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

New hints for d-i, release in a few days hopefully



Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> (2014-12-08):
> I didn't manage to find time to send this earlier, and some packages
> were likely updated in the meanwhile, but here's a list of things I've
> prepared a while ago.

Hi,

here's another round I've just compiled, so versions should match this
time. A few of them have (outdated) hints currently but hopefully those
should go away automatically when caught by "hint clean" once newer
versions have migrated?

I'll try and give btrfs things a shot a few hours from now, so that I
can decide what to do with the pending request about lzo2.

If I'm not hitting any major blocker during some testing over the next
few days, we might be looking at a release during the first days of 2015.


# Fix a few symbols in 1.115, clean(er) source package in 1.116:
unblock console-setup/1.116
unblock-udeb console-setup/1.116

# l10n updates:
unblock partman-basicfilesystems/109
unblock-udeb partman-basicfilesystems/109

# l10n updates:
unblock partman-crypto/78
unblock-udeb partman-crypto/78

# New upload, ivodd's hint needs updating:
unblock partman-efi/60
unblock-udeb partman-efi/60

# l10n updates:
unblock partman-iscsi/33
unblock-udeb partman-iscsi/33

# l10n updates:
unblock partman-jfs/45
unblock-udeb partman-jfs/45

# l10n updates, the post-base-installer.d/64partman-lvm removal is intentional:
unblock partman-lvm/103
unblock-udeb partman-lvm/103

# l10n updates:
unblock partman-md/72
unblock-udeb partman-md/72

# l10n updates:
unblock partman-xfs/55
unblock-udeb partman-xfs/55

# l10n updates, the init.d/kernelmodules_zfs removal is intentional:
unblock partman-zfs/42
unblock-udeb partman-zfs/42

# Artwork update, with many thanks to Didier Raboud...
unblock rootskel-gtk/1.31
unblock-udeb rootskel-gtk/1.31

# l10n updates:
unblock tzsetup/1:0.63
unblock-udeb tzsetup/1:0.63


Thanks for your time.

Mraw,
KiBi.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: