Re: tzdata update for (old)stable and lenny-volatile
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:17:48 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Due to change in one of the Brazilian timezone last week-end, I have uploaded version 2011l-0squeeze1 of tzdata to stable-proposed-updates. For the record, I pushed this via squeeze-updates overnight (see SUA17-1). Technically only a patch was needed, but I preferred to upload a new version so that we don't need a later upload for Asia/Hebron and Pacific/Fiji. I have also changed the debian/copyright and debian/watch files as they pointed to inexistant URL / email following the current lawsuit. IANA is the new upstream. Please find the diff below. If you are fine with all these changes, I'll do the same for oldstable and lenny-volatile Please go ahead. As dicussed on IRC, it probably makes more sense to just target volatile for now, if there's going to be a 2011m in the near future. Regards, Adam -- 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/08d945542a4b74288afe4172b554c...@adsl153.funky-badger.org
Re: tzdata update for (old)stable and lenny-volatile
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 07:49:50AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:17:48 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Due to change in one of the Brazilian timezone last week-end, I have uploaded version 2011l-0squeeze1 of tzdata to stable-proposed-updates. For the record, I pushed this via squeeze-updates overnight (see SUA17-1). Thanks. Technically only a patch was needed, but I preferred to upload a new version so that we don't need a later upload for Asia/Hebron and Pacific/Fiji. I have also changed the debian/copyright and debian/watch files as they pointed to inexistant URL / email following the current lawsuit. IANA is the new upstream. Please find the diff below. If you are fine with all these changes, I'll do the same for oldstable and lenny-volatile Please go ahead. As dicussed on IRC, it probably makes more sense to just target volatile for now, if there's going to be a 2011m in the near future. I have just uploaded tzdata_2011l-0lenny1 to lenny-volatile. For the upload to oldstable, I agree it's better to wait, there will be for sure more uploads to do, we are the middle of the DST changes period. Regards, Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- 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/20111019070435.gc31...@hall.aurel32.net
Re: release goal proposal: enable hardening build flags
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2011-09-14 00:38, Kees Cook wrote: Hi, I would like to propose a release goal of enabling hardening build flags[1] for all C/C++ packages in the archive[2]. For Wheezy, specific sub-goals are being chosen. The default flags are almost settled[3], additional subgoals may come up[4], and more work is needed to identify the specific packages involved in the subgoals[5], but I'd like to get the ball rolling on this as a release goal. Thanks, -Kees [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Hardening [2] http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/Hardening [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2011/09/msg00025.html [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/09/msg00071.html [5] http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/secure-testing/hardening/subgoal-important.txt?view=log http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/secure-testing/hardening/subgoal-dsa.txt?view=log Hi, I am pleased to say this release goal has been approved for Wheezy. Please remember to use the right usertag[1]. ~Niels [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2011/09/msg00472.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJOnoUHAAoJEAVLu599gGRCc8QP/jbx1q9QusXqqPTD0qgwJZf/ zwdVm0ChOT5DrnkqX+cX79eRvdhLvFWEedGWTzQ+xqWChv7RZiGP6JgmHzu4Us9Z gkXIgcrINoOQYklSq7BVh3uR21rw9TtMUWV9nXwgraMi7z2m+LUKmzzYEjChSE4U hP/0yXfg0O2h41Kj6CfM3l9pGOSY0DEk7YYC2BKn0jX/QBiSCqZMjqQp9S/SXYKm JxITONNLZKAv0R0AgR6BSv00VCtEyakuobiU9tZjjRZfxtAA3eqCimuR4oNZeFGP 7SsfSZQ5nCgQeGa0mR3hWf0WjMFPmwMn/+8Nq7Yevy517L4faRy7BdUnFNkSldmp ZmmHIdxnlz/6wp5Bn/tqrIBM+Ylflqgy0RpPayr0EQhY9a9+vD0ZP1HjjMP3Gl9n RAQIo/pHjupdW88Ru4ejEqBHHXCGUqNhEf9fujXKEmwQvggzZ5FEqGqNEnT70hSF 8lKqqAJDp4Ng9BkqKFdL0Mo7Bx0gZntfAycsRuin9s5LnG9G/6ajFAskNgqp5Smn Cd4bPWNHJ0eESCuNCk7wudyJV55A6Y1yexNF2PkL30LobYYNd42asnyhixR690rK NBo7NKqJ55seimdejadivsv0dwPOEmp6nJqHxIYWL8gLu2hw0+hRyilYJC1OYYTV 16mJIKLS2HzSKvkxJ72z =qhHy -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4e9e8508.1030...@thykier.net
Re: Bug#645765: please consider allowing to load installer components from a different mirror
