On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 18:48 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 13:22 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > What's the situation with this one? Could it be included in the
> > next
> > Stretch
> > update?
>
> The +confirmed and "... then OK" in my mail of December 2nd that you
> quot
On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 13:22 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> What's the situation with this one? Could it be included in the next
> Stretch
> update?
The +confirmed and "... then OK" in my mail of December 2nd that you
quote below was intended as an acknowledgement that you could go ahead
with the
What's the situation with this one? Could it be included in the next Stretch
update?
On Saturday, 9 December 2017 1:33:39 PM AEDT Russell Coker wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 December 2017 11:05:24 AM AEDT Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > IFF it's versioned as 2:2.20161023.1-9+deb9u1, uses "stretch" as the
>
On Saturday, 2 December 2017 11:05:24 AM AEDT Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> IFF it's versioned as 2:2.20161023.1-9+deb9u1, uses "stretch" as the
> changelog distribution, is otherwise identical to the diff presented in
> this bug log and is built and tested on a stretch system, then OK.
I've attached a
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On Fri, 2017-12-01 at 17:51 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 November 2017 9:41:58 PM AEDT Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
> In any case, the diff you supplied has:
> >
> > +refpolicy (2:2.20161023.1-10) unstable; urgency=medium
> >
> > which obviously isn't
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 9:41:58 PM AEDT Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Section 5.5.1 of the above seemed to indicate that I should do it
> > that way.
> > Did I misunderstand it or does the documentation need improving?
>
> Some combination. :-)
>
> You used reportbug to file the report - did it
[apparently this ended up sat in my drafts for a while]
On Sun, 2017-10-01 at 23:49 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Friday, 29 September 2017 4:39:15 PM AEDT Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-09-30 at 01:08 +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > I've attached the patches. These all come from th
I sent such a debdiff almost 2 months ago. Is it ok?
On 30 September 2017 1:39:15 am AEST, "Adam D. Barratt"
wrote:
>On Sat, 2017-09-30 at 01:08 +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
>> I've attached the patches. These all come from the package currently
>> in
>> Testing.
>>
>Thanks, but we don't revie
On Friday, 29 September 2017 4:39:15 PM AEDT Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-09-30 at 01:08 +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > I've attached the patches. These all come from the package currently
> > in
> > Testing.
>
> Thanks, but we don't review individual patches (at least, we don't
> ack/
On Sat, 2017-09-30 at 01:08 +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> I've attached the patches. These all come from the package currently
> in
> Testing.
>
Thanks, but we don't review individual patches (at least, we don't
ack/nack uploads based on looking at individual patches).
If you'd like an ack for
I've attached the patches. These all come from the package currently in
Testing.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Bloghttp://doc.coker.com.au/
Index: refpolicy-2.20161023.1/policy/modules/system/init.te
==
11 matches
Mail list logo
