Steve Langasek wrote:
With the delays in getting
t-p-u built across architectures, that's not long enough for me to be
comfortable.
I didn't realize t-p-u took so long. But I suppose that's the way it is.
Thanks for the explanation, and thank you for your work on getting Sarge
out the door!
--
T
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:39:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On May 15, 2005, at 22:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >Still, the concerns about re-adding this software version (which
> >has been
> >out of testing for months) via t-p-u remain.
> Its hard to see it being any worse than freesw
On May 15, 2005, at 22:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
Still, the concerns about re-adding this software version (which
has been
out of testing for months) via t-p-u remain.
Its hard to see it being any worse than freeswan, which has been
abandoned for a while by its upstream. And if it turns out to
I demand that Steve Langasek may or may not have written...
> On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 05:44:33PM -0400, François-Denis Gonthier wrote:
>> On May 7, 2005 09:03 pm, Joey Hess wrote:
>>> erlang
>> Erlang and the related erlang-manpages and erlang-doc-html are being put
>> up-to-date by me. I have a
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:49:10PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:33:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:10:10AM +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> > > Steve Langasek schrieb:
> > > >>If that 2.3.x bug really only affects the newer (> 2.6.8) kernel,
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:33:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:10:10AM +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> > Steve Langasek schrieb:
> > >>If that 2.3.x bug really only affects the newer (> 2.6.8) kernel, why
> > >>not just get 2.3.x pushed into sarge? Are there any other b
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 11:07:36AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 12:30:21 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Completely MIA maintainers are one part of the problem.
> >
> > But then there's the class of maintainers who manage to upload a new
> > upstream version and perhaps fix some
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 05:44:33PM -0400, François-Denis Gonthier wrote:
> On May 7, 2005 09:03 pm, Joey Hess wrote:
> > erlang
> Erlang and the related erlang-manpages and erlang-doc-html are being put
> up-to-date by me. I have a package ready which should be uploaded by my
> sponsor in the
On May 7, 2005 09:03 pm, Joey Hess wrote:
> erlang
Erlang and the related erlang-manpages and erlang-doc-html are being put
up-to-date by me. I have a package ready which should be uploaded by my
sponsor in the coming week.
I guess that means that the package that reverse depends on Erlang wo
On Wed, 11 May 2005 12:30:21 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Completely MIA maintainers are one part of the problem.
>
> But then there's the class of maintainers who manage to upload a new
> upstream version and perhaps fix some RC bugs every few months but are
> not able to properly handle all bug
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:10:10AM +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> Steve Langasek schrieb:
> >>If that 2.3.x bug really only affects the newer (> 2.6.8) kernel, why
> >>not just get 2.3.x pushed into sarge? Are there any other big issues
> >>with it, that weren't in 2.2.x? Some people might certainl
Vadim Petrunin wrote:
> Sorry, but looks like there is no rc bugs in the "baghira" package.
> There was only one bug "Serious policy violations" but it is resolved now.
> Why it is out of release?
As you can see in update-excuses:
baghira (- to 0.6f-1)
Maintainer: Jose Luis Tallon
Too yo
Vadim Petrunin wrote:
> Sorry, but looks like there is no rc bugs in the "baghira" package.
> There was only one bug "Serious policy violations" but it is resolved
> now.
> Why it is out of release?
http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/baghira.html
Ask the maintainer. It was not in Sarge because of t
Sorry, but looks like there is no rc bugs in the "baghira" package.
There was only one bug "Serious policy violations" but it is resolved now.
Why it is out of release?
p/s Also baghira is a source package for kwin-baghira.
Is it means that kwin-baghira will be refused too?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:03:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > polyxmass-doc
>
> That's the documentation for binaries that _are_ in sid; it was a few
> days late for sarge. I find this to be quite sucky, that Debian ships
> the program, but not the documentation.
>
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:50:48AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:00:48PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 10:42:43PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10 May 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > >How often does a quick NMU that gives a fast improv
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:00:48PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 10:42:43PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 May 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >How often does a quick NMU that gives a fast improvement in the RC
> > >bugs metric hide the real problem that the maintaine
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:03:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> polyxmass-doc
That's the documentation for binaries that _are_ in sid; it was a few
days late for sarge. I find this to be quite sucky, that Debian ships
the program, but not the documentation.
