Re: Debian 2.1r3

1999-09-28 Thread Martin Schulze
Chris Rutter wrote: > The current `sub-release' (whatever) of Debian 2.1 is r3, right? > I was just wondering, as all references on the web site are to r2, > but I thought I received a message from the security team about > r3 last week somtime. Just wanted to check before I filed a > boring bug r

Re: Debian 2.1r3

1999-09-17 Thread Josip Rodin
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 07:53:06AM -0700, David Bristel wrote: > > > The current `sub-release' (whatever) of Debian 2.1 is r3, right? > > > I was just wondering, as all references on the web site are to r2, > > > but I thought I received a message from the security team about > > > r3 last week som

Re: Debian 2.1r3

1999-09-17 Thread David Bristel
ROTECTED]> > Cc: Debian developers list > Subject: Re: Debian 2.1r3 > Resent-Date: 17 Sep 1999 14:55:08 - > Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ; > > On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 03:44:36PM +0100, Chris Rutter wrote: > >

Re: Debian 2.1r3

1999-09-17 Thread Josip Rodin
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 03:44:36PM +0100, Chris Rutter wrote: > The current `sub-release' (whatever) of Debian 2.1 is r3, right? > I was just wondering, as all references on the web site are to r2, > but I thought I received a message from the security team about > r3 last week somtime. Just wante

Debian 2.1r3

1999-09-17 Thread Chris Rutter
The current `sub-release' (whatever) of Debian 2.1 is r3, right? I was just wondering, as all references on the web site are to r2, but I thought I received a message from the security team about r3 last week somtime. Just wanted to check before I filed a boring bug report, or something. -- Chr