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

Uploaded dump 0.4b6-1 (m68k) to erlangen



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

Format: 1.6
Date: Sat,  2 Oct 1999 22:30:05 -0600
Source: dump
Binary: dump
Architecture: m68k
Version: 0.4b6-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian/m68k Build Daemon <buildd@m68k.debian.org>
Description: 
 dump       - 4.4bsd dump and restore for ext2 filesystems
Closes: 11904 29775 33818 38136 44061
Changes: 
 dump (0.4b6-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * new upstream maintainer, new upstream version, closes: #44061
   * tweak rules file to achieve FHS compliance, lintian cleanliness
   * apply patch from Eirik Fuller <eirik@netcom.com> to allow dumping
     filesystems not listed in /etc/fstab, closes: #11904
   * apply patch from Abhijit Dasgupta <abhijit@ans.net> that prevents access
     to device nodes during restore, closes: #29775
   * apply patch from Eirik Fuller <eirik@netcom.com> relating to dumpdates.
     In 0.4b4-13, I patched dump to only read dumpdates if the 'u' flag was
     specified.  The goal was to avoid failing if dumpdates wasn't yet present
     during a level 0 dump.  The problem is that incrementals *must* read the
     dumpdates file regardless of the state of the 'u' flag, or they end up all
     looking like full dumps.  This new patch ignores the 'u' flag.  Instead,
     it always skips reading dumpdates for a level 0 dump, and requires a valid
     dumpdates be read for an incremental.  Closes: #38136, #33818
   * hard-code the --enable-dumpdates-patch stuff since the upstream configure
     gets it wrong, and we want the functionality.
Files: 
 e3b474ab5b18a6cb8b9e8a28ae5c4a0f 62736 admin optional dump_0.4b6-1_m68k.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1

iQCVAwUBN/srFXVhJ0HiWnvJAQEcNAP+LCp0cbaPyG10MC/JJYCO5d1RSeq0DwAE
i7r40j8nZtXqabckqJ2cZrJFZpeykmexdUj8dPU5in4aImUxb+uT0h/6IgxkL0ff
sk15yrN8olHlF1XY7edcGj2XnNGwVWdTiv3x+a4JtGY5LZtPo/5gCr2KJH3uhKmf
mdPIBXgXGQg=
=MBrD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: