Re: Debian development and release: always releasable (essay)
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:29:11AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: Some upstreams have a testing branch of there software and a release branch. It's sometimes useful to have people test the version in from the testing branch, and having it available in Debian makes it easier for people to test it. A couple of options seem to present itself (under current scheme) - a) upload to experimental and publically call for testing b) upload to unstable and file an RC bug yourself so it doesn't migrate c) upload to unstable, wait for migration, then file an RC bug so we don't release with it. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Wheezy point release planning
Hi, On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:01:38PM +0200, Francesca Ciceri wrote: Hi, On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 07:56:51PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Hi, Based on some informal queries a little while ago, the weekend of 15/16 June looks like a good date for the first wheezy point release. Would that work for everyone? It wouldn't probably work for me, but if no one else from press can, I'll try to be available. Depends on exact timing - I'll be (hopefully) in Montreal that weekend so in theory I'm free at UTC-5. Neil signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Wheezy point release planning
Hi, On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:01:38PM +0200, Francesca Ciceri wrote: Hi, On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 07:56:51PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Hi, Based on some informal queries a little while ago, the weekend of 15/16 June looks like a good date for the first wheezy point release. Would that work for everyone? It wouldn't probably work for me, but if no one else from press can, I'll try to be available. Depends on exact timing - I'll be (hopefully) in Montreal that weekend so in theory I'm free at UTC-5. Neil signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Wheezy point release planning
Hi, On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:01:38PM +0200, Francesca Ciceri wrote: Hi, On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 07:56:51PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Hi, Based on some informal queries a little while ago, the weekend of 15/16 June looks like a good date for the first wheezy point release. Would that work for everyone? It wouldn't probably work for me, but if no one else from press can, I'll try to be available. Depends on exact timing - I'll be (hopefully) in Montreal that weekend so in theory I'm free at UTC-5. Neil signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hurd and the archive
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:07:42AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: Neil McGovern, le Tue 07 May 2013 11:14:01 +0100, a écrit : On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:27:54PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: We have not worked too much on the hardware support in the past months, so it is basically network board drivers from linux 2.6.32, and IDE disk support. I for instance installed it on my Dell D430, and network just works fine. Working on a SATA driver should not be a problem. I just haven't put it high on my TODO list, and have rather worked on the Wheezy release whenever I had time to. Basically: in about 1 months time, will I be able to install it with a default installation process, and have it working on: a) A HP DL360 or similar b) A Dell inspiron 660s or similar c) A Lenovo Thinkpad X220 or similar I don't know what ethernet driver these would need. 2.6.32 linux kernels already have e1000, 8139*, tg3 etc. drivers. This is the usual issue of not-so-mature systems, just like Linux had in its early days. How about things like wireless drivers, raid controllers, suspend/resume, power management etc? About disk support, I happen to have right now a few days of holiday with no RL plans (at last!), so I'll work on the SATA driver. Having it working within a month should just happen. But not tested - how about USB - did that ever get sorted? d) VMWare/VBox etc. This already works. Just tried it with vbox - as soon as I selected 'text install', I got a critical error and the vm stopped. For something to be accepted in testing, it should be in a releaseable state. This isn't something I can see happening for Hurd. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hurd and the archive
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 04:33:03PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: Neil McGovern, le Wed 08 May 2013 11:35:52 +0100, a écrit : But not tested - how about USB - did that ever get sorted? We have not worked on it. How about things like wireless drivers, raid controllers, suspend/resume, power management etc? There are some wireless drivers for pcmcia cards (e.g. orinoco, hermes). No raid support. No suspend/resume or power management. I'm wondering: if I had spent time on these instead of working on Wheezy, I guess people wouldn't have been happy either. I wonder what I should have done at all. And when these get implemented, I guess we'll be asked for 3D acceleration, backlight tuning, memory hotplug, etc. etc.? No, just something that works for the majority of our users. I'm fairly sure things like SATA and USB is considered essential. d) VMWare/VBox etc. This already works. Just tried it with vbox - as soon as I selected 'text install', I got a critical error and the vm stopped. I don't have this issue at all, things just go fine here with both the other/other template and the Linux/Linux template. This message comes from vbox I guess (there is no such message in Mach or the Hurd), so I'd tend to think virtualbox has some issues in your setup. I installed virtualbox on a standard Wheezy system, with other/other and 2G ram. For something to be accepted in testing, it should be in a releaseable state. Which we haven't seen very precisely defined still. Or at least we have this criterium: I'll see if I can be clear: I will not be putting Hurd in testing in the next few months. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hurd and the archive
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:07:42AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: Neil McGovern, le Tue 07 May 2013 11:14:01 +0100, a écrit : On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:27:54PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: We have not worked too much on the hardware support in the past months, so it is basically network board drivers from linux 2.6.32, and IDE disk support. I for instance installed it on my Dell D430, and network just works fine. Working on a SATA driver should not be a problem. I just haven't put it high on my TODO list, and have rather worked on the Wheezy release whenever I had time to. Basically: in about 1 months time, will I be able to install it with a default installation process, and have it working on: a) A HP DL360 or similar b) A Dell inspiron 660s or similar c) A Lenovo Thinkpad X220 or similar I don't know what ethernet driver these would need. 2.6.32 linux kernels already have e1000, 8139*, tg3 etc. drivers. This is the usual issue of not-so-mature systems, just like Linux had in its early days. How about things like wireless drivers, raid controllers, suspend/resume, power management etc? About disk support, I happen to have right now a few days of holiday with no RL plans (at last!), so I'll work on the SATA driver. Having it working within a month should just happen. But not tested - how about USB - did that ever get sorted? d) VMWare/VBox etc. This already works. Just tried it with vbox - as soon as I selected 'text install', I got a critical error and the vm stopped. For something to be accepted in testing, it should be in a releaseable state. This isn't something I can see happening for Hurd. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hurd and the archive
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 04:33:03PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: Neil McGovern, le Wed 08 May 2013 11:35:52 +0100, a écrit : But not tested - how about USB - did that ever get sorted? We have not worked on it. How about things like wireless drivers, raid controllers, suspend/resume, power management etc? There are some wireless drivers for pcmcia cards (e.g. orinoco, hermes). No raid support. No suspend/resume or power management. I'm wondering: if I had spent time on these instead of working on Wheezy, I guess people wouldn't have been happy either. I wonder what I should have done at all. And when these get implemented, I guess we'll be asked for 3D acceleration, backlight tuning, memory hotplug, etc. etc.? No, just something that works for the majority of our users. I'm fairly sure things like SATA and USB is considered essential. d) VMWare/VBox etc. This already works. Just tried it with vbox - as soon as I selected 'text install', I got a critical error and the vm stopped. I don't have this issue at all, things just go fine here with both the other/other template and the Linux/Linux template. This message comes from vbox I guess (there is no such message in Mach or the Hurd), so I'd tend to think virtualbox has some issues in your setup. I installed virtualbox on a standard Wheezy system, with other/other and 2G ram. For something to be accepted in testing, it should be in a releaseable state. Which we haven't seen very precisely defined still. Or at least we have this criterium: I'll see if I can be clear: I will not be putting Hurd in testing in the next few months. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hurd and the archive
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:27:54PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: We have not worked too much on the hardware support in the past months, so it is basically network board drivers from linux 2.6.32, and IDE disk support. I for instance installed it on my Dell D430, and network just works fine. Working on a SATA driver should not be a problem. I just haven't put it high on my TODO list, and have rather worked on the Wheezy release whenever I had time to. Basically: in about 1 months time, will I be able to install it with a default installation process, and have it working on: a) A HP DL360 or similar b) A Dell inspiron 660s or similar c) A Lenovo Thinkpad X220 or similar d) VMWare/VBox etc. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hurd and the archive
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:27:54PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: We have not worked too much on the hardware support in the past months, so it is basically network board drivers from linux 2.6.32, and IDE disk support. I for instance installed it on my Dell D430, and network just works fine. Working on a SATA driver should not be a problem. I just haven't put it high on my TODO list, and have rather worked on the Wheezy release whenever I had time to. Basically: in about 1 months time, will I be able to install it with a default installation process, and have it working on: a) A HP DL360 or similar b) A Dell inspiron 660s or similar c) A Lenovo Thinkpad X220 or similar d) VMWare/VBox etc. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hurd and the archive
On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 05:07:13PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: So, release people: How likely is it that Hurd gets added to jessie? Within the next one or two months I mean, not maybe in a years time. :) I don't see it happening, to be honest. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hurd and the archive
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 05:15:44PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: Percentage built, percentage up to date, and (as far as I know) a working port and installer for a modern desktop machine? Um, having read back the above, it may have sounded a bit more curt than I was expecting, apologies! Those are meant to be genuine questions. Blame the release etc... :) Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hurd and the archive
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 09:36:55AM -0400, Barry deFreese wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- OK, I have been significantly out of the loop for a while now but what do you base that on? What requirements are we still falling short on? Percentage built, percentage up to date, and (as far as I know) a working port and installer for a modern desktop machine? Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130506161544.gf7...@halon.org.uk
Re: Hurd and the archive
On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 05:07:13PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: So, release people: How likely is it that Hurd gets added to jessie? Within the next one or two months I mean, not maybe in a years time. :) I don't see it happening, to be honest. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Debconf-team] LCFC: Opening Registration for DC13
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 06:39:53PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: I'm hereby CC'ing pr...@debian.org. We'll have debian-devel-announce, debconf- announce, debian-news and debian-events-eu as targets for this announcement, reply-to set to debconf-discuss. So press@: what is needed from the DebConf team to make this announcement a Debian press release as in the past years? There's quite a lot of information about the practicalities there. Press releases are generally for interest of non-debian people. Have a look at http://www.debian.org/News/2012/20120412 and https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/04/msg2.html Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Re: alternative debian/rules
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:25:42PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Timo Juhani Lindfors timo.lindf...@iki.fi, 2013-04-22, 13:22: Thorsten, you should have kept your custom debian/rules. If it prevented incompetent developers from NMUing the package, then all good for you and for Debian. Was there perhaps some emoticon missing? Sorry, yes, this one: :/ Uncommon debian/rules setups might be required in some cases but surely they should not be used to intentionally make it harder for other developers to understand? Of course, scaring certain developers away should never be a goal. It can be a nice side-effect, though. I'm sorry, but can I just clarify: do you think that it's an advantage that your custom debian/rules prevents others from understanding your package? Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: alternative debian/rules
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:19:48PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 04/24/2013 10:39 PM, Neil McGovern wrote: I'm sorry, but can I just clarify: do you think that it's an advantage that your custom debian/rules prevents others from understanding your package? I don't think anyone ever wrote that. Jakub was quite clear, IMO. No, he wasn't. Which is why I wanted to clarify. If you are scared by echo x | cat - y, that it prevents you from understanding the rules files, then you shouldn't touch the package anyway. If you're deliberately obfuscating debian/rules when there's no or very little advantage, then you shouldn't be producing the package. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: alternative debian/rules
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:25:00AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 04/25/2013 12:10 AM, Neil McGovern wrote: If you're deliberately obfuscating debian/rules when there's no or very little advantage, then you shouldn't be producing the package. I'm not the one claiming that using echo and cat is obfuscation! Perhaps you should go read the bug report first. As you seem to be unwilling to actually do research, I'll include the relevant section for your benefit: - 1: deliberate obfuscation for no benefit: echo .nr g 2 | cat - cpio.1 | \ gzip -n9 debian/pax/usr/share/man/man1/paxcpio.1.gz Just add the extra top line to the upstream or create a patch already. then you'd have something approaching sane: cp cpio.1 debian/pax/usr/share/man/man1/paxcpio.1 gzip -n9 debian/pax/usr/share/man/man1/paxcpio.1 Even that is two lines repeated three times (once for each manpage) instead of just dh_installman on a single line and a small .install file but that just demonstrates the insanity of the current rules. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Derivatives, MongoDB and freezes
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:58:33PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Steve Langasek wrote: But for new packages, where Canonical is striking out on its own to deliver significant new functionality and the folks working on these packages are not DDs, there's a clear pragmatic argument for doing the work directly in Ubuntu rather than blocking the work on finding folks able to upload to Debian and willing to maintain the packages there. To be a devil's advocate: when the Debian Developers that a company has been able to contact (inside or outside the company) do not consider a package to be ready for upload, it is not hard to contribute the packaging to Debian in an RFP bug to avoid duplication of effort. Indeed, this answers the first point, but the second is more significant - willing to maintian the packages there. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#705356: unblock: netbase/5.1
Hi Marco, On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 04:14:13AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: Yes, but they are all trivial changes. [...] OK, I suck as a maintainer and as a human being and I neglected my packages for most of the last year. But I'd rather move on and fix what can still be fixed. [...] Why? netbase is just four config files nowadays, it's not like declaring it foreign could break anything. Firstly, thanks for your care of this package, it's very much appreciated! Unfortunately, we've now reached the stage of the release where we can't accept non RC fixes, have a look at http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html for information on what can be accepted. I'm sure you'll appreciate the immense amount of work that we have to do as a release team, and thus we simply don't have the capacity to look at packges which don't address the above. Thanks, Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: leader2013
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 07:09:50PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote: Assuming Debian keyring refers to the package debian-keyring (which should be a reasonable safe assumption, right?) This assumption is incorrect: the Debian keyring is defined by devotee for the leader2013 vote as: cat /srv/keyring.debian.org/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg /srv/keyring.debian.org/keyrings/debian-nonupload.gpg $DATADIR/leader2013/debian-keyring.gpg Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#705356: unblock: netbase/5.1
Hi Marco, On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 04:14:13AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: Yes, but they are all trivial changes. [...] OK, I suck as a maintainer and as a human being and I neglected my packages for most of the last year. But I'd rather move on and fix what can still be fixed. [...] Why? netbase is just four config files nowadays, it's not like declaring it foreign could break anything. Firstly, thanks for your care of this package, it's very much appreciated! Unfortunately, we've now reached the stage of the release where we can't accept non RC fixes, have a look at http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html for information on what can be accepted. I'm sure you'll appreciate the immense amount of work that we have to do as a release team, and thus we simply don't have the capacity to look at packges which don't address the above. Thanks, Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 04:22:14PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: So, transitions could be avoided in a social way. No need for a freeze. Let's see how well that works - look at the very first message in this thread. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#704595: New upstream version (1.20)
Package: enigma Severity: wishlist Hi, Looks like Enigma 1.20 has been released! Could the package be updated (probably after the freeze)? Thanks, Neil -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.0 APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:38:51PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: It is not. You can't reasonably install things from experimental rather than unstable by default, nor is there a flag for this really should be in unstable if not for badly managed release I'm getting rather annoyed by this accusations of a badly managed release, and the continual diatrade from yourself blaming me and the rest of the release team. It is unreasonable to tell the users and upstreams that Debian is going to keep users on a known inferior version by default for a long time, just in case more testing is needed to discover problems in the release version (often in addition to multiple already discovered problems that Debian is intentionally leaving for users to suffer from, as the most natural way to fix them would be to update to a newer upstream version). You may consider it most natural, the rest of the project values stability and not introducing untested new features. Perhaps you may feel more at home in a different distribution which aligns with your priorities more. As it happens, I'm currently canvassing a release weekend when everyone who needs to do work on the day can make it. Messages such as the above do not help in any way, shape or form. Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130401120313.gm7...@halon.org.uk
Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 05:48:13PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: Neil McGovern wrote: On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:38:51PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote: It is unreasonable to tell the users and upstreams that Debian is going to keep users on a known inferior version by default for a long time, just in case more testing is needed to discover problems in the release version (often in addition to multiple already discovered problems that Debian is intentionally leaving for users to suffer from, as the most natural way to fix them would be to update to a newer upstream version). You may consider it most natural, the rest of the project values stability and not introducing untested new features. I think you misunderstood that as saying I wanted to change packages in stable; the above was from the perspective of unstable (the natural way to fix known issues in unstable would be to upload a new upstream version). I do not believe there is any project-wide consensus to avoid newer versions in unstable. http://wiki.debian.org/DebianStability. Also see dev-ref 3.1. And the huge amount of discussion that lead to http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseProposals in 2005. As for consensus, have a read over this thread to see if there's anyone supporting your views. Perhaps you may feel more at home in a different distribution which aligns with your priorities more. I think unstable works reasonably well outside release problems (there are sometimes issues with new enough packages not being available, but I think those are mostly due to activity of individual maintainers, not project priorities). And I don't believe it to be a shared view of all Debian maintainers that only stable releases matter, and users of unstable are only tools to use to polish stable. Nor do I believe that all other users of unstable are only trying to help create stable releases for others to use, intentionally sacrificing their own experience to do so. And whatever distro I personally choose, as upstream of packaged software I certainly do not approve of Debian leaving its upstable users at a known inferior version during long release freezes. Wow. I would have liked to find a source in dev-ref or something which pointed out explicitly the commitment to releases. But I can't because we've been doing releases for NEARLY 20 YEARS. You seem to believe that unstable is more important than stable releases. I do not. One of us is in the wrong project. Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130401154519.gn7...@halon.org.uk
Bug#698117: unblock: rebuildd/0.4.2
tags 698117 moreinfo user debian-rele...@packages.debian.org usertags 671635 wheezy-will-remove thanks On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 02:51:36PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: The time spent by the RM and the maintainer to prepare and accept the tpu upload is higher than adding a simple unblock (assuming they do not review everything because at worst it can always be removed). Unfortunately, we are at the stage that we do review everything, and have been for a while. Is there likely to be a t-p-u upload fixing the RC bug only, ie: the patch in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671635#20, or should I look for a removal? Thanks, Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#678979: request freeze exception for slony1-2
user debian-rele...@packages.debian.org usertags 678979 wheezy-will-remove thanks On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:44:15PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 11:38 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 14:30 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: On 21/09/2012 04:58, Peter Eisentraut wrote: According to bug #678979 [0], which was submitted by the lead upstream developer, slony 2.0 does not work well with postgresql 9.1. Therefore, we had to resolve to making an upgrade to slony version 2.1, and I request that that be allowed into wheezy now. [...] Unfortunately, we are not able to accept such large changes at this stage of the freeze. [2] Since slony in Debian have little popcon, does it make sense to skip the Wheezy release? iow, remove slony from wheezy (since it doesn't work and we are not able to accept the new one). Alternatively, we could very well accept a targeted fix based on current Wheezy's version… (correct me if I'm wrong), the discussion in #678979 made me think that it was not possible to extract a minimal patch. Ping? As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. The above doesn't actually help, as I generally don't like trying to read maintainers minds. In the absence of further action, I'm tagging this wheezy-will-remove. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#678979: request freeze exception for slony1-2
user debian-rele...@packages.debian.org usertags 678979 wheezy-will-remove thanks On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:44:15PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 11:38 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 14:30 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: On 21/09/2012 04:58, Peter Eisentraut wrote: According to bug #678979 [0], which was submitted by the lead upstream developer, slony 2.0 does not work well with postgresql 9.1. Therefore, we had to resolve to making an upgrade to slony version 2.1, and I request that that be allowed into wheezy now. [...] Unfortunately, we are not able to accept such large changes at this stage of the freeze. [2] Since slony in Debian have little popcon, does it make sense to skip the Wheezy release? iow, remove slony from wheezy (since it doesn't work and we are not able to accept the new one). Alternatively, we could very well accept a targeted fix based on current Wheezy's version… (correct me if I'm wrong), the discussion in #678979 made me think that it was not possible to extract a minimal patch. Ping? As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. The above doesn't actually help, as I generally don't like trying to read maintainers minds. In the absence of further action, I'm tagging this wheezy-will-remove. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#698117: unblock: rebuildd/0.4.2
tags 698117 moreinfo user debian-rele...@packages.debian.org usertags 671635 wheezy-will-remove thanks On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 02:51:36PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: The time spent by the RM and the maintainer to prepare and accept the tpu upload is higher than adding a simple unblock (assuming they do not review everything because at worst it can always be removed). Unfortunately, we are at the stage that we do review everything, and have been for a while. Is there likely to be a t-p-u upload fixing the RC bug only, ie: the patch in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671635#20, or should I look for a removal? Thanks, Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#678979: request freeze exception for slony1-2
user debian-rele...@packages.debian.org usertags 678979 wheezy-will-remove thanks On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:44:15PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 11:38 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 14:30 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: On 21/09/2012 04:58, Peter Eisentraut wrote: According to bug #678979 [0], which was submitted by the lead upstream developer, slony 2.0 does not work well with postgresql 9.1. Therefore, we had to resolve to making an upgrade to slony version 2.1, and I request that that be allowed into wheezy now. [...] Unfortunately, we are not able to accept such large changes at this stage of the freeze. [2] Since slony in Debian have little popcon, does it make sense to skip the Wheezy release? iow, remove slony from wheezy (since it doesn't work and we are not able to accept the new one). Alternatively, we could very well accept a targeted fix based on current Wheezy's version… (correct me if I'm wrong), the discussion in #678979 made me think that it was not possible to extract a minimal patch. Ping? As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. The above doesn't actually help, as I generally don't like trying to read maintainers minds. In the absence of further action, I'm tagging this wheezy-will-remove. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian's relationship with money and the economy
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 08:13:02PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: I think I would generally be fine about an informational message in Debian Project News about an fundraising campaign for something that clearly benefits Debian. Btw, in the specific example of your book, have you considered creating a Debian package for it? However, I don't think that making Debian press releases about such initiatives would generally be a good idea. My view as one of the press officers is that I'll issue press releases for newsworthy[0] items that the *project* has done, and DPN should have news items that are informative to people interested in the project. Thus, the launch of a new derived distribution, for example, would make a good entry in DPN, but I wouldn't issue a press release for it. Neil [0] Nice mnemonic: TRUTH - Timely, Relevant, Unusual, Trouble, Human Interest. Dear journalist unions, please don't strike me down for revealing your inner secrets. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2013: Call for nominations
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 11:02:06AM +, Moray Allan wrote: I nominate myself as a prospective DPL for the 2013 election. Thanks, received and is a valid nomination. Neil (as Assistant Secretary) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2013: Call for nominations
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 09:44:32AM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote: Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx secret...@debian.org writes: Please make sure that nominations are sent to (or cc:'d to) debian-vote, and are cryptographically signed. *clears throat* I hereby nominate myself as a prospective DPL. Thanks, received and is a valid nomination. Neil (as Assistant Secretary) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#688772: [CTTE #688772] Dependency of meta-gnome on network-manager
