Hi,
gnunet-fuse currently FTBFS (674342), essentially because it's the old 0.8.x
package. gnunet 0.9.2 is in wheezy, but gnunet-fuse 0.9.3 needs gnunet 0.9.3,
and Bertrand is preparing packages for both atm.
As you'll know, gnunet is involved in the mysql transition, which is why I'm
mailing
Hello Pino,
Pino Toscano p...@debian.org (07/06/2012):
Apparently the way things based on poppler-sharp build makes them carry
a dependency on libpoppler-glib, so could you please
a) add b-d on libpoppler-cil-dev to the affected packages in the
transition tracker
done.
b) binNMU pdfmod
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 10:32:51PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
The upload eventually happened, and I've flagged it for acceptance in to
proposed-updates.
Thank you.
Chasing up the reporter again would be appreciated.
Any news on that?
Recent conversation with the reporter is attached to
On 08/06/12 11:33, Joachim Breitner wrote:
besides some very few remaining rebuilds on mipsel and sparc, the
haskell transition is almost ready, if there were not a release
critical bug in haskell-cryptocipher affecting big-endian machines
(mips, mipsel, ppc, s390x, s390x, sparc).
I have
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 08.06.2012, 13:16 +0200 schrieb Mehdi Dogguy:
On 08/06/12 11:33, Joachim Breitner wrote:
IOW, remove the following list?
haskell-cryptocipher
haskell-clientsession
haskell-cprng-aes
haskell-tls
haskell-tls-extra
haskell-authenticate
haskell-hledger-web
On 08/06/12 14:01, Joachim Breitner wrote:
If they are
really fixed in sid, I think we can age them to let haskell stack migrate.
Ok, if there is no rush before the freeze we can do that. I’ll see if
the package in experimental really fixes the problem and then upload to
unstable.
Please
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
clone 675762 -1
Bug #675762 [ftp.debian.org] RM: python-cdb -- RoQA; license violation
Bug 675762 cloned as bug 676640
reassign 675762 release.debian.org
Bug #675762 [ftp.debian.org] RM: python-cdb -- RoQA; license violation
Bug reassigned from
Dear release team,
The ttb package in stable misses a dependency, making it unusable by
default [1]. This is already fixed in testing/unstable, and I want to
upload an fixed package to proposed-updates. A diff with current
version in stable is shown below. Could you let me know if this is
OK?
Jeroen Schot wrote:
+ttb (1.0.1-3+squeeze1) stable; urgency=low
+
+ * Depends on python-glade2 (Closes: #616325).
+
+ -- Jeroen Schot sc...@a-eskwadraat.nl Fri, 08 Jun 2012 10:46:45 +0200
+
ttb (1.0.1-3) unstable; urgency=medium
* debian/control:
diff -ruN
Touko Korpela touko.korp...@iki.fi (08/06/2012):
diff -ruN ttb-1.0.1.orig/debian/control ttb-1.0.1/debian/control
--- ttb-1.0.1.orig/debian/control 2012-06-08 10:49:51.0 +0200
+++ ttb-1.0.1/debian/control2012-06-08 10:50:15.0 +0200
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
Package:
On 12-06-08 at 02:13pm, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 08/06/12 14:01, Joachim Breitner wrote:
As we are resetting the age timer anyways I guess this means that
John can also get his new pandoc version in
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-haskell/2012/06/msg00010.html).
No, it doesn't mean that.
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: rm
Greetings Release Team members,
please remove ultracopier 0.2.0.16-1 from testing and unstable. This
version contains non free material and fails to provide some source for
some GPL licensed
retitle 676671 RM: ultracopier -- RoM; non-free files
reassign 676671 ftp.debian.org
thanks
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 19:40 +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
please remove ultracopier 0.2.0.16-1 from testing and unstable.
We can't do that - specifically the unstable part. The process in this
case
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
retitle 676671 RM: ultracopier -- RoM; non-free files
Bug #676671 [release.debian.org] RM: ultracopier/0.2.0.16-1 -- RoM; non-free
files
Changed Bug title to 'RM: ultracopier -- RoM; non-free files' from 'RM:
ultracopier/0.2.0.16-1 -- RoM;
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
user release.debian@packages.debian.org
Setting user to release.debian@packages.debian.org (was
a...@adam-barratt.org.uk).
usertags 675762 + rm
Bug#675762: RM: python-cdb/0.34-0.1
There were no usertags set.
Usertags are now: rm.
tags
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 22:52 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
At some point we need to transition from mysql-5.1 to mysql-5.5. We
would like to do this before the freeze though we appreciate that time
is now short. We arrived at this position as the Debian MySQL Team became
increasingly
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 23:40 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 04/06/12 at 19:59 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
But now, the last step is to switch to 1.9.x as default, instead of 1.8.
Yes, it's late in the release cycle. But:
(0) the switch to 1.9.x as default Ruby is very important for us, since
Dear release team,
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 10:06:56AM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
Please hold on. The rebuilt packages are currently causing FTBFS for
other packages. See #675613 for details. TL;DR: The triggers are
executed too early. Guillem Jover intends to solve this in dpkg.
Thanks to
Hi list,
It seems M-A:same packages are not binNMU safe, even when requested on
all archs because every arch uses its own copy of debian/changelog
item.
Does this mean M-A:same packages should be prevented from being
binNMUed, but only source upload can be accepted?
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 4:24
+++ Joachim Breitner [Jun 04 12 22:02 ]:
Hi,
Am Montag, den 04.06.2012, 09:28 -0700 schrieb John MacFarlane:
I would very much like to get a new version of pandoc in
before the freeze. The current version in debian has some
serious bugs with citations in footnotes.
The newest
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 04:36:40AM +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
Does this mean M-A:same packages should be prevented from being
binNMUed, but only source upload can be accepted?
You cannot deprive the Release Team of this tool. Also multiarch bugs are IMHO
at most important, not serious. Possibly we
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 04:36:40AM +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
Does this mean M-A:same packages should be prevented from being
binNMUed, but only source upload can be accepted?
You cannot deprive the Release Team of this tool.
I plan to release Linux 3.2.20 on Sunday or Monday, with the usual
mixture of important bug fixes and trivial changes for new hardware
support.
I intend to upload to unstable shortly after. Note that the source
package name will at last change from 'linux-2.6' to 'linux', and the
format will
On 08/06/12 at 20:06 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 23:40 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 04/06/12 at 19:59 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
But now, the last step is to switch to 1.9.x as default, instead of 1.8.
Yes, it's late in the release cycle. But:
(0) the switch
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 04:36:40AM +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
Does this mean M-A:same packages should be prevented from being
binNMUed, but only source upload can be accepted?
You cannot deprive the Release Team of this tool. Also multiarch bugs are IMHO
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
h...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 04:36:40AM +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
Does this mean M-A:same packages should be prevented from being
binNMUed, but only source upload can be
26 matches
Mail list logo