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:28:54PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: On 2011-10-18, Marc Haber mh+debian-packa...@zugschlus.de wrote: when entities deploy Debian via network install, point releases can pose challenges. For example, a site I consult for has a mirror which is rsynced daily, but the installation server is not updated automatically with the latest initrd and kernel files. There are debian-installer-6.0-netboot-* packages for this in squeeze now, FWIW. It helps in quite a bunch of cases, just maybe not in yours. (The install server needs to run on squeeze.) ;-) The install server in question is an ancient CentOS for historic reasons. [1] I don't have the slightest idea why this issue has only surfaced after 6.0.3 It certainly happens for new kernel ABIs. But yeah, point releases regularly break d-i netboot images because of the way they work. Basically whenever we respin the kernel udebs and then d-i to incorporate new security updates / other misc bugfixes. I wonder what was different here if it didn't happen with .1 or .2 (which both had non-ABI breaking d-i kernel updates). Do you have some sort of failure message? I don't remember exactly, the symptom was that the mptsas driver didn't load (and also wasn't loadable manually), leaving the system diskless. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 31958061 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 31958062 -- 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/20111019080559.ga24...@torres.zugschlus.de
Bug#645781: marked as done (Include how to compile information in INSTALL)
Your message dated Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:43:35 +0200 with message-id 4e9e8db7.8000...@thykier.net and subject line Re: Include how to compile information in INSTALL has caused the Debian Bug report #645781, regarding Include how to compile information in INSTALL to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 645781: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=645781 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: patch User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: britney To help the next poor schmuck trying to getting britney to work; a how to compile section in either the README or INSTALL might be useful. ~Niels From 3ebc3fc8e02f80448396543622f2462e1bdebe18 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:02:20 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Clarified how britney is compiled --- INSTALL |7 +++ 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/INSTALL b/INSTALL index 1d28cee..80ab1b0 100644 --- a/INSTALL +++ b/INSTALL @@ -8,3 +8,10 @@ Requirements: * Python APT/DPKG bindingsaptitude install python2.5-apt libapt-pkg-dev dpkg-dev * Python dev headers aptitude install python2.5-dev +Compiling: +-- + +Run make all in the lib directory and add a symlink called +britneymodule.so pointing to the freshly generated britneymodule.so in +the lib directory. + -- 1.7.6.3 ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Applied as 9f1211382250398ea25cd269a47d8879f0680ec0. ~Niels ---End Message---
Bug#622134: transition: openssl 1.0.0
- ace: There have been a number of gcc-4.6 updates, I gave it back to see if the ICE has been fixed or not. The build that resulted from the most recent give-back failed but it did so in a VERY strange manner. It claimed to install libzzlib-dev and zlib1g-dev yet it failed to link against the libraries they contain and during cleanup it didn't clean up anything claiming they were not installed! So I think something weird happened on the buildd and it is nessacery to repeat the give-back. -- 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/4e9e8fb7.7010...@p10link.net
Re: Bug#645881: critical update 29 available
CC debian release security Le mercredi 19 octobre 2011 à 12:21 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit : Upstream has released Java SE 6 update 29 yesterday: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/javacpuoct2011-443431.html with security fixes. Well, that especially means that it is now time to consider the removal of sun-java6 from Debian. We, the distros, are no longer allowed by Oracle to redistribute this version [1] [2]. The OpenJDK (6 or 7) is now the way to go. About stable, I don't know what the security team would recommend here ?! Thanks, Sylvestre [1] http://sylvestre.ledru.info/blog/sylvestre/2011/08/26/sun_java6_packages_removed_from_debian_u [2] http://jdk-distros.java.net/ The DLJ has finally been retired, and so has been this project. -- 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/1319021415.28383.181.ca...@korcula.inria.fr
Re: Bug#645881: critical update 29 available
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Sylvestre Ledru sylves...@debian.org wrote: CC debian release security Le mercredi 19 octobre 2011 à 12:21 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit : Upstream has released Java SE 6 update 29 yesterday: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/javacpuoct2011-443431.html with security fixes. Well, that especially means that it is now time to consider the removal of sun-java6 from Debian. We, the distros, are no longer allowed by Oracle to redistribute this version [1] [2]. The OpenJDK (6 or 7) is now the way to go. About stable, I don't know what the security team would recommend here ?! I can personally recommend the openjdk from other work I'm doing. The improvement in the packaging alone justifies the switch for software maintainers, but it's also worked well under load for me with Ant and JBoss tests I've done recently. -- 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/caocn9ryvzm-gmnqirani3_6gqpazyp8opvmiqktpyh+zivc...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#645881: critical update 29 available
On Wed, October 19, 2011 12:50, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: CC debian release security Le mercredi 19 octobre 2011 à 12:21 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit : Upstream has released Java SE 6 update 29 yesterday: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/javacpuoct2011-443431.html with security fixes. Well, that especially means that it is now time to consider the removal of sun-java6 from Debian. We, the distros, are no longer allowed by Oracle to redistribute this version [1] [2]. The OpenJDK (6 or 7) is now the way to go. About stable, I don't know what the security team would recommend here ?! Well, stable is supposed to be stable. I'm all for removal of sun-java6 from unstable and hence not including it in wheezy, but we've released stable with the expectations for users that they can run it for its lifetime without large disruptions. While software has been removed from stable as a last resort, it really should be the last resort. Have we been in contact with Oracle upstream and explained that we are eager to comply with their wish to move entirely to openjdk for our next release, but have the problem that we have a stable release out in the field that people rely on? Are there possibilities to extend the offer for the lifetime of stable, or at least until it becomes oldstable? cheers, Thijs -- 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/a99694a8206b782c0176d9df732e4a3a.squir...@wm.kinkhorst.nl
Re: Bug#645881: critical update 29 available
On 10/19/2011 02:09 PM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: Have we been in contact with Oracle upstream and explained that we are eager to comply with their wish to move entirely to openjdk for our next release, but have the problem that we have a stable release out in the field that people rely on? Are there possibilities to extend the offer for the lifetime of stable, or at least until it becomes oldstable? there's nothing which hinders you to still have the current version in stable. The license isn't changed for the existing package. It's up to the security/release teams to decide if they want to have a version with known security issues in the stable release (in the past the security team didn't care about this at all for the current oldstable). Matthias -- 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/4e9ebf7c.7020...@ubuntu.com
Re: Bug#645881: critical update 29 available
On Wed, October 19, 2011 14:15, Matthias Klose wrote: On 10/19/2011 02:09 PM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: Have we been in contact with Oracle upstream and explained that we are eager to comply with their wish to move entirely to openjdk for our next release, but have the problem that we have a stable release out in the field that people rely on? Are there possibilities to extend the offer for the lifetime of stable, or at least until it becomes oldstable? there's nothing which hinders you to still have the current version in stable. The license isn't changed for the existing package. It's up to the security/release teams to decide if they want to have a version with known security issues in the stable release I understand that, and I think the situation where we keep something in unstable while refraining from publishing security updates is undesirable. What I'm wondering is if we tried to ask upstream whether they would be willing to extend the DLJ offer so we can keep security fixes for the sun-java6 version in stable coming in for the lifetime of this release, notwithstanding the fact that we're removing it from the next release. (in the past the security team didn't care about this at all for the current oldstable). I don't know what this refers to, but it doesn't seem relevant because we're talking about the present. Thijs -- 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/a022548bb2db4ab2477511adccb72c57.squir...@wm.kinkhorst.nl
Re: Bug#645881: critical update 29 available
On mer., 2011-10-19 at 15:28 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: What I'm wondering is if we tried to ask upstream whether they would be willing to extend the DLJ offer so we can keep security fixes for the sun-java6 version in stable coming in for the lifetime of this release, notwithstanding the fact that we're removing it from the next release. Do we know the situation for other distribution (Red Hat, Ubuntu, Suse, ...) which might ship sun-java6 in stable / long term support releases? Could this be discussed on the cross-distro list? Regards, -- Yves-Alexis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#645881: critical update 29 available
