On 3/21/24 11:47 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Package marked for autoremoval due to closed bug? [and 1
more messages]"):
Steve, could you please do this for *all* the time_t transition RC
bugs?
IMO things are currently ON FIRE.
Exaggeration is an art.
If n
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:47:21AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Package marked for autoremoval due to closed bug?
> [and 1 more messages]"):
> > Steve, could you please do this for *all* the time_t transition RC
> > bugs?
> IMO things are
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Package marked for autoremoval due to closed bug? [and
1 more messages]"):
> Steve, could you please do this for *all* the time_t transition RC
> bugs?
IMO things are currently ON FIRE.
If no-one else has put this fire out by 24h from now, I will attem
Hi!
On Tue, 2024-03-19 at 10:32:04 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> [2] In my case src:dgit depends on git-buildpackage. The autoremoval
> robot wants to remove git-buildpackage because of the time_t bugs
> against rpm, xdelta, and pristine-tar. One root cause is that
> src:dpkg isn't migrating
Hi,
On 19-03-2024 11:32 a.m., Ian Jackson wrote:
Paul Gevers writes ("Re: Package marked for autoremoval due to closed bug?"):
For bookkeeping purposes, please usertag downgraded bugs with user
release.debian@packages.debian.org and usertag time_t-downgrade.
I was informed t
Hi Paul,
Am Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 09:52:06PM +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers:
> For bookkeeping purposes, please usertag downgraded bugs with user
> release.debian@packages.debian.org and usertag time_t-downgrade.
>
> Please be careful with downgrading RC bugs.
I agree with Ian that it might make
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Package marked for autoremoval due to closed bug?"):
> Migration to testing is largely out of control of the maintainers at this
> point, it's very much dependent on folks rebootstrapping armel and armhf
> against the new library names. Should these
Hi zigo,
On 16-03-2024 12:31 a.m., Thomas Goirand wrote:
But when the AUTORM period was announced as reduced, I thought
like it was probably a bad call, and that the previous AUTORM was
aggressive enough.
I'm not aware that we reduced autoremoval times in recent history. Are
you maybe
On 3/15/24 07:14, Andreas Tille wrote:
I simply remove all those testing removal warnings in my
mailbox to cope with this and by doing so I'm probably missing real
issues I should rather care about.
I know what you're talking about: anyone that maintains a lot of
packages always receive waves
On 3/15/24 21:52, Paul Gevers wrote:
Hi,
Disclaimer: exception only valid while the time_t transition is ongoing.
On 15-03-2024 6:15 a.m., Steve Langasek wrote:
Migration to testing is largely out of control of the maintainers at this
point, it's very much dependent on folks rebootstrapping
Hi,
Disclaimer: exception only valid while the time_t transition is ongoing.
On 15-03-2024 6:15 a.m., Steve Langasek wrote:
Migration to testing is largely out of control of the maintainers at this
point, it's very much dependent on folks rebootstrapping armel and armhf
against the new library
Am Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:15:18PM -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
>
> Migration to testing is largely out of control of the maintainers at this
> point, it's very much dependent on folks rebootstrapping armel and armhf
> against the new library names. Should these bugs be downgraded again to
>
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 05:03:55AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On March 15, 2024 3:54:05 AM UTC, Steven Robbins wrote:
> >According to the "action needed" section for nifticlib [1], it is:
> >Marked for autoremoval on 31 March: #1063178
> >But that bug is fixed for the version in unstable.
On March 15, 2024 3:54:05 AM UTC, Steven Robbins wrote:
>According to the "action needed" section for nifticlib [1], it is:
>
>Marked for autoremoval on 31 March: #1063178
>
>But that bug is fixed for the version in unstable.
>Why does that cause the package to be removed?
>
>[1]
According to the "action needed" section for nifticlib [1], it is:
Marked for autoremoval on 31 March: #1063178
But that bug is fixed for the version in unstable.
Why does that cause the package to be removed?
[1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/nifticlib
Thanks,
-Steve
signature.asc
15 matches
Mail list logo