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 06:50:51PM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote: Instead the next suggestion was documenting this issue in the Wheey errata [2], but I don't see network- manager or wicd mentioned there, nor mentioned in the Installation Guide [3] for Wheezy. I'm guessing that's because no one has produced a patch, or stepped up to help with the release notes (see https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/01/msg5.html) Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#688772: [CTTE #688772] Dependency of meta-gnome on network-manager
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 01:39:44PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: On 27.02.2013 00:50, Chris Knadle wrote: When this was brought up in the bug report, the response was network-manager can be installed, then disabled, but how to do that wasn't documented anywhere in the network-manager package. Instead the next suggestion was documenting this issue in the Wheey errata [2], but I don't see network- manager or wicd mentioned there, nor mentioned in the Installation Guide [3] for Wheezy. Suggestions? I will try to add a section to README.Debian which should be re-usable for the release notes / errata. Neil, who should I contact getting those changes into the release notes? If anyone is willing to review the text, even better. The release-notes pseudopackage, and the debian-doc mailing list are good places to start. http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes/ contains the actual source. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#688772: [CTTE #688772] Dependency of meta-gnome on network-manager
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 06:50:51PM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote: Instead the next suggestion was documenting this issue in the Wheey errata [2], but I don't see network- manager or wicd mentioned there, nor mentioned in the Installation Guide [3] for Wheezy. I'm guessing that's because no one has produced a patch, or stepped up to help with the release notes (see https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/01/msg5.html) Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#688772: [CTTE #688772] Dependency of meta-gnome on network-manager
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 01:39:44PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: On 27.02.2013 00:50, Chris Knadle wrote: When this was brought up in the bug report, the response was network-manager can be installed, then disabled, but how to do that wasn't documented anywhere in the network-manager package. Instead the next suggestion was documenting this issue in the Wheey errata [2], but I don't see network- manager or wicd mentioned there, nor mentioned in the Installation Guide [3] for Wheezy. Suggestions? I will try to add a section to README.Debian which should be re-usable for the release notes / errata. Neil, who should I contact getting those changes into the release notes? If anyone is willing to review the text, even better. The release-notes pseudopackage, and the debian-doc mailing list are good places to start. http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes/ contains the actual source. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#688772: [CTTE #688772] Dependency of meta-gnome on network-manager
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 06:50:51PM -0500, Chris Knadle wrote: Instead the next suggestion was documenting this issue in the Wheey errata [2], but I don't see network- manager or wicd mentioned there, nor mentioned in the Installation Guide [3] for Wheezy. I'm guessing that's because no one has produced a patch, or stepped up to help with the release notes (see https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/01/msg5.html) Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#688772: [CTTE #688772] Dependency of meta-gnome on network-manager
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 01:39:44PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: On 27.02.2013 00:50, Chris Knadle wrote: When this was brought up in the bug report, the response was network-manager can be installed, then disabled, but how to do that wasn't documented anywhere in the network-manager package. Instead the next suggestion was documenting this issue in the Wheey errata [2], but I don't see network- manager or wicd mentioned there, nor mentioned in the Installation Guide [3] for Wheezy. Suggestions? I will try to add a section to README.Debian which should be re-usable for the release notes / errata. Neil, who should I contact getting those changes into the release notes? If anyone is willing to review the text, even better. The release-notes pseudopackage, and the debian-doc mailing list are good places to start. http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes/ contains the actual source. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#609736: please readd MAKEDEV calls to init.d.functions
Control: severity 609736 serious On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 07:45:11PM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote: I would be quite disappointed if I now have to add mknod statements to my own init script or the isdnutils init script or rc.local. (It is besides the point that I know how to do this. Some other user may lack the knowledge how to correctly create init scripts.) For clarity - considering this used to work without having the above, I consider this to be a release critical issue for Wheezy. Thus, it needs fixing somehow or isdnutils will be removed from the release. Neil McGovern Release Manager -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#698556: Bug#609736: please readd MAKEDEV calls to init.d.functions
Control: severity 609736 serious On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 07:45:11PM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote: I would be quite disappointed if I now have to add mknod statements to my own init script or the isdnutils init script or rc.local. (It is besides the point that I know how to do this. Some other user may lack the knowledge how to correctly create init scripts.) For clarity - considering this used to work without having the above, I consider this to be a release critical issue for Wheezy. Thus, it needs fixing somehow or isdnutils will be removed from the release. Neil McGovern Release Manager -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#657281: src/java/org/apache/fop/pdf/ sRGB Color Space Profile.icm is non-free [was: Re: Bug#657281: Any news on this?]
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:42:14AM +0100, alberto fuentes wrote: Since its being a while without response and we are getting closer to release, i was thinking about requesting a wheezy-ignore for the bug or something to the release team I'm not happy adding an ignore tag if there isn't any evidence of progress being made. (FWIW, contacting debian-release is useful if you want a ignore tag) Neil __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#698984: unblock: simpleid - fixes RC issue with OpenID 2.0 support
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:20:56AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: If it is essential, I can make a 0.8.1-13 upload with the extra changelog detail against 0.8.1-11 Hi, We won't accept any changes to packaging systems, and we won't review anything without a diff. PLEASE go read http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#699012: unblock: netgen/4.9.13.dfsg-3.2
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:35:16AM +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 09:54:36AM +0100, Anton Gladky wrote: +netgen (4.9.13.dfsg-3.2) testing-proposed-updates; urgency=low + + * Non-maintainer upload. Have the maintainers commented on your proposed change? Additionally, there's another RC bug in the Uploaders field - You can't have a comma as part of a name. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#538822: Postpone fix for 540512 and 538822 till after release (dash and sh diversions)
Control: tag 540512 +wheezy-ignore Control: tag 538822 +wheezy-ignore This is obviously not going to get fixed this time. Adding ignore tags. On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 08:40:58PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: There has been a small discussion about dash RC bugs 538822 and 540512 in the bts and the general idea is to postpone the proper fix (again) till after the release. Do you agree, and if so, can you tag this bug appropriate as wheezy-ignore? If you do, these bugs should again affects release-notes as well. I believe the previous text in the release-notes were fine. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#690402: RM: scim-prime/1.0.0-4
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 09:56:08PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Removal hint added. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#694975: release.debian.org: Wheezy-ignore tag for freecad and netgen
Hi, On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 02:46:29PM +0100, Anton Gladky wrote: thanks for looking into this bug. VCS of coin3d has a COPYING file, which is clearly BSD-license [1]. So this version should be packaged to fix the license issue properly. The current version of coin is GPL [2]. This doesn't actually answer Adam's query, which is: What license is the version of coin3d currently in wheezy and linked with the freecad packages in wheezy released under? I didn't see anything obvious on the upstream homepage which indicated that earlier versions had been relicensed; in that case whilst it looks like the issues may well be solved for jessie, it still leaves us with a set of packages in wheezy which we can't distribute. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#699016: Fails to download videos
Package: metacafe-dl Version: 2008.07.23-2 Severity: grave Hi, metacafe-dl doesn't seem to work anymore, possibly due to #688997. In any case, metacafe-dl is currently a candidate to be removed from wheezy unless something is fixed. Neil -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.0 APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages metacafe-dl depends on: ii python 2.7.3~rc2-1 ii youtube-dl 2012.02.27-1 metacafe-dl recommends no packages. metacafe-dl suggests no packages. -- debconf-show failed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#699018: Depends on about-to-go-away youtube-dl
Package: freevo Severity: grave Hi, Youtube-dl is about to be removed from testing. As freevo depends on it, it is also a candidate for removal. Please let debian-rele...@lists.debian.org know how you plan on handling this issue. Thanks, Neil -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.0 APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#657281: src/java/org/apache/fop/pdf/ sRGB Color Space Profile.icm is non-free [was: Re: Bug#657281: Any news on this?]
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:42:14AM +0100, alberto fuentes wrote: Since its being a while without response and we are getting closer to release, i was thinking about requesting a wheezy-ignore for the bug or something to the release team I'm not happy adding an ignore tag if there isn't any evidence of progress being made. (FWIW, contacting debian-release is useful if you want a ignore tag) Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#570516: Tagging wheezy-ignore
Control: tag 570516 +wheezy-ignore This probably isn't going to get fixed, even if it still exists. Tagging wheezy-ignore. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#698984: unblock: simpleid - fixes RC issue with OpenID 2.0 support
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 01:38:27PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: I simply haven't included any patches with any prior version of the package, so I haven't needed to rely on any 1.0 or 3.0 methods for including a patch Again, I'm going to point at the freeze policy. Specifically Rule 1. I've attached a debdiff for 0.8.1-10 - 0.8.3-1 [ 111 files changed, 12616 insertions(+), 12626 deletions(-) , due to lots of reasons in original mail] This still doesn't make it reviewable I'm afraid. I believe the use of the 0.8.3 release is not RC, but it does fix one important bug and it also fixes the original RC bug without having to rely on the patching process (so I could delete debian/patches and revert to debian/source/format 1.0) Can you fix the RC bug, by itself, without changing the source format? If not, I'll simply remove it, simpleid-ldap and dynalogin from testing, especially as popcon seems to indicate that no one actually uses it, and it wasn't in a previous stable release. Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#681138: Not found in wheezy
Control: notfound #681138 4.0.4debian2 I couldn't reproduce this in 4.0.4debian2, marking as such. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#681426: closed by Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (Bug#681426: fixed in syslinux-themes-debian 12-1)
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:39:35PM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote: On 11/11/2012 11:26 AM, intrigeri wrote: Anything left to be done before filing an unblock request? like said, when live-build has been updated, syslinux-themes will be updated too, and then someone can ask for unblocks. The package in question has a load of .git changes in it. I'm not sure how these appeared, but they probably shoudn't be there. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#681138: Processed: Not found in wheezy
Control: fixed #681138 4.0.4debian2-3.2
Apparently the below doesn't work. So I'm marking it as fixed. *sigh*
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 03:09:09PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Processing control commands:
notfound #681138 4.0.4debian2
Bug #681138 {Done: Thomas Mueller thomas.muel...@tmit.eu} [owncloud]
owncloud: setup sets wrong db entrys which prevent using cal/carddav
There is no source info for the package 'owncloud' at version '4.0.4debian2'
with architecture ''
Unable to make a source version for version '4.0.4debian2'
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #681138 to the same values
previously set
--
681138: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681138
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#695716: status update
Control: tag -1 +wheezy-ignore On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 07:15:49PM +, Robert Lemmen wrote: b) the release team could decide to simply wheezy-ignore this bug since a fixed version is in unstable and this is only a DFSG-problem, i.e. something we *decide* we don't want in main rather than something that we are not allows to diistribute in the current form. Doing so with this mail. FWIW, it's customary to contact debian-release for requests like this. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#699035: unblock: unattended-upgrades/0.79.4
Hi, On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 04:26:53PM +, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: The fix is to add missing dependency on xz-utils. Also a unit tests is added explicitly testing xz compressed deb. This doesn't look clean due to changes in: --- unattended-upgrades-0.79.3/test/aptroot/var/log/apt/history.log 2012-08-07 11:20:17.0 +0100 +++ unattended-upgrades-0.79.4/test/aptroot/var/log/apt/history.log 2013-01-21 16:29:47.0 + --- unattended-upgrades-0.79.3/test/aptroot/var/log/apt/term.log 2012-08-07 11:20:17.0 +0100 +++ unattended-upgrades-0.79.4/test/aptroot/var/log/apt/term.log 2013-01-21 16:29:47.0 + --- unattended-upgrades-0.79.3/test/aptroot/var/log/unattended-upgrades.log 2012-08-07 11:20:17.0 +0100 +++ unattended-upgrades-0.79.4/test/aptroot/var/log/unattended-upgrades.log 2013-01-21 16:29:47.0 + Should these actually have changed? Why are they in the upload? Can you have a look please? Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#582774: Adding wheezy-ignore tag
Control: tag -1 +wheezy-ignore This doesn't seem to actually affect wheezy in a user-environment. Thus adding wheezy-ignore tag. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#538822: Postpone fix for 540512 and 538822 till after release (dash and sh diversions)
Control: tag 540512 +wheezy-ignore Control: tag 538822 +wheezy-ignore This is obviously not going to get fixed this time. Adding ignore tags. On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 08:40:58PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: There has been a small discussion about dash RC bugs 538822 and 540512 in the bts and the general idea is to postpone the proper fix (again) till after the release. Do you agree, and if so, can you tag this bug appropriate as wheezy-ignore? If you do, these bugs should again affects release-notes as well. I believe the previous text in the release-notes were fine. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#699016: Fails to download videos
Package: metacafe-dl Version: 2008.07.23-2 Severity: grave Hi, metacafe-dl doesn't seem to work anymore, possibly due to #688997. In any case, metacafe-dl is currently a candidate to be removed from wheezy unless something is fixed. Neil -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.0 APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages metacafe-dl depends on: ii python 2.7.3~rc2-1 ii youtube-dl 2012.02.27-1 metacafe-dl recommends no packages. metacafe-dl suggests no packages. -- debconf-show failed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#699018: Depends on about-to-go-away youtube-dl
Package: freevo Severity: grave Hi, Youtube-dl is about to be removed from testing. As freevo depends on it, it is also a candidate for removal. Please let debian-rele...@lists.debian.org know how you plan on handling this issue. Thanks, Neil -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.0 APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#657281: src/java/org/apache/fop/pdf/ sRGB Color Space Profile.icm is non-free [was: Re: Bug#657281: Any news on this?]
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:42:14AM +0100, alberto fuentes wrote: Since its being a while without response and we are getting closer to release, i was thinking about requesting a wheezy-ignore for the bug or something to the release team I'm not happy adding an ignore tag if there isn't any evidence of progress being made. (FWIW, contacting debian-release is useful if you want a ignore tag) Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#570516: Tagging wheezy-ignore
Control: tag 570516 +wheezy-ignore This probably isn't going to get fixed, even if it still exists. Tagging wheezy-ignore. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#681138: Not found in wheezy
Control: notfound #681138 4.0.4debian2 I couldn't reproduce this in 4.0.4debian2, marking as such. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#681426: closed by Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (Bug#681426: fixed in syslinux-themes-debian 12-1)
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:39:35PM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote: On 11/11/2012 11:26 AM, intrigeri wrote: Anything left to be done before filing an unblock request? like said, when live-build has been updated, syslinux-themes will be updated too, and then someone can ask for unblocks. The package in question has a load of .git changes in it. I'm not sure how these appeared, but they probably shoudn't be there. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#681138: Processed: Not found in wheezy
Control: fixed #681138 4.0.4debian2-3.2
Apparently the below doesn't work. So I'm marking it as fixed. *sigh*
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 03:09:09PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Processing control commands:
notfound #681138 4.0.4debian2
Bug #681138 {Done: Thomas Mueller thomas.muel...@tmit.eu} [owncloud]
owncloud: setup sets wrong db entrys which prevent using cal/carddav
There is no source info for the package 'owncloud' at version '4.0.4debian2'
with architecture ''
Unable to make a source version for version '4.0.4debian2'
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #681138 to the same values
previously set
--
681138: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681138
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#695716: status update
Control: tag -1 +wheezy-ignore On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 07:15:49PM +, Robert Lemmen wrote: b) the release team could decide to simply wheezy-ignore this bug since a fixed version is in unstable and this is only a DFSG-problem, i.e. something we *decide* we don't want in main rather than something that we are not allows to diistribute in the current form. Doing so with this mail. FWIW, it's customary to contact debian-release for requests like this. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#582774: Adding wheezy-ignore tag
Control: tag -1 +wheezy-ignore This doesn't seem to actually affect wheezy in a user-environment. Thus adding wheezy-ignore tag. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#698984: unblock: simpleid - fixes RC issue with OpenID 2.0 support
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:20:56AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: If it is essential, I can make a 0.8.1-13 upload with the extra changelog detail against 0.8.1-11 Hi, We won't accept any changes to packaging systems, and we won't review anything without a diff. PLEASE go read http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#699012: unblock: netgen/4.9.13.dfsg-3.2
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:35:16AM +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 09:54:36AM +0100, Anton Gladky wrote: +netgen (4.9.13.dfsg-3.2) testing-proposed-updates; urgency=low + + * Non-maintainer upload. Have the maintainers commented on your proposed change? Additionally, there's another RC bug in the Uploaders field - You can't have a comma as part of a name. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Postpone fix for 540512 and 538822 till after release (dash and sh diversions)
Control: tag 540512 +wheezy-ignore Control: tag 538822 +wheezy-ignore This is obviously not going to get fixed this time. Adding ignore tags. On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 08:40:58PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: There has been a small discussion about dash RC bugs 538822 and 540512 in the bts and the general idea is to postpone the proper fix (again) till after the release. Do you agree, and if so, can you tag this bug appropriate as wheezy-ignore? If you do, these bugs should again affects release-notes as well. I believe the previous text in the release-notes were fine. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#690402: RM: scim-prime/1.0.0-4
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 09:56:08PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Removal hint added. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#694975: release.debian.org: Wheezy-ignore tag for freecad and netgen
Hi, On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 02:46:29PM +0100, Anton Gladky wrote: thanks for looking into this bug. VCS of coin3d has a COPYING file, which is clearly BSD-license [1]. So this version should be packaged to fix the license issue properly. The current version of coin is GPL [2]. This doesn't actually answer Adam's query, which is: What license is the version of coin3d currently in wheezy and linked with the freecad packages in wheezy released under? I didn't see anything obvious on the upstream homepage which indicated that earlier versions had been relicensed; in that case whilst it looks like the issues may well be solved for jessie, it still leaves us with a set of packages in wheezy which we can't distribute. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Depends on about-to-go-away youtube-dl
Package: freevo Severity: grave Hi, Youtube-dl is about to be removed from testing. As freevo depends on it, it is also a candidate for removal. Please let debian-release@lists.debian.org know how you plan on handling this issue. Thanks, Neil -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.0 APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: pre-approval for fixing some important bugs discovered by piuparts for wheezy
Hi, On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 01:25:14PM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: what's the release team opinion on fixing several important bugs for wheezy? These are problems discovered by piuparts and all have bugs filed long ago, usually with a sentence like Getting the archive piuparts-clean is a release goal since lenny. Some of them already have patches attached, but most with no maintainer action. As per my last mail[0] to d-d-a, these are no longer considered important in their own right, so don't fit the freeze criteria. Sorry to disappoint. Neil [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/01/msg5.html -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#698984: unblock: simpleid - fixes RC issue with OpenID 2.0 support
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 01:38:27PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: I simply haven't included any patches with any prior version of the package, so I haven't needed to rely on any 1.0 or 3.0 methods for including a patch Again, I'm going to point at the freeze policy. Specifically Rule 1. I've attached a debdiff for 0.8.1-10 - 0.8.3-1 [ 111 files changed, 12616 insertions(+), 12626 deletions(-) , due to lots of reasons in original mail] This still doesn't make it reviewable I'm afraid. I believe the use of the 0.8.3 release is not RC, but it does fix one important bug and it also fixes the original RC bug without having to rely on the patching process (so I could delete debian/patches and revert to debian/source/format 1.0) Can you fix the RC bug, by itself, without changing the source format? If not, I'll simply remove it, simpleid-ldap and dynalogin from testing, especially as popcon seems to indicate that no one actually uses it, and it wasn't in a previous stable release. Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130126130936.gd6...@halon.org.uk
Bug#699035: unblock: unattended-upgrades/0.79.4
Hi, On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 04:26:53PM +, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: The fix is to add missing dependency on xz-utils. Also a unit tests is added explicitly testing xz compressed deb. This doesn't look clean due to changes in: --- unattended-upgrades-0.79.3/test/aptroot/var/log/apt/history.log 2012-08-07 11:20:17.0 +0100 +++ unattended-upgrades-0.79.4/test/aptroot/var/log/apt/history.log 2013-01-21 16:29:47.0 + --- unattended-upgrades-0.79.3/test/aptroot/var/log/apt/term.log 2012-08-07 11:20:17.0 +0100 +++ unattended-upgrades-0.79.4/test/aptroot/var/log/apt/term.log 2013-01-21 16:29:47.0 + --- unattended-upgrades-0.79.3/test/aptroot/var/log/unattended-upgrades.log 2012-08-07 11:20:17.0 +0100 +++ unattended-upgrades-0.79.4/test/aptroot/var/log/unattended-upgrades.log 2013-01-21 16:29:47.0 + Should these actually have changed? Why are they in the upload? Can you have a look please? Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Debconf-discuss] proposals for DebConf14 +
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 09:14:19PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: Actually, it is very likely to end up being the same people (after all, those are the people who have the connections to industry), it's just that their focus would change to cover the whole of Debian and the subsequent 1 or 2 DebConfs Nope - this is very unlikely to work. Approaching people for DebConf X is a much easier proposition than for the whole of Debian. Neil (Having helped raise ~100k EUR for DebConf 7) ___ Debconf-discuss mailing list Debconf-discuss@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-discuss
Secure booting
Hi all, I've had a press contact requesting information about if/when secure boot will be available. Has anyone got any more info? Replies to me privately please. Thanks, Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [cut-team] Time to merge back ubuntu improvements!
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 06:55:04PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: Of course there was a reason for introducing testing. And I did not propose it to go away either. It should stay for packages marked as being part of unstable at freeze time. Probably a separate repo for frozen unstable is needed. Q. How can you tell that Debian is trying to release? A. There's always a huge discussion about release processes, covering almost every previously discussed and documented[0] proposal. Oh, and someone whines about the name. I haven't seen the headlines that we're late in the release yet though, so that's a refreshing change. Neil [0] http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseProposals -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#697847: [Pkg-ace-devel] Bug#697847: missing source for Win32 binaries
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:26:37PM +0100, Thomas Girard wrote: Since my GPG key has expired, I will not be able to upload this in a timely fashion, so you can consider this email as a call for NMU. For info, you can simply change the expiration date... Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#697847: [Pkg-ace-devel] Bug#697847: missing source for Win32 binaries
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:26:37PM +0100, Thomas Girard wrote: Since my GPG key has expired, I will not be able to upload this in a timely fashion, so you can consider this email as a call for NMU. For info, you can simply change the expiration date... Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Pkg-ace-devel] Bug#697847: missing source for Win32 binaries
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:26:37PM +0100, Thomas Girard wrote: Since my GPG key has expired, I will not be able to upload this in a timely fashion, so you can consider this email as a call for NMU. For info, you can simply change the expiration date... Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130111094715.gy6...@halon.org.uk
Bug#692734: unblock: ettercap/0.7.5-4
Hi, 365 files changed, 23718 insertions(+), 14033 deletions(-) This isn't something that can be reviewed, especially with the large number of unrelated changes to (for example build system switch!) the package. The options remaining are: * Backport specific fixes for the version in testing * Remove the package Could you please indicate if you wish to do the first or the second. Thanks, Neil On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:03:59PM +, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: That is a matter of release policy. I believe I've made clear my own recommended action, listed the alternative possibilities I consider realistic, and given supporting reasoning. After that, this becomes a matter for the release team to decide. They can take my recommendation, or do something else, as they wish. It is ridiculous process-over-sense to say that the release team should ask me, via your sending me your interpretation of their policy document, to ask them to do something which you think they've already decided to do. (Especially when I don't think what you seem to think they've already decided to do is the best option.) After all, if they have decided to do something, they can just do it. We're trying to produce a good operating system here, not an improv parody of paralyzing procedure-heavy bureaucratic inertia. It's a bit frustrating to see that the release gets delayed because of situations like these. Ettercap is a minor leaf package. This issue is not a release delayer. --Barak. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/871udvs2e8@cs.nuim.ie -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#692734: unblock: ettercap/0.7.5-4
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 02:40:25PM +, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: As I've stated previously, I don't believe that backporting fixes is really feasible. There are too many, they are mixed with non-security-related modifications, there would be enormous opportunity for error, and ongoing security maintenance would be quite difficult. Do you have CVE numbers, BTS references or any further detail? These very changes make it not suitable for update when we've been frozen for over 6 months. Some background: upstream development stalled, and a new team has (with the blessing of the retired old team) taken over. The new team is willing to do security updates on their versions, but it is not realistic to expect them to be able to do security patches for an ancient version full of backported patches. No, that's what we expect *you* to do as the maintainer. If you feel you cannot support software for the length of the stable release, then it's simple: find help or let's not have it in a stable release. On the other hand, I personally don't see any disadvantage to letting 0.7.5* in and pulling it if there is a problem, instead of just pulling it preemptively in case there is a problem. Because by that stage a number of people will have already installed it and we have provided a commitment to have it in the release. So that is my recommendation. The choice, however, is with the release team. That's not going to happen. So, can you please let me know if you're going to backport the fixes, or if I should remove it from wheezy. Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#692734: unblock: ettercap/0.7.5-4
Hi, 365 files changed, 23718 insertions(+), 14033 deletions(-) This isn't something that can be reviewed, especially with the large number of unrelated changes to (for example build system switch!) the package. The options remaining are: * Backport specific fixes for the version in testing * Remove the package Could you please indicate if you wish to do the first or the second. Thanks, Neil On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:03:59PM +, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: That is a matter of release policy. I believe I've made clear my own recommended action, listed the alternative possibilities I consider realistic, and given supporting reasoning. After that, this becomes a matter for the release team to decide. They can take my recommendation, or do something else, as they wish. It is ridiculous process-over-sense to say that the release team should ask me, via your sending me your interpretation of their policy document, to ask them to do something which you think they've already decided to do. (Especially when I don't think what you seem to think they've already decided to do is the best option.) After all, if they have decided to do something, they can just do it. We're trying to produce a good operating system here, not an improv parody of paralyzing procedure-heavy bureaucratic inertia. It's a bit frustrating to see that the release gets delayed because of situations like these. Ettercap is a minor leaf package. This issue is not a release delayer. --Barak. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/871udvs2e8@cs.nuim.ie -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#692734: unblock: ettercap/0.7.5-4
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 02:40:25PM +, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: As I've stated previously, I don't believe that backporting fixes is really feasible. There are too many, they are mixed with non-security-related modifications, there would be enormous opportunity for error, and ongoing security maintenance would be quite difficult. Do you have CVE numbers, BTS references or any further detail? These very changes make it not suitable for update when we've been frozen for over 6 months. Some background: upstream development stalled, and a new team has (with the blessing of the retired old team) taken over. The new team is willing to do security updates on their versions, but it is not realistic to expect them to be able to do security patches for an ancient version full of backported patches. No, that's what we expect *you* to do as the maintainer. If you feel you cannot support software for the length of the stable release, then it's simple: find help or let's not have it in a stable release. On the other hand, I personally don't see any disadvantage to letting 0.7.5* in and pulling it if there is a problem, instead of just pulling it preemptively in case there is a problem. Because by that stage a number of people will have already installed it and we have provided a commitment to have it in the release. So that is my recommendation. The choice, however, is with the release team. That's not going to happen. So, can you please let me know if you're going to backport the fixes, or if I should remove it from wheezy. Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130109152458.gn6...@halon.org.uk
Re: Knowing the release names in advance
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 03:55:22AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: Wouldn't it be more simple to just choose a name and we would never ever have to talk about it again, and never ever have to process any of such unblocks? Sure thing: The next release after Jessie will be called Thomas. [0] Neil [0] The chances of this actually being true is directly proportional to the amount of RC bugs you fix, minus the amount of time you've managed to waste for the release on this thread. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#694378: Bug#683803: apt-cacher-ng: errors in combination with http.debian.net: [302 Moved Temporarily]
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:08:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: Hallo, * Gabriele Stilli [Tue, Dec 25 2012, 10:10:36PM]: any chance of having this fix backported to Wheezy? It's quite annoying not being able to do proper upgrades when using http.debian.net with (what will become) stable. #694378 is there to get an answer to this question, apparently RM team prefers to look away ATM. Responding to the comments left by integri would perhaps be a good idea. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#694378: Bug#683803: apt-cacher-ng: errors in combination with http.debian.net: [302 Moved Temporarily]
