Processed: tagging 1059535

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 1059535 + confirmed Bug #1059535 [release.debian.org] transition: abseil Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #1059535 to the same tags previously set > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. --

Bug#1064810: Bug#1067055: openmpi: error: implicit declaration of function 'OPAL_THREAD_ADD_FETCH64'

On 2024-04-01 12:05:30 +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote: > > On 23/03/2024 01:58, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > Andrey Rakhmatullin dixit: > > > > > OPAL_THREAD_ADD_FETCH64 is defined under #if OPAL_HAVE_ATOMIC_MATH_64 > > > And I assume this arch doesn't have 64-bit atomics. > > No native ones,

NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: linux-signed-arm64_6.1.82+1_arm64-buildd.changes ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: linux-signed-amd64_6.1.82+1_amd64-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: linux-signed-i386_6.1.82+1_i386-buildd.changes ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: linux-signed-amd64_6.1.82+1_source.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: linux-signed-arm64_6.1.82+1_source.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: linux-signed-i386_6.1.82+1_source.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: mediawiki_1.39.7-1~deb12u1_source.changes

Re: Re-planning for 12.6

Hi, Adam D. Barratt (2024-04-01): > As we had to postpone 12.6, let's look at alternative dates. I should be able to make anything work. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org) D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

Bug#1059535: transition: abseil

On 2024-04-01 10:39:08 -0400, Benjamin Barenblat wrote: > On Monday, April 1, 2024, at 2:57 PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > Could you please re-add the build dependency on dpkg-dev (>= 1.22.5) to > > ensure that the build with the new armel/armhf ABI only migrates when > > the time_t

Re: Re-planning for 12.6

On 01/04/2024 13:07, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Hi, As we had to postpone 12.6, let's look at alternative dates. April 13th - Not great for me for personal reasons, mhy previously said no. I could probably do if need be April 20th - Doesn't work for me; I'm away from the Tuesday before until late

Bug#1059535: transition: abseil

On Monday, April 1, 2024, at 2:57 PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > Could you please re-add the build dependency on dpkg-dev (>= 1.22.5) to > ensure that the build with the new armel/armhf ABI only migrates when > the time_t transition is ready to advance? Yes! I am going to wait for the

NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: gpaste_43.1-3+deb12u1_mips64el-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: gross_1.0.2-4.1~deb12u1_mips64el-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: libpod_4.3.1+ds1-8+deb12u1_mips64el-buildd.changes ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: gpaste_43.1-3+deb12u1_mipsel-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: gross_1.0.2-4.1~deb12u1_mipsel-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: libpod_4.3.1+ds1-8+deb12u1_mipsel-buildd.changes ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: libpod_4.3.1+ds1-8+deb12u1_amd64-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: libpod_4.3.1+ds1-8+deb12u1_arm64-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: libpod_4.3.1+ds1-8+deb12u1_armel-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file:

Bug#1059535: transition: abseil

On 2024-03-29 17:27:58 -0400, Benjamin Barenblat wrote: > On Friday, March 29, 2024, at 1:02 PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > Since the version in unstable fails to build on armel and armhf and > > blocks the time_t transition, but the version in experimental builds > > fine, let's do this

NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: gpaste_43.1-3+deb12u1_all-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: gpaste_43.1-3+deb12u1_amd64-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: gpaste_43.1-3+deb12u1_arm64-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: gpaste_43.1-3+deb12u1_armel-buildd.changes

Re-planning for 12.6

Hi, As we had to postpone 12.6, let's look at alternative dates. April 13th - Not great for me for personal reasons, mhy previously said no. I could probably do if need be April 20th - Doesn't work for me; I'm away from the Tuesday before until late on the Friday April 27th - Doesn't work for

NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: gpaste_43.1-3+deb12u1_source.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: gross_1.0.2-4.1~deb12u1_source.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: libpod_4.3.1+ds1-8+deb12u1_source.changes ACCEPT

Processed: Re: Bug#1068084: bookworm-pu: package intel-microcode/3.20240312.1~deb12u1

Processing control commands: > tag -1 confirmed Bug #1068084 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package intel-microcode/3.20240312.1~deb12u1 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 1068084: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1068084 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org

Bug#1068084: bookworm-pu: package intel-microcode/3.20240312.1~deb12u1

Control: tag -1 confirmed On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 07:47:05AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > As requested by the security team, I would like to bring the microcode > update level for Intel processors in Bullseye and Bookworm to match what > we have in Sid and Trixie. This is the bug

Processed: libpod 4.3.1+ds1-8+deb12u1 flagged for acceptance

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > package release.debian.org Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'release.debian.org' Limit currently set to 'package':'release.debian.org' > tags 1066096 = bookworm pending Bug #1066096 [release.debian.org]

Processed: gross 1.0.2-4.1~deb12u1 flagged for acceptance

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > package release.debian.org Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'release.debian.org' Limit currently set to 'package':'release.debian.org' > tags 1068033 = bookworm pending Bug #1068033 [release.debian.org]

Processed: gpaste 43.1-3+deb12u1 flagged for acceptance

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > package release.debian.org Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'release.debian.org' Limit currently set to 'package':'release.debian.org' > tags 1067980 = bookworm pending Bug #1067980 [release.debian.org]

Bug#1068033: gross 1.0.2-4.1~deb12u1 flagged for acceptance

package release.debian.org tags 1068033 = bookworm pending thanks Hi, The upload referenced by this bug report has been flagged for acceptance into the proposed-updates queue for Debian bookworm. Thanks for your contribution! Upload details == Package: gross Version:

Bug#1067980: gpaste 43.1-3+deb12u1 flagged for acceptance

package release.debian.org tags 1067980 = bookworm pending thanks Hi, The upload referenced by this bug report has been flagged for acceptance into the proposed-updates queue for Debian bookworm. Thanks for your contribution! Upload details == Package: gpaste Version:

Bug#1066096: libpod 4.3.1+ds1-8+deb12u1 flagged for acceptance

package release.debian.org tags 1066096 = bookworm pending thanks Hi, The upload referenced by this bug report has been flagged for acceptance into the proposed-updates queue for Debian bookworm. Thanks for your contribution! Upload details == Package: libpod Version:

Re: Bug#1067055: openmpi: error: implicit declaration of function 'OPAL_THREAD_ADD_FETCH64'

On 23/03/2024 01:58, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Andrey Rakhmatullin dixit: OPAL_THREAD_ADD_FETCH64 is defined under #if OPAL_HAVE_ATOMIC_MATH_64 And I assume this arch doesn't have 64-bit atomics. No native ones, yes. I *think* either libatomic or libatomic_ops(?) make them available, but very

Re: Bug#1067055: openmpi: error: implicit declaration of function 'OPAL_THREAD_ADD_FETCH64'

On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 12:05:30PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote: > There is a transition to openmpi-5 / mpi-defaults which is stalled by the > t64 transition. > > It drops 32-bit support from OpenMPI. > > Because of this, I don't think the solution is to  port 32-bit atomics for >