Bug#930795: unblock: ruby-airbrussh/1.3.2-1

2019-08-23 Thread Samuel Henrique
Hello, Uploaded: ruby-airbrussh_1.3.1-2+deb10u1_source.changes ACCEPTED into proposed-updates->stable-new Thanks for your work and help Adam and Paul, -- Samuel Henrique

Bug#930795: unblock: ruby-airbrussh/1.3.2-1

2019-08-23 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Control: tags -1 + confirmed On Wed, 2019-08-21 at 00:22 +0100, Samuel Henrique wrote: > I backported the fix to 1.3.1-2, the version is 1.3.1-2+deb10u1 and I > will need to wait until 1.3.3-1 hits testing*, which is fine (2 > days), to upload it. > > * because the current version in testing is

Bug#930795: unblock: ruby-airbrussh/1.3.2-1

2019-08-23 Thread Samuel Henrique
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo Removing moreinfo tag as 1.3.3-1 is on testing and the debdiff for 1.3.1-2+deb10u1 is attached in the previous email, Thanks, -- Samuel Henrique

Bug#930795: unblock: ruby-airbrussh/1.3.2-1

2019-08-20 Thread Samuel Henrique
Hello Adam, Thanks for your patience and explanation, here's the debdiff with the solution I picked, I backported the fix to 1.3.1-2, the version is 1.3.1-2+deb10u1 and I will need to wait until 1.3.3-1 hits testing*, which is fine (2 days), to upload it. * because the current version in

Bug#930795: unblock: ruby-airbrussh/1.3.2-1

2019-08-20 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Tue, 2019-08-20 at 22:22 +0100, Samuel Henrique wrote: > Hello Adam, > > > It certainly can't be 1.3.2-1+deb10u1, as that version number is > > higher > > than the package in unstable. Either one would need to go with > > 1.3.1- > > 2+deb10u1 with just the bug fix applied, or 1.3.2-1~deb10u1

Bug#930795: unblock: ruby-airbrussh/1.3.2-1

2019-08-20 Thread Samuel Henrique
Hello Adam, It certainly can't be 1.3.2-1+deb10u1, as that version number is higher > than the package in unstable. Either one would need to go with 1.3.1- > 2+deb10u1 with just the bug fix applied, or 1.3.2-1~deb10u1 with a > "backports-style" changelog containing both 1.3.2-1 and then the

Bug#930795: unblock: ruby-airbrussh/1.3.2-1

2019-08-19 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Tue, 2019-08-20 at 00:33 +0100, Samuel Henrique wrote: > Thanks for your help Paul :) > > I'm attaching a debdiff for 1.3.2-1+deb10u1, release team please > advise whether that's acceptable or not (please read discussion on > the bugreport), It certainly can't be

Bug#930795: unblock: ruby-airbrussh/1.3.2-1

2019-08-19 Thread Samuel Henrique
Thanks for your help Paul :) I'm attaching a debdiff for 1.3.2-1+deb10u1, release team please advise whether that's acceptable or not (please read discussion on the bugreport), Regards, -- Samuel Henrique ruby-airbrussh_1.3.2-1+deb10u1.debdiff Description: Binary data

Bug#930795: unblock: ruby-airbrussh/1.3.2-1

2019-07-02 Thread Paul Gevers
retitle 930795 buster-pu: package ruby-airbrussh user release.debian@packages.debian.org usertags 930795 - unblock usertags 930795 pu tags 930795 buster thanks On 02-07-2019 01:14, Samuel Henrique wrote: > I can see you have lots of work to do, so if you feel like this should > not be fixed

Bug#930795: unblock: ruby-airbrussh/1.3.2-1

2019-07-01 Thread Samuel Henrique
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo Hello Paul, Control: tags -1 moreinfo > I removed the moreinfo tag as I assume now you will have enough information to make a judgement call on this one, feel free to tell me if I should not have done so. > > I'm asking for the unblock of ruby-airbrussh > > because

Bug#930795: unblock: ruby-airbrussh/1.3.2-1

2019-06-21 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Samuel On 20-06-2019 20:38, Samuel Henrique wrote: > I'm asking for the unblock of ruby-airbrussh > because a critical bug was solved in the last upload. > > The bug is related to the package throwing an exception when dealing > with non UTF-8 characters coming from

Bug#930795: unblock: ruby-airbrussh/1.3.2-1

2019-06-20 Thread Samuel Henrique
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Hello, I'm asking for the unblock of ruby-airbrussh because a critical bug was solved in the last upload. The bug is related to the package throwing an exception when dealing with non