[arch-dev-public] [signoff] iptables 1.4.3-1

Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool at gmail.com
Tue Apr 7 17:34:35 EDT 2009


On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Ronald van Haren <pressh at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/09, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Ronald van Haren <pressh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Ronald van Haren <pressh at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Ronald van Haren <pressh at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> In testing for both architectures. Please signoff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ronald
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bumped to 1.4.3.1-1, so please signoff that one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Upstream changes wrt 1.4.3:
>>>>>     iptables-save: minor corrections to the manpage markup
>>>>>     libxt_hashlimit: add missing space for iptables-save output
>>>>>     iptables: refer to dmesg if we hit EINVAL
>>>>>     libxtables: fix compile error due to incomplete change
>>>>>     build: fix linker issue when LDFLAGS contains --as-needed
>>>>>
>>>>> Ronald
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> signoff x86_64
>>>>
>>>> Eric
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know we were going to phase the 32 bit architecture out, but I'd
>>> still like to move it to core sometime in the near future :)
>>> Anyone who can signoff for i686?
>>>
>>> Ronald
>>>
>>
>> FYI, 1.4.3.2 is out.
>>
>
> I'd like to move 1.4.3.1 tomorrow into core so I can get to 1.4.3.2.
> Please someone signoff for i686, or can I have an auto signoff Aaron?
>
> Ronald
>

I would say go ahead and move it to core. It has been in testing for
nearly 2 weeks; if there's no bug report, it's fine.  I checked it and
it seems OK. Signoff i686.

Eric


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list