Re: Unsattisfied dependency python-cffi-backend-api-min (<= 9729)

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 08:17:22PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > well, the source-only upload to jessie-backports was rejected, claiming > that architecture-independent packages have to be included. Great surprise, > that wasn't the case before. source only uploads (without arch:all binaries) to

Re: Unsattisfied dependency python-cffi-backend-api-min (<= 9729)

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:18:43PM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 07:17:03PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > Fixed package is in sid (5.0-3) since Fri, 15 Jul, should migrate to > > testing soon. I just uploaded to jessie-backports. > > It migrated to testing this morning.

Bug#828966: marked as done (transition: ros-ros-comm)

Your message dated Thu, 21 Jul 2016 19:17:27 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#828966: transition: ros-ros-comm has caused the Debian Bug report #828966, regarding transition: ros-ros-comm to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#830966: marked as done (transition: gdal)

Your message dated Thu, 21 Jul 2016 19:18:05 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#830966: transition: gdal has caused the Debian Bug report #830966, regarding transition: gdal to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Bug#829371: marked as done (transition: ntl)

Your message dated Thu, 21 Jul 2016 19:19:10 +0200 with message-id <7c9fd70d-e6d9-0ce8-a383-5f9f532c2...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#829371: transition: ntl has caused the Debian Bug report #829371, regarding transition: ntl to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Re: Unsattisfied dependency python-cffi-backend-api-min (<= 9729)

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 07:17:03PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > Fixed package is in sid (5.0-3) since Fri, 15 Jul, should migrate to > testing soon. I just uploaded to jessie-backports. It migrated to testing this morning. -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A

Re: Unsattisfied dependency python-cffi-backend-api-min (<= 9729)

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 07:04:47PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Hi, > > On 13/07/16 19:19, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > I think I have found the bug, for the moment I am waiting for confirmation > > by someone more knowledgable than me about this part of the code. > > Any progress on this?

Re: openjpeg / stretch

On 18/07/16 13:12, Alastair McKinstry wrote: > Hi, > > Can we downgrade the move from openjpeg1.x to openjpeg2.x ? Still > keeping it as a release goal, but RC-critical? > > I maintain (most of) the meteorology software, and the principal format > for weather data is GRIB2, which uses openjpeg

Re: Unsattisfied dependency python-cffi-backend-api-min (<= 9729)

Hi, On 13/07/16 19:19, Ralf Treinen wrote: > I think I have found the bug, for the moment I am waiting for confirmation > by someone more knowledgable than me about this part of the code. Any progress on this? Do you have a patch? It'd be good to fix this, as at the moment there are many

Bug#819530: transition: icu

Hi Laszlo, On 30/03/16 07:38, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote: > ICU has a new major upstream release, supporting several new things > that I would like to see in Stretch: > - CLDR[1] 28 [2] and 29 [3] support, > - Unicode 8.0.0 [4] support. What's the status of this? I see it is in experimental

Bug#830137: marked as done (transition: gnustep-gui)

Your message dated Thu, 21 Jul 2016 18:59:25 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#830137: transition: gnustep-gui has caused the Debian Bug report #830137, regarding transition: gnustep-gui to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Bug#831810: transition: libmicrohttpd

On 21/07/16 15:53, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > On 2016-07-19 20:19, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 19/07/16 19:01, Bertrand Marc wrote: >>> Do you know if I could have access to a testing build infrastructure ? >> >> You can ask someone (your sponsor) to request access to a porterbox for you.

Processed: Re: Bug#832030: transition: givaro

Processing control commands: > tags -1 confirmed Bug #832030 [release.debian.org] transition: givaro Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 832030: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=832030 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#832030: transition: givaro

Control: tags -1 confirmed On 21/07/16 16:52, Doug Torrance wrote: > A new upstream release of givaro (version 4.0.1) which bumps the SONAME has > recently been packaged and uploaded to experimental. Therefore, I am > requesting a transition slot. Go ahead. Cheers, Emilio

Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

On 21/07/16 at 16:40 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2016-07-21 16:18 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:21:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > >> Some of the new bugs are like this: > >> > >> make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop. > >> > >> Targets

Processed: Re: Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > clone 830997 -1 Bug #830997 [release.debian.org] release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC Bug 830997 cloned as bug 832029 > reassign -1 lintian Bug #832029 [release.debian.org] release.debian.org: Permission to

Bug#832030: transition: givaro

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Hello! A new upstream release of givaro (version 4.0.1) which bumps the SONAME has recently been packaged and uploaded to experimental. Therefore, I am requesting a transition slot.

Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

clone 830997 -1 reassign -1 lintian retitle -1 lintian: fails to detect missing build-indep target in 9 packages thanks On 21/07/16 at 16:18 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:21:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > Some of the new bugs are like this: > > > > make: ***

Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

On 2016-07-21 16:18 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:21:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > >> Some of the new bugs are like this: >> >> make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop. >> >> Targets build-arch and build-indep are mandatory, and this was already >>

Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:21:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > Some of the new bugs are like this: > > make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop. > > Targets build-arch and build-indep are mandatory, and this was already > decided by dpkg author. This is not new, so I would raise

Bug#831810: transition: libmicrohttpd

On 2016-07-19 20:19, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: On 19/07/16 19:01, Bertrand Marc wrote: Do you know if I could have access to a testing build infrastructure ? You can ask someone (your sponsor) to request access to a porterbox for you. Other than that, I don't know. As a DM, Bertrand

Bug#831810: transition: libmicrohttpd

Hi, Le 19/07/2016 à 21:19, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit : > In lack of that, do you know how much the ABI changed? Sorry I missed that bit in my first message. To my mind (but I am not sure), the soname bump comes from a new member in the middle of a union struct exposed in

Bug#832004: jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4

On 2016-07-21 11:25, Andrew Shadura wrote: On 21/07/16 12:19, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On 2016-07-21 11:01, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed [...] +wpa (2.3-1+deb8u4) jessie-security; urgency=medium The distribution there should be "jessie" (and was in the earlier

Bug#832004: jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4

On 21/07/16 12:19, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On 2016-07-21 11:01, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed > [...] >> +wpa (2.3-1+deb8u4) jessie-security; urgency=medium >> >> The distribution there should be "jessie" (and was in the earlier >> diff). With that changed,

Bug#832004: jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4

Control: tags -1 +moreinfo -confirmed On 2016-07-21 11:01, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed [...] +wpa (2.3-1+deb8u4) jessie-security; urgency=medium The distribution there should be "jessie" (and was in the earlier diff). With that changed, please feel free to go

Processed: Re: Bug#832004: jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4

Processing control commands: > tags -1 +moreinfo -confirmed Bug #832004 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4 Added tag(s) moreinfo. Bug #832004 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4 Removed tag(s) confirmed. -- 832004:

Bug#832004: jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4

Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed [CCing -boot@ and kibi for reference, as wpa produces a udeb. The fixes look "obviously correct" enough to me] On 2016-07-21 10:51, Andrew Shadura wrote: On 21/07/16 11:42, Andrew Shadura wrote: On 21/07/16 11:37, Andrew Shadura wrote: On 21/07/16

Processed: Re: Bug#832004: jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4

Processing control commands: > tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed Bug #832004 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4 Removed tag(s) moreinfo. Bug #832004 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 832004:

Bug#832004: jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4

On 21/07/16 11:42, Andrew Shadura wrote: > On 21/07/16 11:37, Andrew Shadura wrote: >> On 21/07/16 11:32, Adam D. Barratt wrote: I realise that none of the above are actually enabled in debian/patches/series, but that makes it even more confusing that they're in the diff. Please

Bug#832004: jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4

On 21/07/16 11:37, Andrew Shadura wrote: > On 21/07/16 11:32, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> > I realise that none of the above are actually enabled in >> > debian/patches/series, but that makes it even more confusing that >> > they're in the diff. Please prepare and test a package that contains >> >

Bug#832004: jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4

On 21/07/16 11:32, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > I realise that none of the above are actually enabled in > debian/patches/series, but that makes it even more confusing that > they're in the diff. Please prepare and test a package that contains > only the changes relating to fixing CVE-2016-4476 and

Processed: Re: Bug#832004: jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #832004 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 832004: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=832004 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#832004: jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On 2016-07-21 9:51, Andrew Shadura wrote: I have prepared an upload fixing CVE-2016-4476 and CVE-2016-4477. Please find the attached debdiff. I may be missing something, but what do these changes have to do with fixing either of the CVEs you mentioned?

Bug#832004: jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: jessie User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu Hi, I have prepared an upload fixing CVE-2016-4476 and CVE-2016-4477. Please find the attached debdiff. Sébastien Delafond advised me this upload is for the point release, and

Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

On 21/07/16 at 02:21 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 09:47:52PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 15/07/16 at 00:23 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > > I did some work to verify Santiago's list of affected packages, and > > identified more affected packages. The additional