NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: qtbase-opensource-src_5.15.8+dfsg-11+deb12u1_mipsel-buildd.changes ACCEPT
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: qtbase-opensource-src_5.15.8+dfsg-11+deb12u1_armel-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: qtbase-opensource-src_5.15.8+dfsg-11+deb12u1_s390x-buildd.changes ACCEPT
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: qtbase-opensource-src_5.15.8+dfsg-11+deb12u1_arm64-buildd.changes ACCEPT
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: qtbase-opensource-src_5.15.8+dfsg-11+deb12u1_amd64-buildd.changes ACCEPT
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: qtbase-opensource-src_5.15.8+dfsg-11+deb12u1_i386-buildd.changes ACCEPT
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: qtbase-opensource-src_5.15.8+dfsg-11+deb12u1_armhf-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: qtbase-opensource-src_5.15.8+dfsg-11+deb12u1_ppc64el-buildd.changes ACCEPT
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: qtbase-opensource-src_5.15.8+dfsg-11+deb12u1_all-buildd.changes ACCEPT
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: openvpn-dco-dkms_0.0+git20231103-1~deb12u1_all-buildd.changes ACCEPT
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: openvpn-dco-dkms_0.0+git20231103-1~deb12u1_source.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: qtbase-opensource-src_5.15.8+dfsg-11+deb12u1_source.changes ACCEPT
Bug#1068574: bookworm-pu: package icinga2/2.13.6-2+deb12u1
Control: tag -1 confirmed Please go ahead. Thanks, -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 ed25519/0x196418AAEB74C8A1: CA619D65A72A7BADFC96D280196418AAEB74C8A1
Processed: Re: Bug#1068574: bookworm-pu: package icinga2/2.13.6-2+deb12u1
Processing control commands: > tag -1 confirmed Bug #1068574 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package icinga2/2.13.6-2+deb12u1 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 1068574: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1068574 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: qtbase-opensource-src 5.15.8+dfsg-11+deb12u1 flagged for acceptance
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > package release.debian.org Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'release.debian.org' Limit currently set to 'package':'release.debian.org' > tags 1055802 = bookworm pending Bug #1055802 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package qtbase-opensource-src/5.15.8+dfsg-11+deb12u1 Added tag(s) pending; removed tag(s) confirmed. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1055802: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1055802 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: openvpn-dco-dkms 0.0+git20231103-1~deb12u1 flagged for acceptance
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > package release.debian.org Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'release.debian.org' Limit currently set to 'package':'release.debian.org' > tags 1055966 = bookworm pending Bug #1055966 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package openvpn-dco-dkms/0.0+git20230324-1+deb12u1 (or 0.0+git20231103-0+deb12u1?) Added tag(s) pending; removed tag(s) confirmed. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1055966: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1055966 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1055966: openvpn-dco-dkms 0.0+git20231103-1~deb12u1 flagged for acceptance
package release.debian.org tags 1055966 = bookworm pending thanks Hi, The upload referenced by this bug report has been flagged for acceptance into the proposed-updates queue for Debian bookworm. Thanks for your contribution! Upload details == Package: openvpn-dco-dkms Version: 0.0+git20231103-1~deb12u1 Explanation: build for Linux >= 6.5; install compat-include directory; fix refcount imbalance
Bug#1055802: qtbase-opensource-src 5.15.8+dfsg-11+deb12u1 flagged for acceptance
package release.debian.org tags 1055802 = bookworm pending thanks Hi, The upload referenced by this bug report has been flagged for acceptance into the proposed-updates queue for Debian bookworm. Thanks for your contribution! Upload details == Package: qtbase-opensource-src Version: 5.15.8+dfsg-11+deb12u1 Explanation: fix regression in patch for CVE-2023-24607; avoid using system CA certificates when not wanted [CVE-2023-34410]; fix buffer overflow [CVE-2023-37369]; fix infinite loop in XML recursive entity expansion [CVE-2023-38197]
