Bug#855991: unblock: kstars-data-extra-tycho2/1.1r1-9.1

upload. + * Move data file to /usr/share/kstars where kstars expects it. +(Closes: #854008) + * Add Turkish debconf template translation from Mert Dirik. +(Closes: #757490) + + -- Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:03:46 +0200 + kstars-data-extra-tycho2 (1.1r1-9) un

Bug#855968: unblock: ekg/1:1.9~pre+r2855-5

-09 21:07:36.0 +0200 +++ ekg-1.9~pre+r2855/debian/changelog 2017-02-23 16:37:45.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +ekg (1:1.9~pre+r2855-5) unstable; urgency=medium + + * QA upload. + * Disable parallel building to work around a FTBFS. +(Closes: #811234) + + -- Adrian Bunk &l

Bug#855534: unblock: multiple packages, didn't make it to testing due to openssl1.1

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 10:25:55PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: unblock > Severity: normal >... > - h323plus > got removed [1] due a RC bug in ptlib. ptlib is now in testing

nmu: petsc_3.7.5+dfsg1-4

Control: reassign -1 release.debian.org Control: retitle -1 nmu: petsc_3.7.5+dfsg1-4 Control: severity -1 normal Control: tags -1 - sid Control: affects -1 libpetsc3.7.5-dev On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 11:32:39AM -0800, Dima Kogan wrote: > Package: libpetsc3.7.5-dev > Severity: grave > > Hi.

Bug#854198: Packages that are now part of request-tracker4 must be removed from testing

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal #852258 rt-authen-externalauth: FTBFS: Your installed version of RT (4.4.1-2) is too new #851987 rt-extension-spawnlinkedticketinqueue: Obsolete with RT 4.4 #851986 rt-extension-sla: Obsolete with RT 4.4 These are now part of request-tracker4 and

Please allow arden 1.0-3 to migrate to testing

Hi, arden was recently changed from binary-any to binary-all (#852313), but testing migration is blocked by: arden/i386 unsatisfiable Depends: python-htseq The root cause is #819617, which might not get fixed in time for stretch. Please allow arden into testing despite not being installable

Bug#827061: transition: openssl

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:09:56PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >... > > You can go to http://reproducible.debian.net/$srcpkgname and see for > > yourself > > whether they build fine in our environment. If they do, you can rule out > > "parallel" as causing this… > > I see. I looked

Re: Bug#853189: tracker.debian.org: Ecnoding issue / Code injection through Maintainer field (and probably others)

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 04:48:55PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 03:43:44PM +0100, Dominik George wrote: > > tracker.debian.org apparently has encoding issues, not of the “schei� > > encoding” kind, but it even seems to break the HTML completely and even > > introduces new

Re: Draft for taging 32 RC bugs with can-defer, will-remove or is-blocker

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 07:20:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Moritz Mühlenhoff: > > Niels Thykier schrieb: > >>> 852603virglrenderer can-defer virglrenderer: > >>> CVE-2016-10163 > >>> 852604virglrenderer can-defer virglrenderer: >

Re: Draft for taging 32 RC bugs with can-defer, will-remove or is-blocker

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 01:20:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Hi, > > I have a quick review of the RC bugs in *key* packages that are unfixed > in unstable according to UDD. The following is a list of 32 of these > (out of about 180) with proposed verdicts/tagging to start a debate > about

Bug#852945: RM: packages that migrated by mistake, batch 1

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 01:11:39PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: rm > > Quite a lot of packages accidentally migrated to testing on 2016-12-29 > despite open RC bugs. Here is a first batch.

Bug#852859: unblock: mknbi/1.4.4-13

:40:44.0 +0300 +++ mknbi-1.4.4/debian/changelog2017-01-28 00:23:07.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +mknbi (1.4.4-13) unstable; urgency=medium + + * QA upload. + * Add patch from Steve Beattie to fix PIE FTBFS. (Closes: #852851) + + -- Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> Sat,

Bug#852703: nmu: non-empty -gcj packages on mips64el

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu With #851391 fixed, these packages should get the intended contents also on mips64el. nmu libxml-commons-resolver1.1-java_1.2-7 . mips64el . unstable . -m "Rebuild with libgcj-common

Bug#852693: nmu: llvm-defaults_0.34

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 03:46:21PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: binnmu > > I messed up the version number in #851436, assume that's the > reason why no binNMU happened a

Bug#852693: nmu: llvm-defaults_0.34

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu I messed up the version number in #851436, assume that's the reason why no binNMU happened after it was scheduled. nmu llvm-defaults_0.34 . armel . unstable . -m "llvm-toolchain-3.8 is now

Bug#851995: nmu: db5.3_5.3.28-12

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 05:35:28PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > Control: tag -1 moreinfo > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 18:32:08 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org >

Bug#851995: nmu: db5.3_5.3.28-12

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu After the #851391 fix this will give libdb5.3-java-* also on mips64el. nmu db5.3_5.3.28-12 . mips64el . unstable . -m "Rebuild with libgcj-common 1:6.3-1 to get libdb5.3-java-*" dw

Bug#851871: RM: remove gcc-5 from stretch

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 03:07:03PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Tags: stretch > > Please remove gcc-5, gcc-5-cross and gcc-5-cross-ports from testing. Now that > the linux source is built using gcc-6, the list of packages also needing > removal > are acoording to

Re: Bug#851466: khmer: autopkgtest is failing

Control: reassign -1 release.debian.org Control: retitle -1 nmu: bzip2_1.0.6-8 On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 10:29:25AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Package: khmer > Severity: normal > > Hi, > > the autopkgtest of khmer is failing[1] with > > ... > + c++ -o test-prog-static -std=c++11 >

Bug#851482: nmu: ocrad_0.25-1

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu ocrad_0.25-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Static library rebuild with PIE" This should fix https://ci.debian.net/packages/o/ocrad/unstable/amd64/

Bug#851436: nmu: llvm-defaults_1:3.8-34

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu llvm-defaults_1:3.8-34 . armel . unstable . -m "llvm-toolchain-3.8 is now available on armel"

Bug#842177: Bug#847974: xmds2: FTBFS in stretch

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 05:42:37PM +, Santiago Vila wrote: > Package: src:xmds2 > Version: 2.2.2+dfsg-2 > Severity: serious > > Dear maintainer: > > I tried to build this package in stretch with "dpkg-buildpackage -A" > (which is what the "Arch: all" autobuilder would do to build it) > but

Bug#827061: transition: openssl

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 09:15:44PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-12-01 00:52:59 [+0200], Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Wouldn't "depends on libssl1.0.2 and does not build-depend on libssl1.0-dev" > > give a reasonably small superset of all packages that need a

Bug#827061: transition: openssl

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:43:36PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-11-05 21:59:27 [+0100], Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > I've been playing with ben. I tried a few things and this is the best I > > was able to achieve [0]: > > > > title = "openssl 1.0"; > > is_affected =

Bug#846265: nmu: cassiopee_1.0.5-1

Control: retitle -1 nmu: cassiopee_1.0.5-1 On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 07:47:36PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: binnmu > > nmu 1.0.5-1_1.0.5-1 . amd64 . unstable . -m "R

Bug#846265: nmu: 1.0.5-1_1.0.5-1

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu 1.0.5-1_1.0.5-1 . amd64 . unstable . -m "Recompile with boost1.62" Maintainer-uploaded binaries compiled with boost1.58

Re: What is going on with gtkdatabox?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi again, > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 02:49:56AM +, peter green wrote: > > > > brp-pacu: has a build-dependency on libgtkdatabox-0.9.2-0-dev | > > libgtkdatabox-dev . Unfortunately buildds only look at the first option > > I'm

Bug#845095: nmu: aspectc++_1:2.1-2

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu Control: affects -1 src:undertaker nmu aspectc++_1:2.1-2 . ANY . unstable . -m "Recompile static libraries with PIE"

Re: Bug#828236: Bug#844160: marked as done (apache2-dev should depend on libssl1.0-dev)

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 08:44:35AM +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016, at 08:21, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 05:03:45AM +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > > > Looking at mod_ssl_openssl.h and the comment in #828330, > > > > I'

Re: Bug#828408: fixed in libpoe-filter-ssl-perl 0.30-2

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 06:43:35PM +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > On 2016-11-12 17:57, gregor herrmann wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 18:45:31 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 04:50:25PM +, gregor herrmann wrote: > > > > Source: libpoe-filter-ssl-perl > >

Bug#827061: transition: openssl

Disclaimer: I am not a member of the release team, and I am only speaking for myself. On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 02:28:12AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >... > I think the most important new security feature in the 1.1.0 > version is the extended master secret support. There are also a > bunch of

Bug#827061: transition: openssl

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 08:09:06PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:44:08PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:52:31PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > > > > > I'm sorry but I'm going to have to nack this for Stretch, as much as I > > >

Bug#819530: Bad interation with libstdc++ transition.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:39:08PM +0200, Niels Möller wrote: > Hi, > > as a user, I experience a pretty bad interaction between this transition > and the recent libstdc++ transition. > > I have a system with a mix of packages from stable and testing, which > usually works fine. However,

Bug#842031: nmu: lp-solve_5.5.0.15-4

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu Control: block 841683 by -1 nmu lp-solve_5.5.0.15-4 . ANY . unstable . -m "Recompile static libraries with PIE" RC bug #841683 should be closed when the binNMUs are in unstable.

Bug#842030: nmu: antlr_2.7.7+dfsg-7

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu Control: block 837489 by -1 nmu antlr_2.7.7+dfsg-7 . ANY . unstable . -m "Recompile static libraries with PIE" RC bug #837489 should be closed when the binNMUs are in unstable.

Bug#842010: nmu: daq_2.0.4-3

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu Control: block 837687 by -1 nmu daq_2.0.4-3 . ANY . unstable . -m "Recompile static libraries with PIE" RC bug #837687 should be closed when the binNMUs are in unstable.

Bug#841948: nmu: madness_0.10-8

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu Control: block 837699 by -1 nmu madness_0.10-8 . ANY . unstable . -m "Recompile static libraries with PIE" RC bug #837699 should be closed when the binNMUs are in unstable.

Bug#841946: nmu: libint_1.1.6-2

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu Control: block 837686 by -1 nmu libint_1.1.6-2 . ANY . unstable . -m "Recompile static libraries with PIE" RC bug #837686 should be closed when the binNMUs are in unstable.

Bug#841942: nmu: psicode_3.4.0-6

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu Control: block 837569 by -1 nmu psicode_3.4.0-6 . ANY . unstable . -m "Recompile static libraries with PIE" RC bug #837569 should be closed when the binNMUs are in unstable.

Bug#841941: nmu: mlton_20100608-5.1

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu Control: block 837567 by -1 nmu mlton_20100608-5.1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Recompile static libraries with PIE" RC bug #837567 should be closed when the binNMUs are in unstable.

Bug#841939: nmu: ocamlgraph_1.8.6-1

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu Control: block 837456 by -1 nmu ocamlgraph_1.8.6-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Recompile static libraries with PIE" RC bug #837456 should be closed when the binNMUs are in unstable.

Bug#841938: Also block the binNMU requests

Control: block -1 by 841921 837350 ocaml seems to require updated binutils for building, also express this here. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er

Bug#841938: nmu: ocaml_4.02.3-7

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu Control: block 837359 by -1 nmu ocaml_4.02.3-7 . ANY . unstable . -m "Recompile static libraries with PIE" RC bug #837359 should be closed when the binNMUs are in unstable.

Bug#841930: nmu: jack-audio-connection-kit_1:0.125.0-1+b1

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu Control: block 837423 by -1 nmu jack-audio-connection-kit_1:0.125.0-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Recompile static libraries with PIE" RC bug #837423 should be closed when the binNMUs are in

Bug#841927: nmu: check_0.10.0-3

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu Control: block 837445 by -1 nmu check_0.10.0-3 . ANY . unstable . -m "recompile static libraries with PIE" RC bug #837445 should be closed when the binNMUs are in unstable.

Bug#841921: nmu: binutils_2.27-9

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu Control: block 837350 by -1 nmu binutils_2.27-9 . ANY . unstable . -m "recompile static libraries with PIE" RC bug #837350 should be closed when the binNMUs are in unstable.

Bug#841839: nmu: kannel-dev_1.4.4-3

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu Control: block 837663 by -1 nmu kannel-dev_1.4.4-3 . ANY . unstable . -m "MySQL 5.7 recompile (removes -lmysqlclient_r from "gw-config --libs")" Please close #837663 when the binNMUs are

Re: Static libraries - PIC or PIE?

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 03:17:06PM +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > 2016-10-23 13:26 GMT+02:00 Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>: > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 12:29:42PM +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote: > >> Hi Ardian, > > > > Hi B

Re: Static libraries - PIC or PIE?

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 12:29:42PM +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote: > Hi Ardian, Hi Bláint, ;-) > 2016-10-23 10:18 GMT+02:00 Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>: > > Hi Bálint, > > > > there is some confusion regarding how static libraries should be > > compiled now.

Static libraries - PIC or PIE?

Hi Bálint, there is some confusion regarding how static libraries should be compiled now. Your bugs (e.g. #837350) say "Please build libfoo.a with -fPIC". Why do these say -fPIC and not -fPIE? My current understanding is that a binNMU would recompile the the static library with PIE (not

Re: ppc64el porter situation

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 01:30:13PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:18:39PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Freescala/NXP is not even on the OpenPOWER member list - this is not the > > old power.org > > Neither is AMCC as far as I can tell. Doe

Re: premail is marked for autoremoval from testing

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:24:46AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sat, 2016-10-22 at 11:17 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 04:39:13AM +, Debian testing autoremoval watch > > wrote: > > > premail 0.46-10 is marked for autoremoval fr

Re: premail is marked for autoremoval from testing

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 04:39:13AM +, Debian testing autoremoval watch wrote: > premail 0.46-10 is marked for autoremoval from testing on 2016-11-20 > > It (build-)depends on packages with these RC bugs: > 837712: xemacs21: FTBFS with bindnow and PIE enabled Is this bogus? I cannot see any

Re: Enabling PIE by default for Stretch

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:43:22PM +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote: > Hi Adrian, Hi Bálint, > 2016-10-20 21:02 GMT+02:00 Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>: > > Hi, > > > > since PIE is now default in unstable, I assume all/most of these bugs > > should be changed to RC?

Re: ppc64el porter situation

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 03:58:21PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 03:54:43PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > I think Freescala/NXP might disagree. Not sure if the e6500 core could > > ruin ppc64el or not, but they certainly make a lot of powerpc chips. > > That

Re: ppc64el porter situation

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:06:59PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Hi, Hi Aurelien, >... > To me it looks like they are really skilled for that job. Do you have > actual facts showing the contrary? Niels said that I shouldn't hesitate to let the release team know when I believe there is an issue

Re: ppc64el porter situation

pc64el port in general. I am just saying that I see a risk for the ppc64el port in the unlikely case that IBM makes a sudden move away from PowerPC during the lifetime of stretch. > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:50:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Is a DM enough, if the only DD gets kil

Re: Enabling PIE by default for Stretch

Hi, since PIE is now default in unstable, I assume all/most of these bugs should be changed to RC? https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=pie-bindnow-20160906=bal...@balintreczey.hu;dist=unstable cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out

ppc64el porter situation

Disclaimer: I am not a member of the release team, and I am only speaking for myself. The architecture requalification status for stretch [1] lists the ppc64el porter situation as green, but there are three reasons why the situation doesn't look that good to me. First, official status of the

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 11:13:21PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sun, 2016-10-09 at 21:12 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > [ adding debian-powerpc ] > > > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:54:44PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > > Niels Thykier <ni...@thyk

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

[ adding debian-powerpc ] On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:54:44PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > Niels Thykier schrieb: > > If I am to support powerpc as a realease architecture for Stretch, I > > need to know that there are *active* porters behind it committed to > > keeping it

Re: Architecture qualification meeting, scheduling

[ fullquote adding -ports, for people not following -release or -devel ] On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 06:35:07PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Hi, > > I am arranging the final architecture qualification meeting for Stretch. > This is primarily of interest to the release team, but I will also

Re: Bug#833574: monotone: FTBFS on powerpc (test suite failure)

Control: found 833574 1.1-4 Control: fixed 833574 1.1-7 On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Markus Wanner wrote: > On 08/06/2016 10:59 AM, Julien Cristau wrote: > > the latest monotone security upload failed to build on powerpc with an > > error in the test suite, see the build log at > >

Re: Bug#828097: Possible to keep old tidy?

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 01:17:28AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:21:00PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > Hi, > > (not sure why this bug is still open) > > > > > > >The upgrade of tidy to the newer version breaks what Media

Re: Bug#828097: Possible to keep old tidy?

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:21:00PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi, > (not sure why this bug is still open) > > > >The upgrade of tidy to the newer version breaks what MediaWiki expects > >(see test failures: > >), and updating >

Re: Bug#674853: [Pkg-samba-maint] Bug#674853: winbind should depend on libpam-winbind and libnss-winbind for wheezy

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:35:28PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:45:40PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: [ winbind only recommending libpam-winbind and libnss-winbind ] What I am talking about is the special case of how to ensure that everyone who had these installed

Bug#656829: What is the kde-runtime/qt4-x11 issue?

Hi, I am a bit puzzled by reading the - kde-runtime should build again, but must not migrate to testing before qt4-x11, according to Pino. That one is missing ~4 days, we could always age it if needed. in this bug. What is the problem here, and why is it not covered by the package

Re: Bug#594940: Includes binary-only and obfuscated C code

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:32:13PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: ... For the remainder of the files, whilst we may consider granting a squeeze-ignore tag, we would like to come to an agreement as to how we can resolve these issues in the medium term. ... Can you actually add a squeeze-ignore

Raising severity

severity 291194 serious tags 291194 lenny-ignore thanks I just ran into this bug when using a modified tar that defaults to create posix archives: -- snip -- # dpkg -i ddd_3.3.12~rc2-0.0.bunk_amd64.deb (Reading database ... 193488 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Status of kernel-patches in sarge]

On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 10:02:06PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:35:59AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches

Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 05:33:01PM -0400, sean finney wrote: On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:00:29PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: ... Other issues like #308762 are also still possible on direct mysql-server/woody - mysql-server-4.1/sarge upgrade paths - and there will be users doing such upgrade

Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge

On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:49:13AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: ... I see the same three options. Joey has said he is working on a final woody point release for the last weekend in May; you'll probably need to coordinate with him and get something uploaded soon if you want to try for this

Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge

On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 08:35:03AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:08:28PM +0200, GOMBAS Gabor wrote: On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:49:13AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: 3 does not sound so bad to me; it's arguably user error anyway to replace a package-provided

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Status of kernel-patches in sarge]

On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches and per-arch patches). I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune at this stage. IMHO patches which cannot be applied to debian

Re: unrar version confusion

On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 06:24:50PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: Adrian Bunk wrote: Repairing this issue by simply renaming the non-free package back to unrar and giving the free program a different name should be pretty straightforward and doable for sarge. Package unrar

Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:23:35AM -0400, sean finney wrote: ... the following upgrade paths work: mysql-server/woody - mysql-server/sarge mysql-server/woody - mysql-server/sarge - mysql-server-4.1/sarge but this does not: mysql-server/woody - mysql-server-4.1/sarge so at this point,

Re: Bug#307816: cweb is not installable / unusable

On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:07:47PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: ... So I suggest letting: * tetex-bin_2.0.2-29 (and packages built from it: libkpathsea3 and libkpathsea-dev) * cweb_3.64.debian-2 into sarge. I agree, this is a better solution than my suggestion. Julian cu Adrian --

Re: Bug#301839: freebsd5-buildutils: can't fulfill the build dependencies in sarge

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:50:36PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050329 19:35]: If testing should make any sense, handling build dependencies as dependencies in the testing scripts was required. We all know that your opinion about the usefulness of testing

uninstallation bugs are RC

severity 287355 serious thanks It was always clear for me that uninstallation bugs definitely have to be RC. Installation bugs are RC, and uninstallation bugs are even worse since it may take longer util they are discovered. cu Adrian -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked

Re: Bug#272853 acknowledged by developer (non-sense RC bugs on libgdiplus)

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:48:26AM -0800, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: ... One cummulative answers for all stupid bug reports: About building non-buildable in Testing: that is how it works if there are circular build dependencies. Please try to understand what is going on before