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:08:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: Hallo, * Gabriele Stilli [Tue, Dec 25 2012, 10:10:36PM]: any chance of having this fix backported to Wheezy? It's quite annoying not being able to do proper upgrades when using http.debian.net with (what will become) stable. #694378 is there to get an answer to this question, apparently RM team prefers to look away ATM. Responding to the comments left by integri would perhaps be a good idea. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#694378: Bug#683803: apt-cacher-ng: errors in combination with http.debian.net: [302 Moved Temporarily]
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:08:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: Hallo, * Gabriele Stilli [Tue, Dec 25 2012, 10:10:36PM]: any chance of having this fix backported to Wheezy? It's quite annoying not being able to do proper upgrades when using http.debian.net with (what will become) stable. #694378 is there to get an answer to this question, apparently RM team prefers to look away ATM. Responding to the comments left by integri would perhaps be a good idea. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Release talk at FOSDEM?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:41:11AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Since we'll have released by then[1], I thought it might be nice if you guys were to hold a talk at FOSDEM about the past release process and/or the upcoming one. Anyone up for that? I won't be attending this year - anyone else? Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#694378: Bug#683803: apt-cacher-ng: errors in combination with http.debian.net: [302 Moved Temporarily]
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:08:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: Hallo, * Gabriele Stilli [Tue, Dec 25 2012, 10:10:36PM]: any chance of having this fix backported to Wheezy? It's quite annoying not being able to do proper upgrades when using http.debian.net with (what will become) stable. #694378 is there to get an answer to this question, apparently RM team prefers to look away ATM. Responding to the comments left by integri would perhaps be a good idea. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Debconf-discuss] Insider manipulation of DC13 site selection, and apparent coverup
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:26:53PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: - rather than publicly disclosing all the details, it may be possible to identify somebody outside the DebConf team that all of us trust who can gather the facts confidentially and report relevant facts publicly For information, I would be willing to do this as someone who's been previously involved in organising a DebConf, and on finding sponsors, but not involved in any way for the current (or previous couple of) DebConfs. However... Does Debian itself have some independent audit process, for example, that could be used to deal with this in a final manner? We do not have something similar to this. The only time I can remember something like this was a audit of ballot papers for a vote. I'm also not convinced that there would be any requirement on anyone to actually respond to the audit. The goal is not to shame or punish anybody, but to ensure the optimal processes are followed in future and to ensure that trust is not put at risk. And all of the above can wait until after DebConf. Organising one is stressful enough as it is. Neil ___ Debconf-discuss mailing list Debconf-discuss@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-discuss
Re: Bug#690557: unblock: git-buildpackage/0.6.0~git20120822
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:14:41PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:39:06PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: In meanwhile I think the debdiff is too huge to have this for an unblock to wheezy. I suggest to close this request to reduce the current open unblock requests. Do you agree Guido? I'm still hoping to see a current version in wheezy and I fail to see why we can't update such a leaf package. Please see the freeze policy at http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html I know that the freeze was announced but sometimes real lifes doesn't fit too well to these kind of deadlines. That's why it was announced a YEAR in advance. Anyway, closing this bug. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#591969: Bug#695158: Bug#591969: Bug#695158: wheezy-ignore tag for RC bug #591969 in typo3-src
tags 591969 + wheezy-ignore thanks On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:56:11PM +0100, Christian Welzel wrote: Am 05.12.2012 13:07, schrieb Neil McGovern: Can someone explain: 1) Why there were no updates to the bug between December 2010 and June 2012? The bug could not be resolved, so i didnt see any reason to update it. Work was going on in the background to fix this (libjs-swfobject, libjs-swfupload and swftools are my packages to get this one resolved). Take a look into the changelog for exact dates of introduction. In general, it's a good idea to update bugs with progress, especially RC ones. Otherwise, people may assume that nothing is being done and would be able to 0-day NMU it. 2) What action is being taken to resolve the unbuildability of the AS1 SWFs? Nothing. There is simply no open source AS1 compiler. 3) What action is being taken to resolve the bugs in as3compile (with bugrefs?) Nothing. as3compile simply lacks the support for some of the language constructs used in the code. So, it looks like this bug isn't going to get fixed :( 4) How likely it is that this bug will be fixed before jessie? I dont know. TYPO3 currently ships version 6.0, when jessi comes it will be surely 6.6+. 4.5 is outdated but a LTS version with support by upstream until 04-2014. TYPO3 6.0 introduced another big chunk of AS3 code (flowplayer) which surely cannot be build in main until flex-sdk hits the archive. I skipped packaging of 4.6 and 4.7 already because of not buildable flash files. Hrm. This doesn't quite cover the expected lifetime of Wheezy. 5) Why simply not removing the package would be a better idea? Perhaps this is the better choice, as most new TYPO3 projects will use 6.0 or newer. I think many of the currently running installations are 4.6 or 4.7, and only a minority is at 4.5 currently. It's a judgement call, but given the LTS promise from upstream, I'll add a wheezy-ignore tag to this. I'd like to be clear that this will not be repeated for Jessie, but hopefully 6.0 will be in the archive then and this bug can be closed. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#591969: Bug#695158: Bug#591969: Bug#695158: wheezy-ignore tag for RC bug #591969 in typo3-src
tags 591969 + wheezy-ignore thanks On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:56:11PM +0100, Christian Welzel wrote: Am 05.12.2012 13:07, schrieb Neil McGovern: Can someone explain: 1) Why there were no updates to the bug between December 2010 and June 2012? The bug could not be resolved, so i didnt see any reason to update it. Work was going on in the background to fix this (libjs-swfobject, libjs-swfupload and swftools are my packages to get this one resolved). Take a look into the changelog for exact dates of introduction. In general, it's a good idea to update bugs with progress, especially RC ones. Otherwise, people may assume that nothing is being done and would be able to 0-day NMU it. 2) What action is being taken to resolve the unbuildability of the AS1 SWFs? Nothing. There is simply no open source AS1 compiler. 3) What action is being taken to resolve the bugs in as3compile (with bugrefs?) Nothing. as3compile simply lacks the support for some of the language constructs used in the code. So, it looks like this bug isn't going to get fixed :( 4) How likely it is that this bug will be fixed before jessie? I dont know. TYPO3 currently ships version 6.0, when jessi comes it will be surely 6.6+. 4.5 is outdated but a LTS version with support by upstream until 04-2014. TYPO3 6.0 introduced another big chunk of AS3 code (flowplayer) which surely cannot be build in main until flex-sdk hits the archive. I skipped packaging of 4.6 and 4.7 already because of not buildable flash files. Hrm. This doesn't quite cover the expected lifetime of Wheezy. 5) Why simply not removing the package would be a better idea? Perhaps this is the better choice, as most new TYPO3 projects will use 6.0 or newer. I think many of the currently running installations are 4.6 or 4.7, and only a minority is at 4.5 currently. It's a judgement call, but given the LTS promise from upstream, I'll add a wheezy-ignore tag to this. I'd like to be clear that this will not be repeated for Jessie, but hopefully 6.0 will be in the archive then and this bug can be closed. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#591969: Bug#695158: wheezy-ignore tag for RC bug #591969 in typo3-src
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 08:01:58PM +0100, Tobias Hansen wrote: the discussion in RC bug #591969 ended with a call for a wheezy-ignore tag. The bug was also tagged squeeze-ignore. What does the release team say? In general, I'm fairly loathed to add a *second* release ignore tag. Can someone explain: 1) Why there were no updates to the bug between December 2010 and June 2012? 2) What action is being taken to resolve the unbuildability of the AS1 SWFs? 3) What action is being taken to resolve the bugs in as3compile (with bugrefs?) 4) How likely it is that this bug will be fixed before jessie? 5) Why simply not removing the package would be a better idea? Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#591969: Bug#695158: wheezy-ignore tag for RC bug #591969 in typo3-src
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 08:01:58PM +0100, Tobias Hansen wrote: the discussion in RC bug #591969 ended with a call for a wheezy-ignore tag. The bug was also tagged squeeze-ignore. What does the release team say? In general, I'm fairly loathed to add a *second* release ignore tag. Can someone explain: 1) Why there were no updates to the bug between December 2010 and June 2012? 2) What action is being taken to resolve the unbuildability of the AS1 SWFs? 3) What action is being taken to resolve the bugs in as3compile (with bugrefs?) 4) How likely it is that this bug will be fixed before jessie? 5) Why simply not removing the package would be a better idea? Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
