For those following this thread [1], the advice I have
received suggests option (3),
> (3) to purge metadata for packages not presently in
> sarge.
and no one suggests otherwise, so this is what I have
done. With Giacomo Catenazzi's sponsorship, the
resultant final debram (0.6.4) is in sid n
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:57:15PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 05:06:11AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:48:16PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> > > This mail is somewhat lengthy, and most of you do not
> > > need to read it. You want to
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 05:06:11AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Thaddeus,
>
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:48:16PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> > This mail is somewhat lengthy, and most of you do not
> > need to read it. You want to read this mail if you
> > maintain packages which (as of
Hi Thaddeus,
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:48:16PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> This mail is somewhat lengthy, and most of you do not
> need to read it. You want to read this mail if you
> maintain packages which (as of 2 April) sarge
> temporarily lacks. These are packages which used to be
>
4 matches
Mail list logo