Bug#1065413: bookworm-pu: package openssl/3.0.13-1~deb12u1
On 2024-03-24 20:06:12 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > Sorry for not getting to this sooner. Is this still the case? So. This happened #1068045 (yapet broke with 1.0 format) due to the update. On the bright side it has been broken in unstable but unnoticed. Looking into it but also sleeping (but making progress). > Regards, > > Adam Sebastian
Bug#1056936: bookworm-pu: package glewlwyd/2.7.5-3
Le 2024-04-06 à 18 h 38, Jonathan Wiltshire a écrit : Sorry for the delay; please go ahead. Thanks, it's uploaded! /Nicolas
Re: Bug#1068609: libreoffice: FTBFS on arrmhf: testContentGnumeric assertion failed,- Expression: xServiceInfo->supportsService("com.sun.star.sheet.SpreadsheetDocument")
Version: 4:24.2.2-3 Hi, Am 07.04.24 um 23:13 schrieb Rene Engelhard: Filing a bug for reference. This is fixed in 4:24.2.2-3, will mark it as such when I get the bug number. As said. Regards, Rene
libreoffice: FTBFS on arrmhf: testContentGnumeric assertion failed,- Expression: xServiceInfo->supportsService("com.sun.star.sheet.SpreadsheetDocument")
Source: libreoffice Version: 4:24.2.0-1 Severity: serious Tags: trixie ftbfs Hi, Am 30.03.24 um 12:56 schrieb Rene Engelhard: Am 30.03.24 um 08:49 schrieb Rene Engelhard: That would mean a bin-NMU of liborcus would work and then a rebuild of libreoffice (gb, but I need a new upload anyway) So we probably missed a rename? (Or more for stuff silently using time-date?) boost1.83 (iostream)? liborcus? Both? I prepared a time_t rename of liborcus. Can upload it (to NEW...) any time. A bin-NMU would also work, except for a needed runtime dependency, then again it's "only" the gnumeric filter...). I wouldn't mind a simple bin-NMU at least. That one got done on April 1 :) > Ran the full tests with it. Passed. (Unfortunately) that (expectedly) now causes the reverse issue in testing. Just verified in a local build. Fortunately the startup of LO works fine (tried on my machine here) so it's probably "just" gnumeric (and maybe other gnumeric-using filters) affected. Filing a bug for reference. This is fixed in 4:24.2.2-3, will mark it as such when I get the bug number. Regards, Rene
Bug#1068604: nmu: pnc_0.9.4-3
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu The virtual package libphonenumber8-protobuf32 was renamed to libphonenumber8t64-protobuf32 as part of the time_t transition. Most reverse depedencies seem to have already been rebuilt, but four packages still depend on the old virtual package. libebook-contacts-1.2-4, kamailio-phonenum-modules, mmsd-tng and pnc libebook-contacts-1.2-4 is a cruft package kamailio already has a binnmu scheduled mmsd-tng has a FTBFS bug. That leaves pnc as being ready for a binnmu. nmu pnc_0.9.4-3 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against libphonenumber8t64-protobuf32 for time64 transition" -- System Information: Debian Release: 10.13 APT prefers oldoldstable-updates APT policy: (500, 'oldoldstable-updates'), (500, 'oldoldstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386, arm64 Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-18-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_GB:en (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled
NEW changes in oldstable-new
Processing changes file: gtkwave_3.3.104+really3.3.118-0+deb11u1_source.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: gtkwave_3.3.104+really3.3.118-0+deb11u1_amd64-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: gtkwave_3.3.104+really3.3.118-0+deb11u1_arm64-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: gtkwave_3.3.104+really3.3.118-0+deb11u1_armel-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: gtkwave_3.3.104+really3.3.118-0+deb11u1_armhf-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: gtkwave_3.3.104+really3.3.118-0+deb11u1_i386-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: gtkwave_3.3.104+really3.3.118-0+deb11u1_mips64el-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: gtkwave_3.3.104+really3.3.118-0+deb11u1_mipsel-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: gtkwave_3.3.104+really3.3.118-0+deb11u1_ppc64el-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: gtkwave_3.3.104+really3.3.118-0+deb11u1_s390x-buildd.changes ACCEPT
Processed: reassign 1068327 to src:icmake,src:bobcat, forcibly merging 1068068 1068327
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 1068327 src:icmake,src:bobcat
Bug #1068327 [icmake] flexc++: FTBFS on armel, armhf (Segmentation fault)
Bug reassigned from package 'icmake' to 'src:icmake,src:bobcat'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #1068327 to the same values
previously set
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1068327 to the same values
previously set
> forcemerge 1068068 1068327
Bug #1068068 {Done: tony mancill } [src:icmake,src:bobcat]
Need rebootstrapping on armel and armhf
Bug #1068325 {Done: tony mancill } [src:icmake,src:bobcat]
bisonc++: FTBFS on armel, armhf (override_dh_auto_clean Segmentation fault)
Bug #1068327 [src:icmake,src:bobcat] flexc++: FTBFS on armel, armhf
(Segmentation fault)
1036884 was blocked by: 1068586 1067175 1062847 1067458 1067508 1055530 1068160
1067272 1065787 1067170 1066794 1068068 1066328 1067829 1067288 1055352 1067193
1067676 1068325 1067494 1067069 1067171 1065816 1067192 1067916 1067561 1066049
1067190 1067677 1065973 1067189 1067509
1036884 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 1036884: 1068327
Marked Bug as done
Marked as fixed in versions icmake/12.00.01-1.
The source bobcat and version 11.01.02-1 do not appear to match any binary
packages
The source icmake and version 6.04.00-1 do not appear to match any binary
packages
Marked as found in versions bobcat/11.01.02-1, icmake/6.04.00-1,
bobcat/6.04.00-1, and icmake/11.01.02-1.
Added tag(s) sid and trixie.
Bug #1068325 {Done: tony mancill } [src:icmake,src:bobcat]
bisonc++: FTBFS on armel, armhf (override_dh_auto_clean Segmentation fault)
Merged 1068068 1068325 1068327
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
1036884: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1036884
1068068: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1068068
1068325: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1068325
1068327: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1068327
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: forcibly merging 1068068 1068325
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forcemerge 1068068 1068325
Bug #1068068 {Done: tony mancill } [src:icmake,src:bobcat]
Need rebootstrapping on armel and armhf
Bug #1068325 [src:icmake,src:bobcat] bisonc++: FTBFS on armel, armhf
(override_dh_auto_clean Segmentation fault)
1036884 was blocked by: 1067677 1067561 1067069 1065816 1067189 1067272 1055352
1055530 1067193 1066328 1067288 1067458 1067175 1067170 1068586 1067829 1067509
1062847 1067508 1068160 1066049 1067171 1068068 1065973 1066794 1067916 1067494
1067190 1067192 1065787 1067676
1036884 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 1036884: 1068325
Marked Bug as done
Marked as fixed in versions icmake/12.00.01-1.
The source bobcat and version 11.01.02-1 do not appear to match any binary
packages
The source icmake and version 6.04.00-1 do not appear to match any binary
packages
Marked as found in versions icmake/11.01.02-1, icmake/6.04.00-1,
bobcat/6.04.00-1, and bobcat/11.01.02-1.
Added tag(s) sid and trixie.
Merged 1068068 1068325
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
1036884: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1036884
1068068: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1068068
1068325: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1068325
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Re: [sylpheed:37255] Re: Debian 12 released with two RC bugs in Sylpheed
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:18:57 +0200 José Luis González wrote: > I found the report now. It's #1036799. Yes, it looks like a temporary server issue. And you're sending via gmail now. But again, what do you expect a package maintainer to do? It's upstream where bugs get fixed. Your subject is wrong, your two RC bugs are not RC bugs; in fact, they both seem to be describing the same behaviour, and you are requesting that the behaviour be different. i.e. they are feature requests. The more I consider your complaints about the Debian maintainer, the less they seem to hold water. with regards Paul
Processed: notfound 1068586 in 9.4.7-3, found 1068586 in 9.4.7-4, block 1036884 with 1068586
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> notfound 1068586 9.4.7-3
Bug #1068586 [ghc] ghc: Broken on arm{el,hf} because of time_t transition
No longer marked as found in versions ghc/9.4.7-3.
> found 1068586 9.4.7-4
Bug #1068586 [ghc] ghc: Broken on arm{el,hf} because of time_t transition
Marked as found in versions ghc/9.4.7-4.
> block 1036884 with 1068586
Bug #1036884 [release.debian.org] transition: time64_t
1036884 was blocked by: 1067494 1062847 1068160 1067171 1067288 1065816 1067170
1066328 1067509 1067508 1068068 1067069 1055352 1067561 1067458 1065973 1067192
1067676 1066049 1067677 1067916 1067175 1067190 1055530 1066794 1067829 1067272
1065787 1067189 1067193
1036884 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 1036884: 1068586
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
1036884: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1036884
1068586: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1068586
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1052561: bookworm-pu: package nfdump/1.7.3-1 (pre-discussion)
On 08/10/23 10:19 PM, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: Hi, > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 09:36:00PM +0200, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > > > [ Other info ] > > > I did not attach the debdiff because it would be too large and only > > > consist > > > of upstream changes. No changes to debian/ (except dropping a backported > > > fix > > > already in 12.1) are necessary. > > > > What does diffstat look like, possibly with translations and tests > > excluded? Let's see what sort of scale we're talking here. > > Plain debdiff > > 185 files changed, 25810 insertions(+), 28068 deletions(-) Gentle ping about this. I'm totally fine if you think this is too risky, I would go for bookworm-backports then. [...] > I'll reach out to upstream about those embedded lz4 copy, right now it does > not look like one could build against an external library, in contrast to > zstd and bz2 support. Upstream has released 1.7.4 which supports building against the system lz4 copy. I don't want to upload this to unstable until it's clear how to proceed with this bug. So 1.) Drop this request and keep the old version in bookworm, upload 1.7.3+ to bookworm-backports 2.) Upload 1.7.3 to one of the next bookworm point releases 3.) Upload 1.7.4 to unstable, then target that for one of the next bookworm point releases (but the diff will become even larger) What's your take on this? Thanks, Bernhard
Bug#1055966: bookworm-pu: package openvpn-dco-dkms/0.0+git20230324-1+deb12u1 (or 0.0+git20231103-0+deb12u1?)
> > > Considering the version in unstable is currently
> > >
> > > 0.0+git20231103-1
> > >
> > > should the upload be versioned
> > >
> > > 0.0+git20231103-0+deb12u1 (like originally proposed) or
> > > 0.0+git20231103-1~deb12u1
> >
> > As originally proposed please. You're not backporting 0.0+git20231103-1
> > directly as far as I know, because you have intermediate changes which
> > should not be included (correct me if I'm wrong about that).
>
> There have been no changes in unstable other than the new upstream version,
> so technically it would be a backport of 0.0+git20231103-1. This is a diff
> between 0.0+git20230324-1 and 0.0+git20231103-1.
>
> Makefile| 13 ++---
> compat-include/net/gso.h| 20
> debian/changelog| 21 +
> debian/rules| 2 +-
> drivers/net/ovpn-dco/ovpn.c | 1 +
> drivers/net/ovpn-dco/tcp.c | 14 +++---
> linux-compat.h | 4 ++--
> 7 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> The change in d/rules is a new directory in the new upstream version.
>
> I would just add a d/gbp.conf for the bookworm branch.
>
> So 0.0+git20231103-1~deb12u1 ?
Uploaded as this version.
Final diff against the version in bookworm is attached
Makefile| 13 ++---
compat-include/net/gso.h| 20
debian/changelog| 28
debian/gbp.conf | 2 ++
debian/rules| 2 +-
drivers/net/ovpn-dco/ovpn.c | 1 +
drivers/net/ovpn-dco/tcp.c | 14 +++---
linux-compat.h | 4 ++--
8 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
FTR, the diff between 0.0+git20231103-1 and 0.0+git20231103-1~deb12u1 is
debian/changelog | 7 +++
debian/gbp.conf | 2 ++
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
Bernhard
diffstat for openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20230324 openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20231103
Makefile| 13 ++---
compat-include/net/gso.h| 20
debian/changelog| 28
debian/gbp.conf |2 ++
debian/rules|2 +-
drivers/net/ovpn-dco/ovpn.c |1 +
drivers/net/ovpn-dco/tcp.c | 14 +++---
linux-compat.h |4 ++--
8 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff -Nru openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20230324/compat-include/net/gso.h openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20231103/compat-include/net/gso.h
--- openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20230324/compat-include/net/gso.h 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20231103/compat-include/net/gso.h 2023-11-11 22:20:11.0 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
+/* OpenVPN data channel accelerator
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2023 OpenVPN, Inc.
+ *
+ * Author: Antonio Quartulli
+ */
+
+#ifndef _NET_OVPN_COMPAT_NET_GSO_H
+#define _NET_OVPN_COMPAT_NET_GSO_H
+
+#include
+
+#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(6, 4, 10)
+#include_next
+#else
+#include
+#endif
+
+#endif /* _NET_OVPN_COMPAT_NET_GSO_H */
diff -Nru openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20230324/debian/changelog openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20231103/debian/changelog
--- openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20230324/debian/changelog 2023-04-13 09:47:41.0 +0200
+++ openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20231103/debian/changelog 2024-04-07 15:20:37.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,31 @@
+openvpn-dco-dkms (0.0+git20231103-1~deb12u1) bookworm; urgency=medium
+
+ * Upload 0.0+git20231103-1 to Debian Bookworm
+ * Add d/gbp.conf for debian/bookworm branch
+
+ -- Bernhard Schmidt Sun, 07 Apr 2024 15:20:37 +0200
+
+openvpn-dco-dkms (0.0+git20231103-1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * New upstream version 0.0+git20231103
+- fixes refcount imbalance ("waiting for tunxxx to become free") seen
+ on heavy loaded TCP servers
+
+ -- Bernhard Schmidt Sat, 11 Nov 2023 22:20:21 +0100
+
+openvpn-dco-dkms (0.0+git20230816-2) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * Install compat-include directory (Closes: #1050211)
+
+ -- Bernhard Schmidt Tue, 22 Aug 2023 18:00:24 +0200
+
+openvpn-dco-dkms (0.0+git20230816-1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * New upstream version 0.0+git20230816
+- fix build error on kernel 6.5+ (Closes: #1043116)
+
+ -- Bernhard Schmidt Mon, 21 Aug 2023 22:51:04 +0200
+
openvpn-dco-dkms (0.0+git20230324-1) unstable; urgency=medium
* Release to unstable targetting bookworm.
diff -Nru openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20230324/debian/gbp.conf openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20231103/debian/gbp.conf
--- openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20230324/debian/gbp.conf 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20231103/debian/gbp.conf 2024-04-07 15:20:37.0 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+[DEFAULT]
+debian-branch=debian/bookworm
diff -Nru openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20230324/debian/rules openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20231103/debian/rules
--- openvpn-dco-dkms-0.0+git20230324/debian/rules 2023-04-13 09:47:41.0 +0200
Re: Debian 12 released with two RC bugs in Sylpheed
In days of yore (Sun, 07 Apr 2024), José Luis González thus quoth: > Hi, > > Debian 12 was released with two Release Critical bugs I filed on May > 20th 2023 (#1036424 and #1036388) on Sylpheed about issues that I > found on stable, and remain, with Debian 12 released later on June 10th > 2023. So, bug #1036424 is a problem that when you reply to an email, it does not set the From account properly, it uses the default account. That is perhaps a usability defect, but it is not a critical impact defect by any stretch of the imagination. Critical is usually reserved for things like remote exploit, data corruption, or otherwise, you know, critical issues. The other bug, #1036388, has a little more meat on it, but still does not meet the criteria of Critical. Looking at it on the scale of Critical, Important, Medium and Low, I think it warrants Important if I understand the problem description right. Which, correct me if I am wrong, is: - Configure Sylpheed with account A and sender u...@a.com - Configure Sylpheed with additional account B and sender u...@b.com - Account A is default, but we switch to account B for the session. - When a new mail for Account A is received, it is placed in Account B's folders. Okay, that would be an annoying issue. But the bug was addressed. The issue was resolved in Sylpheed 3.8.0~beta1-1. For all I know, the issue was complex and non-trivial to backport to version 3.7.0. I am not the package maintainer, nor the upstream developer, so I am not about to yell at them when they actually produced the fix. To put a perspective on this - I use mutt, with at least four separate email accounts, all receiving email and ultimately pooling into my mailserver. When I send email, I do need to check that I am actually sending as the correct persona as mutt does guess who to send as, but it does not always get it right. Has it led to me sending emails with the wrong sender? Yep. And I apologise when it happens and move on, re-rending with the correct sender. I do not consider this to be a defect in mutt as mutt has never advertised that it will get its guesses of who to send as 100% right when there are more than one account configured as I have it set up. Also - a question that is rhetorical and more food for thought: How much are you paying for your Debian subscription and support per year? -- Kind regards, /S
Re: Debian 12 released with two RC bugs in Sylpheed
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:26:49 +0200 José Luis González wrote: > The maintainer accumulates a lot of bugs for the package, doesn't take > care about almost all, and when I filed a RC bug because the package > became unusable to me he downgraded severity to important claiming it > was just a Gmail issue, when it didn't seem so, even if it was > just happening with Gmail. I wanted to point you to this bug number to > provide records, but couldn't find it neither opened nor archived. The I found the report now. It's #1036799.
Bug#1068574: bookworm-pu: package icinga2/2.13.6-2+deb12u1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: bookworm X-Debbugs-Cc: icin...@packages.debian.org Control: affects -1 + src:icinga2 User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu [ Reason ] The ppc64el build of icinga2 segfauls on startup as reported in #1068473. It needs to be built with -O1 instead of -O2 as discovered by Aurelien Jarno. [ Impact ] Package is mostly unusable. [ Tests ] None, the optimization flags is not covered by tests. Aurelien Jarno confirmed that the changes fix the issue on ppc64el. [ Risks ] Low, the change is trivial and only affects ppc64el. [ Checklist ] [x] *all* changes are documented in the d/changelog [x] I reviewed all changes and I approve them [x] attach debdiff against the package in (old)stable [x] the issue is verified as fixed in unstable [ Changes ] The branch needs to be updated in the Vcs-Git URL for debcheckout to do the right thing, and in gbp.conf for git-buildpackage to work with a non-default branch. Appending -O1 to CXXFLAGS is required to fix the segfault on ppc64el. [ Other info ] The package is used by DSA on Debian infrastructure. Kind Regards, Bas diff -Nru icinga2-2.13.6/debian/changelog icinga2-2.13.6/debian/changelog --- icinga2-2.13.6/debian/changelog 2023-01-22 17:36:37.0 +0100 +++ icinga2-2.13.6/debian/changelog 2024-04-06 14:02:31.