[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Installed postfix 0.0.19990627-6 (source i386)



Installed:
postfix_0.0.19990627-6_i386.deb
  to dists/potato/main/binary-i386/mail/postfix_0.0.19990627-6.deb
  replacing postfix_0.0.19990627-5.deb
postfix_0.0.19990627-6.diff.gz
  to dists/potato/main/source/mail/postfix_0.0.19990627-6.diff.gz
  replacing postfix_0.0.19990627-5.diff.gz
postfix_0.0.19990627-6.dsc
  to dists/potato/main/source/mail/postfix_0.0.19990627-6.dsc
  replacing postfix_0.0.19990627-5.dsc


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Format: 1.6
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:13:23 -0600
Source: postfix
Binary: postfix
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.0.19990627-6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: LaMont Jones <lamont@debian.org>
Description: 
 postfix    - A mail transport agent
Changes: 
 postfix (0.0.19990627-6) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Missing several files from /usr/doc/postfix/html. Closes Bug#43407
   * Upstream patch: possible core dump from VRFY with check_relay_domains
   * Copy files into the chroot at startup time, add comment to the same
     effect in ip-up.d/postfix.
   * Rebuild with gcc 2.95-1.1, Closes Bug#43676
   * New dict_ldap.c from upstream (and sideways).  I understand that this
     should be in the next beta.  Add LDAP support (static built with
     libopenldap1 1.2.6-1)  Closes Bug#43609
   * Upstream patch: lock around DB open to avoid race with DB rebuilds.
Files: 
 e75651c77408f2a6d61d33a2f457a2bf 641 main/mail optional postfix_0.0.19990627-6.dsc
 6a78e6ab1505e9f8b48bb2bb6b2a31ba 46879 main/mail optional postfix_0.0.19990627-6.diff.gz
 358bd8378280b460bb31bcca14cfe180 1264870 main/mail optional postfix_0.0.19990627-6_i386.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBN84E8qv/B7RG8yEtAQFoqwP9F7VrtcU066zbnJ/0B4hRh/LXE21Bvnvi
q6FeQytroxqYe8H7/NK0kS/WhO89bqscqTrqr/VoEkgi2nBc7yO9s61WxMKDggTi
J0s7iPizMOofXmeLuzPT+V3agOQifJIK/AZBkAhMWtd/zipbEBL3YOJa72ej0MEN
RSEl+oUsnQQ=
=KY+R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: