NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u8_mips64el-buildd.changes ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u8_mipsel-buildd.changes ACCEPT

Bug#981232: unblock: perl/5.32.1-1

On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:08:28AM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi, > > On 02-02-2021 08:47, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > Please rebuild these packages as discussed: > > > > $ wb nmu libpar-packer-perl libdevel-cover-perl libclass-xsaccessor-perl > > libcommon-sense-perl

Processed: retitle 981232 to unblock: perl/5.32.1-2

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 981232 unblock: perl/5.32.1-2 Bug #981232 [release.debian.org] unblock: perl/5.32.1-1 Changed Bug title to 'unblock: perl/5.32.1-2' from 'unblock: perl/5.32.1-1'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need

NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u8_amd64-buildd.changes ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u8_arm64-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u8_armel-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u8_armhf-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file:

NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u8_s390x.changes ACCEPT

Re: Podman 3.0 and Debian bullseye

On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 3:01 PM Paul Gevers wrote: > Unfortunately I believe we're not really in the position to advise you > on the matter at hand as there are obviously pro's and con's for both > side which require detailed knowledge to balance them. It seems to me > that your having a decent

NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u8_source.changes ACCEPT

Re: Podman 3.0 and Debian bullseye

Hi Reinhard, On 25-01-2021 02:02, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > I'm not really sure if this update required formal approval by the > release team, but I'd really appreciate your input in any case. It doesn't, except that we wrote this in the freeze policy: """ No large/disruptive changes Any change

Re: Podman 3.0 and Debian bullseye

On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:54 AM Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 09:08:36PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > >... > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 7:15 PM Dmitry Smirnov > wrote: > >... > > A low-effort workaround could be to add a build-dependency on podman to > > prevent > > it from

Re: Don't ship gnupg1 with bullseye

Hi, On 02-02-2021 09:54, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > The impression I got from the > release team and Chris Hofstaedtler that request-tracker4 was the only > thing blocking removal. The reason I (with my Release Team member hat on) was trying to figure out what needed to happen to enable removal

Bug#981665: marked as done (stretch-pu: package privoxy/3.0.26-3)

Your message dated Tue, 02 Feb 2021 18:28:23 + with message-id <23064e4f0efbec640f23f5622a7fbdf2c836eaab.ca...@adam-barratt.org.uk> and subject line Re: Bug#981665: stretch-pu: package privoxy/3.0.26-3 has caused the Debian Bug report #981665, regarding stretch-pu: package privoxy/3.0.26-3 to

OpenJDK 17 for bullseye-backports

The problem: OpenJDK 11 LTS is the default JDK in both buster and bullseye. The next LTS OpenJDK 17 is already in unstable, but it will not even have a stable release by the time bullseye releases. OpenJDK 17 is expected to be the OpenJDK in bookworm. Some users will want to use OpenJDK 17 on

Bug#981665: stretch-pu: package privoxy/3.0.26-3

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: stretch User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu This fixes CVE-2021-20216 and CVE-2021-20217. Since both are tagged " (Minor issue)" in security tracker, I tend to send this into the next point release of stretch. Salsa-CI

Bug#981664: buster-pu: package privoxy/3.0.28-2

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: buster User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu This fixes CVE-2021-20216 and CVE-2021-20217. Since both are tagged " (Minor issue)" in security tracker, I tend to send this into the next point release of buster. Salsa-CI

Re: Don't ship gnupg1 with bullseye

Dominic Hargreaves writes: > If it is to stay in Debian indefinitely, I'd suggest we still remove > libgnupg-perl and drop support from libgnupg-interface-perl[1] and > libpgp-sign-perl. I'm more comfortable with it being there as a > standalone binary to be invoked by users to read old data

Re: Podman 3.0 and Debian bullseye

On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 09:08:36PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >... > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 7:15 PM Dmitry Smirnov wrote: >... > A low-effort workaround could be to add a build-dependency on podman to > prevent > it from building on mipsen. A better fix could be to patch podman to build > on

Re: Don't ship gnupg1 with bullseye

On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 10:26:55AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:45:42AM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: > > IMnsHO it's a bad idea to remove gnupg1 any time soon. While it > > certainly should not be used for encryption, it's still needed when > > dealing with older

Re: [pkg-gnupg-maint] Don't ship gnupg1 with bullseye

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:45, Christoph Biedl said: > IMnsHO it's a bad idea to remove gnupg1 any time soon. While it > certainly should not be used for encryption, it's still needed when > dealing with older keys. Quoting the package description: "It is And first of all with data encrypted to old

Re: Don't ship gnupg1 with bullseye

On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:45:42AM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Dominic Hargreaves wrote... > > > Do the gnupg1 maintainers agree that it should be removed from bullseye? > > IMnsHO it's a bad idea to remove gnupg1 any time soon. While it > certainly should not be used for encryption, it's

Re: Don't ship gnupg1 with bullseye

Hey, On Tue, 2021-02-02 at 08:33 +, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > Checking reverse dependencies... > # Broken Depends: > libgnupg-perl: libgnupg-perl libgnupg-perl only supports GnuPG v1.4 and given it hasn't had a release since 2012 I doubt it will gain support for v2.2. > # Broken

Re: Don't ship gnupg1 with bullseye

On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:45:42AM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Dominic Hargreaves wrote... > > > Do the gnupg1 maintainers agree that it should be removed from bullseye? > > IMnsHO it's a bad idea to remove gnupg1 any time soon. While it > certainly should not be used for encryption, it's

Re: Don't ship gnupg1 with bullseye

Dominic Hargreaves wrote... > Do the gnupg1 maintainers agree that it should be removed from bullseye? IMnsHO it's a bad idea to remove gnupg1 any time soon. While it certainly should not be used for encryption, it's still needed when dealing with older keys. Quoting the package description: "It

Don't ship gnupg1 with bullseye

Hi all, With the upload of request-tracker4 4.4.4+dfsg-1, there are (if is correct) no more runtime dependencies on gnupg1 in unstable. $ ssh mirror.ftp-master.debian.org "dak rm -Rn gnupg1" ... Checking reverse dependencies... #

Bug#981232: unblock: perl/5.32.1-1

Hi, On 02-02-2021 08:47, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > Please rebuild these packages as discussed: > > $ wb nmu libpar-packer-perl libdevel-cover-perl libclass-xsaccessor-perl > libcommon-sense-perl libdevel-mat-dumper-perl . ANY . -m "Rebuild against > perlapi-5.32.1." --extra-depends