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 03:28:02PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: What I'm wondering is if we tried to ask upstream whether they would be willing to extend the DLJ offer so we can keep security fixes for the sun-java6 version in stable coming in for the lifetime of this release, notwithstanding the fact that we're removing it from the next release. They won't. | I'm not familiar with the Debian Project's practices around security issues | in non-free packages to be able to make a specific recommendation other than to | recommend using the open source OpenJDK code base for Debian's packaging needs. | | Like I said on my blog, there won't be further Oracle JDK 6 releases published | under the DLJ license. Oracle's schedule for Critical Patch Updates (CPUs) is | public, and available at | http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/alerts-086861.html (in the past the security team didn't care about this at all for the current oldstable). I don't know what this refers to, but it doesn't seem relevant because we're talking about the present. Well, non-free used to be unsupported security-wise AFAIK. doko is right that the security team still didn't care in the present, though, as the updates were through p-u and not the security archive. That said I'm glad that somebody stepped up and did the updates that were possible. There might be one other option, but one I probably wouldn't be happy with due to it probably being impossible to review: improve openjdk in stable enough to replace sun-java6. Apart from this it's either a DSA telling people that it contains known flaws (if they're critical enough) and that there will be no further security updates. OTOH the updates didn't pass security anyway because there's no non-free there. Or it's the removal of the package. Or we simply don't care because it's freaking non-free and people are supposed to use it in secure environments with a grain of salt. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- .''`. Philipp KernDebian Developer : :' : http://philkern.de Stable Release Manager `. `' xmpp:p...@0x539.de Wanna-Build Admin `-finger pkern/k...@db.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [SRU] update for powertop in 6.0.1
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 01:39:03PM +0100, Patrick Winnertz wrote: Impressive design. What would happen if it skips half of the config? I agree that not segfaulting is incredibly better than segfaulting, but like this the remaining bunch of lines will be silently ignored? I've rewritten the patch from Mel Gorman, now you'll get a printf output on the console if the config file is too large (and powertop will abort). Please have a look on the updated debdiff attached to this mail. Bug reports are much easier to track. Please go ahead and sorry for the delay. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A simple migration plan
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 01:37:17PM +, Enrico Zini wrote: I'm reopening the bug since this affects users that upgrade tangogps from lenny to squeeze, and if a simple migration strategy can be found, it could still make sense to add it to a stable update. A very simple way to do it could be to ship a shellscript as /usr/bin/tangogps instead of a symlink. The shellscript being nothing more than: #!/bin/sh test -d ~/.foxtrotgps || ln -s ~/.tangogps ~/.foxtrotgps exec foxtrotgps What do you think? I guess we concluded on the Debconf stairs that it's a tad late for this now? That all users will have had their apparent data loss already? :) Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A simple migration plan
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 06:19:27PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: I guess we concluded on the Debconf stairs that it's a tad late for this now? That all users will have had their apparent data loss already? :) Indeed we did. Closing the bug. Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini enr...@enricozini.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#645881: critical update 29 available
Hi Philipp, Am 19.10.2011 16:33, schrieb Philipp Kern: Or it's the removal of the package. we should remove sun-java5 from oldstable, too, if we are going to remove sun-java6 from (old)stable. But I do not have a strong opinion on that. Cheers, Torsten -- 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/4e9ef8bc.9080...@debian.org
Processed: block 629477 with 645921