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@ +icinga2 (2.13.6-2+deb12u1) bookworm; urgency=medium + + * Team upload. + * Update branch in gbp.conf & Vcs-Git URL. + * Fix segfault on startup on ppc64el. +(closes: #1068473) + + -- Bas Couwenberg Sat, 06 Apr 2024 14:02:31 +0200 + icinga2 (2.13.6-2) unstable; urgency=medium * Team upload. diff -Nru icinga2-2.13.6/debian/control icinga2-2.13.6/debian/control --- icinga2-2.13.6/debian/control 2023-01-22 17:36:37.0 +0100 +++ icinga2-2.13.6/debian/control 2024-04-06 14:02:31.0 +0200 @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ tzdata Standards-Version: 4.6.2 Vcs-Browser: https://salsa.debian.org/nagios-team/icinga2 -Vcs-Git: https://salsa.debian.org/nagios-team/icinga2.git +Vcs-Git: https://salsa.debian.org/nagios-team/icinga2.git -b bookworm Homepage: https://icinga.com Rules-Requires-Root: no diff -Nru icinga2-2.13.6/debian/gbp.conf icinga2-2.13.6/debian/gbp.conf --- icinga2-2.13.6/debian/gbp.conf 2021-08-19 15:47:17.0 +0200 +++ icinga2-2.13.6/debian/gbp.conf 2024-04-06 14:02:31.0 +0200 @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ # The default name for the Debian branch is "master". # Change it if the name is different (for instance, "debian/unstable"). -debian-branch = master +debian-branch = bookworm # git-import-orig uses the following names for the upstream tags. # Change the value if you are not using git-import-orig diff -Nru icinga2-2.13.6/debian/rules icinga2-2.13.6/debian/rules --- icinga2-2.13.6/debian/rules 2022-07-12 18:49:25.0 +0200 +++ icinga2-2.13.6/debian/rules 2024-04-06 14:02:31.0 +0200 @@ -9,6 +9,11 @@ export CTEST_OUTPUT_ON_FAILURE=1 +# Fix segfault on startup: #1068473 +ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_HOST_ARCH), ppc64el)) + export DEB_CXXFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND = -O1 +endif + ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_HOST_ARCH), armel mips mipsel powerpc)) export DEB_LDFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND += -Wl,--no-as-needed -latomic -Wl,--as-needed endif
Processed: bookworm-pu: package icinga2/2.13.6-2+deb12u1
Processing control commands: > affects -1 + src:icinga2 Bug #1068574 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package icinga2/2.13.6-2+deb12u1 Added indication that 1068574 affects src:icinga2 -- 1068574: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1068574 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Re: [sylpheed:37253] Debian 12 released with two RC bugs in Sylpheed
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:26:49 +0200 José Luis González wrote: > Debian 12 was released with two Release Critical bugs I filed on May > 20th 2023 (#1036424 and #1036388) on Sylpheed about issues that I > found on stable, and remain, with Debian 12 released later on June 10th > 2023. Those are not "Release Critical bugs". > I want to know why Debian 12 was released with those two Sylpheed RC > bags, report the incident to you all, know what to do with the > maintainer and kindly request that someone better at the job takes over > Sylpheed maintainance, or otherwise I will become a Debian developer > and package it myself. The upstream mailing list is not the place for this Debian discussion. On the one hand you "kindly request" and on the other your hurl unwarranted insults on a public list about the long-term Debian maintainer. Maybe Debian will overlook your behaviour and accept you as a developer, I don't know. with regards Paul
Debian 12 released with two RC bugs in Sylpheed
Hi, Debian 12 was released with two Release Critical bugs I filed on May 20th 2023 (#1036424 and #1036388) on Sylpheed about issues that I found on stable, and remain, with Debian 12 released later on June 10th 2023. The maintainer accumulates a lot of bugs for the package, doesn't take care about almost all, and when I filed a RC bug because the package became unusable to me he downgraded severity to important claiming it was just a Gmail issue, when it didn't seem so, even if it was just happening with Gmail. I wanted to point you to this bug number to provide records, but couldn't find it neither opened nor archived. The supposed solution at the time for it was to upload 3.7.0beta1, when the existing version was 3.6.0, and the issue magically disappeared without explanation from him. I discovered he uploaded later another beta (3.8.0beta1), which was included in Debian 12. As far as I recall, 3.7.0beta1 got into Debian 11. He even claimed at the time that Sylpheed was too old and so troublesome and useless and was considering removing it from Debian just because of that. I want to know why Debian 12 was released with those two Sylpheed RC bags, report the incident to you all, know what to do with the maintainer and kindly request that someone better at the job takes over Sylpheed maintainance, or otherwise I will become a Debian developer and package it myself. There are earlier precedents of me filing a RC bug on Sylpheed, with the bug getting unattended, he raising a bad excuse that it was inexistant, and the package caming up later with a newer version with the issue solved and me making the mistake of thinking I was wrong about the bug existing and needed to be filed, and (me) closed the bug, most likely when it still remained in stable (this I don't remember perfectly at this time). I even have no doubt that what he packaged to stable (bookworm) currently has at least one back door that is not credible at all is in upstream, showing up with the spell checker marking some words in this email as wrong after initially turning up as correctly spelt, namedly "caming" and "mistakingly".