(Let's note that I'm not the maintainer,
> > Proposal: allow 1.3.7 into sarge, on the following basis -
> > * woody has 1.3.0, ie it's used by current users of stable
>
> This doesn't deal with questions of possible bit rot (which your tests
> address to some extent, but not completely). It also doesn't provide a
> smooth upgrade path f
Hi Vince,
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 08:22:28AM +1000, Vincent McIntyre wrote:
> apt-proxy comes in two flavours - the old shell-based one and a new shiny
> python one. The most recent shell-based one is apt-proxy-1.3.7, in t-p-u.
> The most recent python-based one is apt-proxy-1.9.28, in unstable.
sorry to followup my own post, but...
I did a few apt-proxy-import tests by removing a random set of .debs
out of the cache tree and importing again. This worked correctly.
Cheers
Vince
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTE
Hi
I'd like to raise the question of apt-proxy. I discussed offlist with
JoeyH and he wasn't keen, but now I've done a few tests and have more
confidence that this is worth raising.
apt-proxy comes in two flavours - the old shell-based one and a new shiny
python one. The most recent shell-based
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 10:42:43PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> Speaking as somebody who is quite unrelated to release issues (except
> that I keep my packages bug free) I have some questions:
>
> >were at the correct severity and tagged correctly, you
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Speaking as somebody who is quite unrelated to release issues (except
that I keep my packages bug free) I have some questions:
were at the correct severity and tagged correctly, your release
management is based on an assumption that isn't true.
Interesting st
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 04:02:58PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Adrian Bunk]
> > The entry "packages:" was a bug in my quick&dirty scripting...
>
> Thanks for making a nice summary of the relevant packages. :)
>
> Feel free to include the script to generate the list when you generate
> dy
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:54:46AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Yes, it's called "garbage in, garbage out". If people aren't going to file
> bugs at the proper severity, and if package maintainers aren't going to
> treat release-critical bugs with the appropriate urgency when they *are*
> fil
On Sat, 7 May 2005, Joey Hess wrote:
> So here is a list (from update-excuses) of all 491 packages that is
> being held out of sarge[1]. If you've already done all you can on the RC
> bugs on packages in sarge, take a look over it and if you spot anything
> important or generally worth fixing, poi
Steve Langasek schrieb:
>>If that 2.3.x bug really only affects the newer (> 2.6.8) kernel, why
>>not just get 2.3.x pushed into sarge? Are there any other big issues
>>with it, that weren't in 2.2.x? Some people might certainly like the
>>agressive mode support, or 2.3.1's NAT-T fixes. Personally,
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:17:41AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:32:49AM +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 10. Mai 2005 02:40 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis:
> > > Seconded! The only RC-bug in openswan is for a newer version of the
> > > kernel which will not
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:32:49AM +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 10. Mai 2005 02:40 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis:
> > Seconded! The only RC-bug in openswan is for a newer version of the
> > kernel which will not ship with Sarge.
> Yes, that's true. I have to admit that I messed up in no
Am Dienstag, 10. Mai 2005 02:40 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis:
> Seconded! The only RC-bug in openswan is for a newer version of the
> kernel which will not ship with Sarge.
Yes, that's true. I have to admit that I messed up in not marking this bug
sid. My current best solution would be to put 2.2.0-
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 04:02:58PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Adrian Bunk]
> > The entry "packages:" was a bug in my quick&dirty scripting...
>
> Thanks for making a nice summary of the relevant packages. :)
>
> Feel free to include the script to generate the list when you generate
> dy
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Seconded! The only RC-bug in openswan is for a newer version of the
> kernel which will not ship with Sarge.
Doesn't #291274 also affect the 2.6.8 kernel? Also, what of the mail in
that bug report stating that even once it's patched to build, it doesn't
really work?
On May 8, 2005, at 08:36, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
Hi everybody!
Although I guess there's no chance for it to make it in,
Openswan is the one on my personal wishlist.
Seconded! The only RC-bug in openswan is for a newer version of the
kernel which will not ship with Sarge.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 04:02:58PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Adrian Bunk]
> > The entry "packages:" was a bug in my quick&dirty scripting...
>
> Thanks for making a nice summary of the relevant packages. :)
>
> Feel free to include the script to generate the list when you generate
> dy
[Adrian Bunk]
> The entry "packages:" was a bug in my quick&dirty scripting...