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: block 629477 with 645921 Bug #629477 [release.debian.org] transition: gnustep-base, gnustep-gui, libobjc Was blocked by: 644868 618184 629198 643972 629204 642162 629206 618205 629424 642928 643973 629202 629215 Added blocking bug(s) of 629477: 645921 thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 629477: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=629477 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- 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/handler.s.c.13190477544370.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Processed: block 629477 with 645923
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: block 629477 with 645923 Bug #629477 [release.debian.org] transition: gnustep-base, gnustep-gui, libobjc Was blocked by: 618184 644868 645921 629198 643972 629204 642162 629206 618205 642928 629424 629202 643973 629215 Added blocking bug(s) of 629477: 645923 thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 629477: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=629477 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- 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/handler.s.c.13190482997116.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Re: Update to byobu in stable to fix bug #548717
On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 11:42 -0400, Luke Faraone wrote: On 14/10/11 20:05, Alexander Chernyakhovsky wrote: I encountered bug #548717 on my Debian Squeeze system that uses kerberos authentication and hesiod groups. Unlike the situation described in the bug, I could not easily remedy this by deleting the directory -- the package was not installable. I have corrected this by backporting better chmod semantics, which makes this package installable, and tested it. The minimal patch proposed by Alex is attached. --- byobu-2.80/debian/changelog +++ byobu-2.80/debian/changelog @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +byobu (2.80-2) unstable; urgency=low Please make this 2.80-1+squeeze1, and s/unstable/stable/. With those changes, please go ahead; thanks. Regards, Adam -- 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/1319049016.384.2.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Processed: block 629477 with 645926
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: block 629477 with 645926 Bug #629477 [release.debian.org] transition: gnustep-base, gnustep-gui, libobjc Was blocked by: 645923 644868 618184 645921 629198 643972 629204 642162 629206 618205 629424 642928 643973 629202 629215 Added blocking bug(s) of 629477: 645926 thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 629477: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=629477 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- 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/handler.s.c.131904925511623.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Processed: block 629477 with 645927
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: block 629477 with 645927 Bug #629477 [release.debian.org] transition: gnustep-base, gnustep-gui, libobjc Was blocked by: 645926 645923 618184 644868 645921 629198 643972 629204 642162 618205 629206 642928 629424 629202 643973 629215 Added blocking bug(s) of 629477: 645927 thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 629477: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=629477 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- 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/handler.s.c.131904962713058.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
NEW changes in proposedupdates
Processing changes file: etherape_0.9.8-1+squeeze1_amd64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: ifupdown-extra_0.14.2_i386.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: quassel_0.6.3-2+squeeze2_i386.changes ACCEPT -- 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/e1rgcpf-0003nc...@franck.debian.org
Processed: More bugs affecting the GNUstep transition
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: block 629477 with 645933 Bug #629477 [release.debian.org] transition: gnustep-base, gnustep-gui, libobjc Was blocked by: 645926 645921 642162 643972 629204 643973 645927 645923 618184 644868 629198 618205 629206 642928 629424 629202 629215 Added blocking bug(s) of 629477: 645933 block 629477 with 645935 Bug #629477 [release.debian.org] transition: gnustep-base, gnustep-gui, libobjc Was blocked by: 645926 645933 645921 642162 643972 629204 643973 645927 645923 618184 644868 629198 618205 629206 642928 629424 629202 629215 Added blocking bug(s) of 629477: 645935 block 629477 with 645936 Bug #629477 [release.debian.org] transition: gnustep-base, gnustep-gui, libobjc Was blocked by: 645926 645933 645935 645921 629204 643972 642162 643973 645927 645923 644868 618184 629198 629206 618205 629424 642928 629202 629215 Added blocking bug(s) of 629477: 645936 thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 629477: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=629477 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- 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/handler.s.c.131905688116930.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
