Cyril Brulebois (2023-06-13):
> Let's see if those help:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/packages/-/compare/f673a47d01...4111b73ede
That wasn't sufficient, because of some earlier check/optimization. And
there was another thing that was missed, which would have prevented it
from wo
(Adding back submitter, and everyone who mailed that bug report.)
Hi,
Colomban Wendling (2022-10-25):
> I have unfortunately no insight on how this could be fixed, but it's
> rather inconvenient as packages.debian.org is thus effectively not a
> trustable source for Bullseye.
Let's see if those
It says: "two or more packages specified"
https://packages.debian.org/source/stable-security/firefox-esr
Idézem/Quoting Colomban Wendling :
Hello,
This is still an issue as of today regarding the bullseye-security
section being missing.
See for example the linux-image-amd64 or firefox-esr
Hello,
This is still an issue as of today regarding the bullseye-security
section being missing.
See for example the linux-image-amd64 or firefox-esr packages:
linux-image-amd64:
- https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=linux-image-amd64
(bullseye shows 5.10.140-1)
- apt policy: 5.10.14
Hi,
I'm running Debian bullseye and have firefox 78.15.0esr-1~deb11u1 from
bullseye-security, but packages.debian.org is still showing
78.14.0esr-1~deb11u1 as the firefox-esr version available in Debian
bullseye [1].
So the patch of Rhonda D'Vine, did not have an effect on at least the info
5 matches
Mail list logo
