious that this is only happening on ia64, if it was a
> source problem I would imagine it would also be occurring on other arch's as
> well.
> Perhaps we could reschedule a rebuild, or how can I get the necessary
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 01:51:52PM -0700, LaMont Jones wrote:
> I'll freshen and clean the chroot and do a new build.
Broken chroot, all is well now.
lamont
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 10:12:44PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Moritz Muehlenhoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070111 19:31]:
> About bind 8, I'm not so sure. Do the maintainers have any opinion about
> bind 8?
I just uploaded 'bind8' and friends (sitting in NEW last I saw), with a
README that depreca
typos in debconf messages. Closes: #399916
* Catalan debconf template. Closes: #405320
-- LaMont Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 5 Jan 2007 19:31:31 -0700
postfix (2.3.5-3) unstable; urgency=low
* Fix typo. Closes: #403121
* German translation update. Clos
Like the subject says, bind9_9.3.4-2 should be promoted to testing,
either now, or in 2 days when it's old enough. :-) (And yes, I know it
just went through dinstall today...) It is currently built on alpha,
amd64, hppa, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc - which
leaves only m68k lagg
SIZE usage completely, use sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE).
* Make intr the default for NFS v2 & v3 mounts in addition to being the
default for NFS v4. Thanks to Tollef Fog Heen for the idea.
-- LaMont Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:57:35 -0700
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:47:27PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 04:07:13PM -0700, LaMont Jones wrote:
> Both marked as fixed in 1:9.3.4-2 in our tracker, HOWEVER:
> 355 files changed, 42564 insertions(+), 23165 deletions(-)
> which has lots of changes to l
t apply on 64-bit machines. Closes:
* #147187
* xdelta.m4 love. Closes: #212677
-- LaMont Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:15:11 -0700
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please consider nmap 4.20-1 for etch. Nearly all of the bugs ever filed
against nmap have been enhancements, etc. It would be a shame to not
have the latest nmap in etch, especially now that it's over 50 days
old...
Upstream's changelog below.
thoughts?
lamont
# Nmap Changelog ($Id: CHANGELOG
e yet... sadness.
thoughts?
lamont
util-linux (2.12r-18) unstable; urgency=low
* Stop printing erroneous "rpc.idmapd appears to not be running" message.
Files: 30nfs4.dpatch. Closes: #385879
-- LaMont Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:47:10 -0700
util-linu
39 matches
Mail list logo