Re: Bug#276966: popt: #245819 is still present in sarge

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 01:41:18AM +0100, Paul Martin wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 12:08:12PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:45:14AM +0100, Paul Martin wrote: On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 09:57:37PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: Package: popt Version: 1.7-4

Circular dependencies are not a good idea

Hi Jeroen, I'd disagree with your opinion that this issue (abuse-lib should depend on abuse) is really a bug. You are suggesting something that would create a circular dependency which is something e.g. apt doesn't always handle optimally. A similar example is e.g. tetex-base which doesn't

Re: Circular dependencies are not a good idea

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 06:18:56PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 06:34:10PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: As long as non-fulfillable are treated as RC bugs the current Recommends is enough since a missing abuse in sarge is then a reason for a RC bug on abuse-lib also

Re: Bug#277074: Circular dependencies are not a good idea

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:01:17PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: ... BTW: How do I correctly file such a Recommends bug then? It's a RC bug according to your policy and I'd add the sarge-ignore tag when filing, but Steve had explicitely stated that only the release

Re: Bug#277074: Circular dependencies are not a good idea

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:24:49PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:19:54PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:01:17PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: You file it at 'important'. The 'serious' severity is defined by the release managers

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 12:44:21PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-10-03 03:22]: If you change policy to make Recommends similar to Suggests, you might even remove Recommends from policy since there will no longer be a real difference between Recommends

Re: RC policy - editorial clarifications?

Hi Andreas, + the already discussed topic of recommends (IMHO yes, as main should be a closure, and broken recommends break that; although I tend to sarge-ignore if there is no other clean solution, as all-packages don't support something like foo[i386] in their recommends line); Why

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:39:31AM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: ... [*] However, I think Policy should be changed to requre Depends only and not Recommends. In the past, dselect would scream loudly about Recommends not being fulfilled but these days the tools don't really care as much

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 08:31:11AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Can anyone explain to me why the use of recommends: grub is a policy violation? I scanned through the policy and failed to find anything obvious. If you can't fulfill a Recommends, that's a violation of section 2.2.1. of

Re: a failed purge is RC

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:27:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 12:36:09AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: severity 274272 grave thanks A failed purge of a package is definitely RC. Yes, but it doesn't 'render the package useless, or mostly so'. The right severity

Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

Hi, it's obvious that freezing testing requires the extra amount of work for someone to check every single frozen package with a more recent version in unstable whether sarge lacks required fixes. They might be RC bugs like #237071, but it's also possible that an upload fixed a security bug

Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 01:21:22PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040812 12:25]: it's obvious that freezing testing requires the extra amount of work for someone to check every single frozen package with a more recent version in unstable whether sarge

Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:23:00PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: Rather than complaining and posing that people aren't doing their jobs, and asking which member of e release team is responsible for doing this task?, you could _help_ instead. If the release management has announced a

Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 04:06:18PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote: If such an easy and clearly RC bug as #237071 which is already fixed in unstable isn't adressed in testing until today, something is definitely going wrong. And if it was Jeroen's job as you said, he isn't doing it properly.

Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:21:24PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040812 14:10]: On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 01:21:22PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040812 12:25]: Why do you think this task is not worked on, if you're

Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:51:56PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: ... The Debian release management thinks freezing testing is less work. That's OK (I have no influence on it - I'm not even a Debian developer), but I do not plan to do anything of the work that is only caused by the fact that

Re: No libtiff transition for sarge

On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 06:00:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:46:09PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: [...] [1] OK, you could upload half of GNOME recompiled against an older libgpg-error0

Re: Removing zope

On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 12:17:32PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: ... I would expect that if there isn't clear progress on fixing zope's RC bugs within a week, I would be hinting it for removal, along with any ... You are already hinting it for removal: * -zope (2.6.4-1 to -) +

Re: Excess copies of libdb

On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 10:20:28PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 03:05:21PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Perl (last db4.0 Standard package) would most likely be a lot harder, since it *does* expose the db interface, so it probably shouldn't be altered until

Re: Old RC bugs

On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 02:55:30AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: ... db3 #223142, #234507 db4.0 #223140 I know we can't remove them. One of the base problems It would be nice to see fewer copies of libdb in sarge, in all honesty. ... There is external (non-free) software that

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >