X-Y-GMX-multipart/mixed;
boundary="Add_By_Label_Mail_Nextpart_001"6
X-Rc-Virus: 2007-09-13_01
X-Rc-Spam: 2008-11-04_01
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/573916
X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org
List-Id:
List-Post: <
On 2010-04-19 12:43 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Are bugs which are marked as done taken into account before a
> release?
Yes, they are.
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Arch
On 2010-04-12 12:55:59 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2010-04-12 12:21 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > Moreover, with the current status of module-init-tools, it seems
> > that the broken version will get into squeeze anyway (at least,
> > there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent that) if
On Mon,12.Apr.10, 11:19:54, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> There's something broken in the design of Debian's migration to testing.
>
> A grave bug in the testing version of module-init-tools (3.12~pre2-1)
> was fixed several weeks ago, and the package was uploaded with
> urgency=high:
>
> module-init
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:19:54 +0200
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Hello Vincent,
> module-init-tools (3.12~pre2-2) unstable; urgency=high
Migrated to testing today.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever immediately apparent"
A friend of a fri
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 06:07:08 -0400 (EDT), Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2010-04-12 11:19 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> There's something broken in the design of Debian's migration to testing.
>>
>> A grave bug in the testing version of module-init-tools (3.12~pre2-1)
>> was fixed several weeks ago, a
On 2010-04-12 12:21 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Moreover, with the current status of module-init-tools, it seems
> that the broken version will get into squeeze anyway (at least,
> there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent that) if the problem
> on HPPA isn't fixed.
There is something to p
On 2010-04-12 12:07:08 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> The conclusion I had drawn from this long ago: don't use testing, it is
> only meant to be a staging area for preparing the next release and not
> as a distribution actually to be used by people, except during freezes
> maybe.
The machine in ques
On 2010-04-12 11:19 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> There's something broken in the design of Debian's migration to testing.
>
> A grave bug in the testing version of module-init-tools (3.12~pre2-1)
> was fixed several weeks ago, and the package was uploaded with
> urgency=high:
>
> module-init-t
There's something broken in the design of Debian's migration to testing.
A grave bug in the testing version of module-init-tools (3.12~pre2-1)
was fixed several weeks ago, and the package was uploaded with
urgency=high:
module-init-tools (3.12~pre2-2) unstable; urgency=high
* Fixed an init
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:00:25 -0500
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Kimber wrote:
> > Actually, this is ambiguous, because "local changes must be preserved"
> > can both mean "backed up" (which is what happened in my xinetd case)
> > and"remain active", which is what I think should h
Richard Kimber wrote:
> Actually, this is ambiguous, because "local changes must be preserved" can
> both mean "backed up" (which is what happened in my xinetd case) and
> "remain active", which is what I think should happen.
The rest of the section clarifies it pretty well I think.
--
see shy j
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:51:34 -0500
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any package in debian that, during installation or upgrade, loses
> changes you have locally made to a config file is broken. A bug report
> of severity serious should be filed on it for its violation of debian
> policy, sec
Hall Stevenson wrote:
> I *believe* you can configure debconf to NOT overwrite existing config
> files, automatically overwrite them, or prompt you before doing so.
debconf is a system for asking questions. It has nothing to do with
config files. It does not modify config files.
Any package in
Thanks very much to all who responded and contributed to the
discussion.
I did the upgrade, and have experienced no problems at all so far.
Nice,
Jim
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:09:44 -0500
Hall Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I *believe* you can configure debconf to NOT overwrite existing config
> files, automatically overwrite them, or prompt you before doing so. With
>
> either of the last two options, it will still create a backup of
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:09:44PM -0500, Hall Stevenson wrote:
> At 07:47 PM 3/12/2003 +, Richard Kimber wrote:
> >I've upgraded, and only noticed two things.
> >
> >1) My xinetd.conf file was overwritten without asking me, which I don't
> >feel is right, and
>
> I *believe* you can configure
At 07:47 PM 3/12/2003 +, Richard Kimber wrote:
I've upgraded, and only noticed two things.
1) My xinetd.conf file was overwritten without asking me, which I don't
feel is right, and
I *believe* you can configure debconf to NOT overwrite existing config
files, automatically overwrite them,
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:27:03 +
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 11:41:52AM -0600, Brooks R. Robinson wrote:
> > Jim McCloskey wrote:
> > | I expected to see all sorts of messages here about difficulties with
> > | testing after the migration of glibc 2.3.1-14.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 11:41:52AM -0600, Brooks R. Robinson wrote:
> Jim McCloskey wrote:
> | I expected to see all sorts of messages here about difficulties with
> | testing after the migration of glibc 2.3.1-14.
> |
> | Hardly anything, though.
> |
> | I've been holding back from the upgrade til
| I expected to see all sorts of messages here about difficulties with
| testing after the migration of glibc 2.3.1-14.
|
| Hardly anything, though.
|
| I've been holding back from the upgrade till things settle down.
|
| Are there any brave souls who went ahead and upgraded and have the
| time to
Jim McCloskey wrote:
I expected to see all sorts of messages here about difficulties with
testing after the migration of glibc 2.3.1-14.
Hardly anything, though.
I've been holding back from the upgrade till things settle down.
Are there any brave souls who went ahead and upgraded and have the
tim
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 04:49:19PM -0800, Jim McCloskey wrote:
|
| I expected to see all sorts of messages here about difficulties with
| testing after the migration of glibc 2.3.1-14.
|
| Hardly anything, though.
|
| I've been holding back from the upgrade till things settle down.
|
| Are ther
I expected to see all sorts of messages here about difficulties with
testing after the migration of glibc 2.3.1-14.
Hardly anything, though.
I've been holding back from the upgrade till things settle down.
Are there any brave souls who went ahead and upgraded and have the
time to do a quick rep
24 matches
Mail list logo
