On 2024-04-01 10:39:08 -0400, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
> On Monday, April 1, 2024, at 2:57 PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Could you please re-add the build dependency on dpkg-dev (>= 1.22.5) to
> > ensure that the build with the new armel/armhf ABI only migrates when
> > the time_t
On Monday, April 1, 2024, at 2:57 PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Could you please re-add the build dependency on dpkg-dev (>= 1.22.5) to
> ensure that the build with the new armel/armhf ABI only migrates when
> the time_t transition is ready to advance?
Yes! I am going to wait for the
On 2024-03-29 17:27:58 -0400, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
> On Friday, March 29, 2024, at 1:02 PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Since the version in unstable fails to build on armel and armhf and
> > blocks the time_t transition, but the version in experimental builds
> > fine, let's do this
On Friday, March 29, 2024, at 1:02 PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Since the version in unstable fails to build on armel and armhf and
> blocks the time_t transition, but the version in experimental builds
> fine, let's do this transition now.
>
> With the upload to unstable, please check
Control: tags -1 confirmed
Hi Benjamin
On 2024-02-14 21:01:40 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> On 2024-02-14 14:48:49 -0500, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
> > I’d like to alter this transition request. Instead of transitioning to
> > version 20230802, I’d like to transition to version 20240116,
On 2024-02-14 14:48:49 -0500, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
> I’d like to alter this transition request. Instead of transitioning to
> version 20230802, I’d like to transition to version 20240116, which
> upstream recently released.
>
> Is that okay? If so, I’ll upload 20240116 to experimental and
I’d like to alter this transition request. Instead of transitioning to
version 20230802, I’d like to transition to version 20240116, which
upstream recently released.
Is that okay? If so, I’ll upload 20240116 to experimental and reexamine
reverse dependencies. If not, please let me know how to
Hi,
Am 27.12.23 um 19:15 schrieb Benjamin Barenblat:
Although doing a transition now will break some packages in sid, I
believe waiting is likely to cause more issues. Upstreams (LibreOffice
in particular) are starting to use features from the new version of
Abseil,
Actually it's not
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
X-Debbugs-Cc: abs...@packages.debian.org, Rene Engelhard
Control: affects -1 + src:abseil
Abseil 20230802 has been out for a while, and I'd like to transition sid
to it. The new version
9 matches
Mail list logo