Bug#1063417: bookworm-pu: package libapache2-mod-qos/11.74-1+deb12u1
Control: tag -1 moreinfo Hi, On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:50:39AM -0500, Jérôme Charaoui wrote: > Hello, > > I had an exchange with a fellow DD about this update and uploading this to > bookworm-backports was suggested as a possible alternative considering the > large size of the .debdiff : > > > olasd | lavamind: in terms of policy, a backport would be allowed (it's a > new upstream release, it's in testing, and you seem to be using the package, > so you might as well upload it to bpo); That still leaves a buggy package in > bookworm, if the bookworm package has never worked, pulling in the newer > upstream release into a stable update may be deemed acceptable by the SRMs; > looking at the upstream changelog of libapache2-mod-qos, the changes for > compatibility with pcre2 (which is what our apache2 now builds against, > since 2.4.52-2) have been introduced in libapache2-mod-qos upstream 11.73. > Backporting the pcre2 support to the libapache2-mod-qos version in bookworm > isn't a very sensible option IMO, in terms of maintainability > > If SRMs agree with this assessement, I can close this bug and prepare and > upload to bookworm-backports instead. It's one sensible path forward and it gives you more flexibility, but it leaves a gap for users upgrading from bullseye. Long term, is a new maintainer forthcoming? The orphan bug doesn't seem to have any interest since being opened in 2019 and there weren't any uploads at all until last year. Maybe its future should be considered first and then that will inform the decision about how to handle stable. Thanks, -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 ed25519/0x196418AAEB74C8A1: CA619D65A72A7BADFC96D280196418AAEB74C8A1
Processed: Re: Bug#1063417: bookworm-pu: package libapache2-mod-qos/11.74-1+deb12u1
Processing control commands: > tag -1 moreinfo Bug #1063417 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package libapache2-mod-qos/11.74-1+deb12u1 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1063417: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1063417 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1061594: bookworm-pu: package vasttrafik-cli/1.9-1
Control: tag -1 moreinfo On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 02:32:26AM +0100, Salvo "LtWorf" Tomaselli wrote: > [ Reason ] > The tool is a client to a public API. > > The provider of the API has shut down the public API used by that version and > made a new one. > > https://developer.vasttrafik.se/news/3 > > The new version of the package that is in sid uses the new API. > > I just want to bump. The changes are rather extensive, it does not make sense > to backport them. Does the API vendor give any stability guarantees? It seems quite new and we don't really want this same situation again. Since this package is not in oldstable, has relatively few users, and needs a rewrite, have you considered removal from stable and providing it through backports instead? That gives you a lot more flexibility throughout bookworm's lifetime. Thanks, -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 ed25519/0x196418AAEB74C8A1: CA619D65A72A7BADFC96D280196418AAEB74C8A1
Processed: Re: Bug#1061594: bookworm-pu: package vasttrafik-cli/1.9-1
Processing control commands: > tag -1 moreinfo Bug #1061594 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package vasttrafik-cli/1.9-1 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1061594: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1061594 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