Thanks for making a nice summary of the relevant packages. :)
Feel free to include the script to generate the list when you generate
dynamic list of packages like this. It would make it easier for all
of us to re-gene
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 21:03 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> So here is a list (from update-excuses) of all 491 packages that is
> being held out of sarge[1].
...
> eglade
There are no open bugs. Can it be put back in?
--
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk
Isle of
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I agree completely here that all bugs should be fixed and the fact that
a bug should be RC but is not marked as such qualifies also for removal
If a bug is RC but not marked such then mark it. Then it is RC and
marked such and any discussion about qua
Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 8 May 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> Yes, it's called "garbage in, garbage out". If people aren't going to file
>> bugs at the proper severity, and if package maintainers aren't going to
>> treat release-critical bugs with the appropriate urge
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, it's called "garbage in, garbage out". If people aren't going to file
bugs at the proper severity, and if package maintainers aren't going to
treat release-critical bugs with the appropriate urgency when they *are*
filed at the wrong severity, there's
Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> > partimage
> Bug: #294953 partimage - refuses to restore image on i386 which is
> created on s390.
>
> Synopsis: partimage seems to be i386 only, yet is still built for other
> arches. The changelog for 0.6.4-10 says:
>
> partimage (0.6.4-10) unstable; urgency=low
>
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:03:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> ...
> > mnemo2
> This package was 10 days old when sarge was frozen. It contain just one
> minor bug. I think it can be safely added.
Sorry, I don't think it's a net win to accept packages that were NEW
just before
> At the bottom is a complete list of the 2070 binary packages present in
> woody but not in sarge (including nun-US and contrib/non-free).
Correction: 2069 binary packages
The entry "packages:" was a bug in my quick&dirty scripting...
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:07:44PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Joey Hess]
> > So here is a list (from update-excuses) of all 491 packages that is
> > being held out of sarge[1].
>
> I would be even more interested in seeing which packages in woody are
> now missing in sarge. Anyone have
[Joey Hess]
> So here is a list (from update-excuses) of all 491 packages that is
> being held out of sarge[1].
I would be even more interested in seeing which packages in woody are
now missing in sarge. Anyone have such a list available?
It would be nice to have some working upgrade path for th
Hi everybody!
Although I guess there's no chance for it to make it in,
Openswan is the one on my personal wishlist.
Yes, the package is still buggy but AFAIK the bugs are eighter on the
kernel-patches (I don't use KLIPS in favor of the in-kernel ipsec layer,
and since they seem to be a real burd
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On 08/05/2005-10:35, Joey Hess wrote:
> > ocaml-getopt
> According to [1], this package was removed because of bug#306074, which
> is now fixed. ocaml-getopt in unstable is now 12 days old, so I think it
> can be allowed back in t
Hi all,
The following two packages are the only ones not in testing that I
currently use. Note that both are in woody, so it would be good they
also shipped with sarge. (packages maintainers cced, in the hope they
might fix these themselves).
(Note: I'm not a dd, so I can't fix these myself.)
Hello
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:03:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
...
> mnemo2
This package was 10 days old when sarge was frozen. It contain just one
minor bug. I think it can be safely added.
...
Regards,
// Ola
--
- Ola Lundqvist ---
/ [EMAIL P
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 12:36:16PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 08:45:21AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 May 2005, Joey Hess wrote:
> > >bb
> > I did not checked your complete list but our most frequently used
> > programs at exhigition boothes. It currently has
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 08:45:21AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> >bb
> I did not checked your complete list but our most frequently used
> programs at exhigition boothes. It currently has no RC bug (the only
> grave bug was solved two weeks ago.
>
> So so
On 08/05/2005-10:35, Joey Hess wrote:
> ocaml-getopt
According to [1], this package was removed because of bug#306074, which
is now fixed. ocaml-getopt in unstable is now 12 days old, so I think it
can be allowed back in testing.
Thanks,
Julien Cristau
[1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/
Joey Hess wrote:
[snip]
> doctorj
Seem to just be a SPARC buildd issue holding this out of sarge, as
reported to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] previously.
Can someone with access to a SPARC do a binary-NMU to get this into
sarge, please?
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2005/04
On Sat, 7 May 2005, Joey Hess wrote:
bb
I did not checked your complete list but our most frequently used
programs at exhigition boothes. It currently has no RC bug (the only
grave bug was solved two weeks ago.
So something is wrong either with your list of with the removal.
Kind regards
54 matches
Mail list logo
