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

Accepted nbd 1:2.9.14-3 (source amd64)



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.8
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:37:02 +0100
Source: nbd
Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 1:2.9.14-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>
Changed-By: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>
Description: 
 nbd-client - Network Block Device protocol - client
 nbd-client-udeb - Network Block Device protocol - client for Debian Installer (udeb)
 nbd-server - Network Block Device protocol - server
Closes: 534728 567232 568221 568222
Changes: 
 nbd (1:2.9.14-3) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Be more careful about what we unmount. Closes: #534728.
   * Fix three-argument nbdroot= boot option parsing. Closes: #568221.
     Thanks, Vagrant Cascadian.
   * nbd-client initramfs script: Remove default fallback to eth0. This
     was necessary in the past when initramfs-utils' configure_networking
     function could only be called from /init, but it was a hack and a
     workaround and it broke expectations. And it was ugly. Since
     configure_networking can now in fact be called from elsewhere, why
     bother with setting broken defaults, anyway? Right. Closes: #567232.
     Thanks again, Vagrant Cascadian.
   * Support setting root-on-NBD through DHCP by abusing the ROOTPATH
     variable. Closes: #568222. This supersedes the previous (broken)
     support that used ROOTSERVER -- broken, because the latter only
     supported setting the server, not the port, and obviously that's not
     enough. Thanks yet again, Vagrant.
   * debian/control: declare conformance to policy 3.8.4 (no changes
     applicable to nbd)
   * Override init.d-script-missing-dependency-on-remote_fs lintian tag
     for nbd-client. This is a false positive; we set $PATH to a sane
     value so that any modifications would work, but we don't actually
     use anything from /usr ourselves, and no, we really don't want to
     depend on $remote_fs, since we might be providing something like
     that ourselves, depending on setup.
Checksums-Sha1: 
 7479defabc0f973ffd768446afb022bee99077b3 1133 nbd_2.9.14-3.dsc
 90cf07c3764f994249ce79f49d833f56ed1e0865 68073 nbd_2.9.14-3.diff.gz
 98bca6575bdcf28ab22639863f0f3ed1563c8f23 56198 nbd-server_2.9.14-3_amd64.deb
 b5f712db17cbddea96f12493bde20a0877a5b1fd 46162 nbd-client_2.9.14-3_amd64.deb
 fd285ea1621c64c66a2a41b09d103e2f20ba3576 6464 nbd-client-udeb_2.9.14-3_amd64.udeb
Checksums-Sha256: 
 b0140770a1756ea0296997733e78881a87e715e9e14d07abfe49a92a9e7126a3 1133 nbd_2.9.14-3.dsc
 f70a8c3bfbb7aad1043863c601db8cdec74c2b11bd837108730fc0d71289db4f 68073 nbd_2.9.14-3.diff.gz
 fad5dca573c5a86c5b30a402a3e1b5767f2631e9537b98c438ef7b58fed7495b 56198 nbd-server_2.9.14-3_amd64.deb
 b4e01b3dbb06e7189b6ebd2de40c3416bfaf14a15569d4751ef724d458340952 46162 nbd-client_2.9.14-3_amd64.deb
 999b9e2147f8e7120a7493016b2d2bf5123d6ac4a7430ede79c3a562436397e1 6464 nbd-client-udeb_2.9.14-3_amd64.udeb
Files: 
 cbc3c835da2496832c523b5756b8f3cb 1133 admin optional nbd_2.9.14-3.dsc
 70779d4edf2eed396b7e64325aa9f31b 68073 admin optional nbd_2.9.14-3.diff.gz
 166cc0a26b3498e40b1ed629234c3ecb 56198 admin optional nbd-server_2.9.14-3_amd64.deb
 97287550901d5e4ae3d6ececb186e2d5 46162 admin optional nbd-client_2.9.14-3_amd64.deb
 a9e0bf99a70ab4eaf6f3c0da19e60625 6464 debian-installer optional nbd-client-udeb_2.9.14-3_amd64.udeb
Package-Type: udeb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkuJrTgACgkQhbxvHru886y1uACgu+Oko97JacecDY6laK74pVok
x1kAoLXC5QrcaGp6UULV18f8vC0l250V
=U8nF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Accepted:
nbd-client-udeb_2.9.14-3_amd64.udeb
  to main/n/nbd/nbd-client-udeb_2.9.14-3_amd64.udeb
nbd-client_2.9.14-3_amd64.deb
  to main/n/nbd/nbd-client_2.9.14-3_amd64.deb
nbd-server_2.9.14-3_amd64.deb
  to main/n/nbd/nbd-server_2.9.14-3_amd64.deb
nbd_2.9.14-3.diff.gz
  to main/n/nbd/nbd_2.9.14-3.diff.gz
nbd_2.9.14-3.dsc
  to main/n/nbd/nbd_2.9.14-3.dsc


Reply to: