Hi,
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 03:32:26PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > Would it be possible to upload a minimal version only carrying the security
> > patch to testing-security?
>
> Possible, yes. I'd like to avoid that, though if possible.
> It would need a rebuild, whereas I can upload -11 as
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 09:17:58PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > * debian/rules:
> > - fix variable to not add kfreebsd-i386 to OOO_MONO_ARCHS twice but
> > to actually add it to OOO_MOZILLA_ARCHS
Yes. (What you mentioned is debian/control regenerated with this)
Grüße/Regards,
Re
[ -release readers: the original, including the diff, can be found at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2010/06/msg1.html ]
On Sun, 2010-06-06 at 12:48 +, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> I could have uploaded 1:3.2.1-11 to sid just it won't go into testing
> due to http://bugs.debian.org/cg
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 03:32:26PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> (and it fixes some other important stuff, too, as you see in the changelog.
> No XML signing support *only* on kfreebsd-i386 is, umm, bad. Same as
> dependency
> differences because of the bashisms...)
Oh, and -10 contains the
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 03:22:36PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> Would it be possible to upload a minimal version only carrying the security
> patch to testing-security?
Possible, yes. I'd like to avoid that, though if possible.
It would need a rebuild, whereas I can upload -11 as-is already
(a
Hi,
* Rene Engelhard [2010-06-06 14:49]:
> same procesdure like last time. A few dasys (here: 2) before security
> disclosure something happens[1] which blocks sid->testing migration
> (and thus the security fix) for unknown time.
>
> I could have uploaded 1:3.2.1-11 to sid just it won't go into
6 matches
Mail list logo
