Bug#913846: marked as done (nmu: qtox_1.15.0-1)

2018-11-16 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Fri, 16 Nov 2018 22:58:22 +0100 with message-id <20181116215819.liopuxqd4ofxz...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#913846: qtox: Uninstallable on at least amd64 (might need binNMU against recent ffmpeg) has caused the Debian Bug report #913846, regarding nmu: qtox_1.15.0-1

Processed: Re: Bug#913846: qtox: Uninstallable on at least amd64 (might need binNMU against recent ffmpeg)

2018-11-16 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing control commands: > reassign -1 release.debian.org Bug #913846 [qtox] qtox: Uninstallable on at least amd64 (might need binNMU against recent ffmpeg) Bug reassigned from package 'qtox' to 'release.debian.org'. No longer marked as found in versions qtox/1.15.0-1. Ignoring request to

Re: Bug#913846: qtox: Uninstallable on at least amd64 (might need binNMU against recent ffmpeg)

2018-11-16 Thread Adrian Bunk
Control: reassign -1 release.debian.org Control: severity -1 normal Control: retitle -1 nmu: qtox_1.15.0-1 On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:57:57PM +0100, Axel Beckert wrote: > Package: qtox > Version: 1.15.0-1 > Severity: serious > > qtox is currently uninstallable on at least amd64 due its

Bug#913885: stretch-pu: package libapache2-mod-perl2/2.0.10-2+deb9u1

2018-11-16 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: stretch User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu This fixes a low-severity security issue which was recently fixed in unstable (and also jessie-lts): https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=644169 The release will be

Bug#913881: stretch-pu: package uriparser/0.8.4-1

2018-11-16 Thread Jörg Frings-Fürst
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: stretch User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hello, the attached debdiff fix the CVE-2018-19198, CVE-2018-19199 and CVE-2018-19200. The maintainer email address and the

Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references

2018-11-16 Thread Chris Lamb
Dear Marc, > I value the opinion of the anti-harassment team but I believe this is > outside their mission. At the moment we do not have any team in charge > of validating the non-technical aspects of the packages. I would be very interested if you could briefly elaborate on why you believe