Processed: Re: Bug#820772: teem: FTBFS on arm64 and ppc64el

Processing control commands: > severity -1 normal Bug #820772 [teem] teem: FTBFS on arm64 and ppc64el Severity set to 'normal' from 'serious' -- 820772: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=820772 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --

Processed: Re: Bug#820530: pdal: FTBFS because of openmpi

Processing control commands: > severity -1 serious Bug #820530 [src:pdal] pdal: FTBFS because of openmpi Severity set to 'serious' from 'normal' > block -1 by 820113 Bug #820530 [src:pdal] pdal: FTBFS because of openmpi 820530 was not blocked by any bugs. 820530 was not blocking any bugs. Added

Processed: Re: Bug#820113: No rule to make target '/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/hdf5/openmpi/lib/libhdf5.so'

Processing control commands: > severity -1 serious Bug #820113 [libvtk6-dev] No rule to make target '/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/hdf5/openmpi/lib/libhdf5.so' Severity set to 'serious' from 'normal' -- 820113: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=820113 Debian Bug Tracking System

Re: Bug#752876: Comments regarding r-cran-spdep_0.5-92-1_amd64.changes

Hi Thorsten, would it be acceptable if I add this text to d/copyright? Kind regards Andreas. On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 06:52:24PM +0200, Roger Bivand wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > I have added: > > /* > This code is described in "Computational Geometry in C" (Second Edition), > Chapter 8.

Processed: Re: Bug#816101: petsc: FTBFS on mipsel - broken openmpi breaks petsc build

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > block 816101 by 818909 Bug #816101 [src:petsc] petsc: FTBFS on mipsel - timeout while running the test suite 816101 was not blocked by any bugs. 816101 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 816101: 818909 > severity 816101

Processed: Re: libjava-gmsh2: fails to upgrade from 'jessie' - trying to overwrite /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libjava-gmsh.so

Processing control commands: > found -1 2.12.0+dfsg1-1 Bug #816563 {Done: Anton Gladky } [libjava-gmsh2] libjava-gmsh2: fails to upgrade from 'jessie' - trying to overwrite /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libjava-gmsh.so Marked as found in versions gmsh/2.12.0+dfsg1-1; no longer

Re: Comments regarding r-cran-spdep_0.5-92-1_amd64.changes

Hi Andreas, I have added: /* This code is described in "Computational Geometry in C" (Second Edition), Chapter 8. It is not written to be comprehensible without the explanation in that book. Prints out one arm configuration to reach given target. Assumes number of links >= 3. Input: nlinks

Re: Comments regarding r-cran-spdep_0.5-92-1_amd64.changes

Hi Roger, I hope you remember the discussion we had two years ago when I tried to package spdep for Debian as a dependency to test some R epipdemiology tools. I somehow gave up since the packages can be run with out spdep. However, we have now some bioinformatics tools that have a strong

Processed: Re: libvtk6-dev: No rule to make target libproj.so / cannot find -lvtkproj4

Processing control commands: > tag -1 pending  Bug #819741 [libvtk6-dev] libvtk6-dev: No rule to make target libproj.so / cannot find -lvtkproj4 Added tag(s) pending. -- 819741: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819741 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org

Re: Comments regarding python-arrayfire_3.3.20160328-1_amd64.changes

Hi Chris, On 03/04/16 09:06, Chris Lamb wrote: Check examples/financial/heston_model.py etc for next upload please Thanks for spotting this. I forgot to scan for new files when rebasing the packaging on top of the latest release. Is that something I can address with a subsequent iteration of

Re: r-cran-pbdzmq_0.2.1+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

Hi Gordon, please make sure that pristine-tar branch contains the exact metadata as the source tarball inside the pool. Kind regards Andreas. On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 07:34:11AM +, Debian FTP Masters wrote: > > r-cran-pbdzmq_0.2.1+dfsg2.orig.tar.gz: Does not match file already

Re: Re: ich Sie, der als der Erbe meiner 1.700.000Euro gewählt wurde

Es ist mit einem von Verzweiflung vollen Herzen, dass ich Ihnen diese Nachricht übermittele, um Ihr Abkommen für die Verwirklichung einer Schenkung zu ersuchen, ich sind momentan krank, und angesichts meines Alters und meines derzeitigen Gesundheitszustandes wünsche ich, Spende meiner Güter zu

Processed: Re: opencv: FTBFS: modules/core/precomp.hpp: No such file or directory

Processing control commands: > tags -1 patch Bug #818450 [opencv] opencv: FTBFS: modules/core/precomp.hpp: No such file or directory Added tag(s) patch. -- 818450: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=818450 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --

Processed: Re: Bug#818218: saga: Jasper removal

Processing control commands: > block -1 by 818207 Bug #818218 [src:saga] saga: Jasper removal 818218 was not blocked by any bugs. 818218 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 818218: 818207 -- 818218: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=818218 Debian Bug Tracking

Re: Poly/ML 5.6-3

Hi, > On 13 Mar 2016, at 09:48, Gianfranco Costamagna > wrote: >> Added in >> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/keyring/keyring.git/commit/?id=bb8f943a3b54332b65cf4a64644e9e8b57bdbdcf. > > ok :) > > please do source-only uploads, or use pbuilder/sbuild to generate

Re: Poly/ML 5.6-3

Hi, >Added in >http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/keyring/keyring.git/commit/?id=bb8f943a3b54332b65cf4a64644e9e8b57bdbdcf. ok :) please do source-only uploads, or use pbuilder/sbuild to generate the binaries. If you are in doubt, don't hesitate to ask me or to the debian-mentors list :) $ dcut

Re: Poly/ML 5.6-3

Added in http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/keyring/keyring.git/commit/?id=bb8f943a3b54332b65cf4a64644e9e8b57bdbdcf. James > On 12 Mar 2016, at 19:11, James Clarke wrote: > > Hi, > It's in the debian-keyring git repo, but February's release was never > uploaded to the archive.

Re: Poly/ML 5.6-3

Hi, It's in the debian-keyring git repo, but February's release was never uploaded to the archive. James > On 12 Mar 2016, at 18:31, Gianfranco Costamagna > wrote: > > Hi, did you perform step 4? > > I'm having a look soon, and if your key gets included in

Re: Poly/ML 5.6-3

Hi, did you perform step 4? I'm having a look soon, and if your key gets included in debian-keyring just ping me https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer cheers, G. Il Sabato 12 Marzo 2016 18:48, James Clarke ha scritto: Hi Gianfranco, I’m ready to release polyml

Re: nom-tam-fits in debian

Hi Richard, I will try to reach Florian today as well, so that we can find a good way to proceed here. Probably a shared team maintenance is the best. For the other questions, I would ask you to follow-up to the Debian Astronomy mailing list https://lists.debian.org/debian-astro Altough the fits

Re: nom-tam-fits in debian

Hi, As Florian seems to be unavailable, I redirect my question to the debian-science-maintainers group. We would be willing to update the package ourself, but we need some hints how to do it. And where to register and so on. As I learned in the mean time, the debain standard enforces the local

Re: Bug#814680: RFS: stp/2.1.2+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Simple theorem prover

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, Marko, On الأحد 6 آذار 2016 14:53, Marko Dimjašević wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 17:42 -0800, Afif Elghraoui wrote: >> Something like the following: >> [...] > Thank you Afif for this! > No problem. > I am not sure what is the cause

Bug#812852: Fwd: Re: Vigra auf ppc64el

Forwarded Message Subject: Re: Vigra auf ppc64el Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 15:56:16 +0100 From: Ullrich Koethe <ullrich.koe...@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> To: Daniel Stender <sten...@debian.org> CC: Francesco Biscani <bluesca...@gmail.com> Hallo Daniel, unfor

RE

Hello, I have a proposal for you, kindly get back to me via: mrsjingc...@hotmail.com - NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain privileged and confidential information. All content is subject to

Re: Bug#814680: RFS: stp/2.1.2+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Simple theorem prover

Hi all, On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 17:42 -0800, Afif Elghraoui wrote: > That's alright, you can go ahead. I would just add that the source for > the second tarball be documented somewhere or configured to be > downloaded in debian/watch with a second uscan line. Something like > the > following: > >

Bug#815478: marked as done (Please re-enable scilab on arm64)

Your message dated Fri, 04 Mar 2016 22:37:26 + with message-id <e1abyle-0004ul...@franck.debian.org> and subject line Bug#815478: fixed in getfem++ 4.2.1~beta1~svn4635~dfsg-6 has caused the Debian Bug report #815478, regarding Please re-enable scilab on arm64 to be marked as done. This

Processed: Re: scilab: Scilab include non-free codes

Processing control commands: > block 816260 by 749833 Bug #816260 [cantor] cantor: Please re-enable the scilab backend 816260 was not blocked by any bugs. 816260 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 816260: 749833 -- 749833: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=749

Re: Bug#814680: RFS: stp/2.1.2+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Simple theorem prover

Hi, Anton, على الجمعـة 26 شباط 2016 ‫11:42، كتب Anton Gladky: > Hi Marko, > [...] > Feel free to ask me, if you have some questions regarding those > notes. You have done a great job, please fix those notices and > I will upload the package (Afif, if you want, feel free to do it). > That's

Re: Bug#814680: RFS: stp/2.1.2+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Simple theorem prover

Hi Marko, the package looks fine, but I have a couple of notice: - Use DEP-3 format for the patch - Try not to use source/lintian-overrides, but fix it in the code. - lib/extlib-abc/aig/cnf/cnfData.c looks strange, is it some kind of binary, not the source code? - Use Files-Exclude parameter

Re: root-system should be single package and outside default paths

Philipp Klenze writes: > Hello, > I would like you to ask to reassess the organization of CERNs ROOT > framework in the Debian package system. > > Currently, it is split into around 96 packages and gets installed all > over the system, e.g. in /usr/bin/, /usr/lib/$ARCH/root5-34,

Re: Regarding VTK 7.0.0

I will try to find some time to send an email around to the team this weekend. Cheers, Ghis On 23/02/16 14:28, Elvis Stansvik wrote: 2016-02-04 15:41 GMT+01:00 Ghislain Vaillant >: It is next on my TODO list, I had a bunch of RCs to clear out

Re: Bug#814680: RFS: stp/2.1.2+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Simple theorem prover

eveloper > that sponsored the first upload of STP to New, this was the proposed > approach. OutputCheck is, to the best of our knowledge, used only by > STP, and the upstream developers have a plan of re-basing STP tests on a > different testing framework soon. Furthermore, OutputCheck i

Re: Bug#814680: RFS: stp/2.1.2+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Simple theorem prover

at sponsored the first upload of STP to New, this was the proposed approach. OutputCheck is, to the best of our knowledge, used only by STP, and the upstream developers have a plan of re-basing STP tests on a different testing framework soon. Furthermore, OutputCheck is not actively developed any m

Re: Bug#814680: RFS: stp/2.1.2+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Simple theorem prover

Hi, Marko, على الأحد 21 شباط 2016 ‫18:27، كتب Marko Dimjašević: > > Let me know if I can do something to get you interested in sponsoring > this package for the Simple theorem prover. I am desperately looking for > a sponsor. The package has been in the New queue before. Its details are > given

Re: Comments regarding fcl_0.4.0-1_amd64.changes

Hey Thorsten: Thanks very much for the warning, you are right, I will update the debian/copyright file to include the OSRF. On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Thorsten Alteholz < ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org> wrote: > Hi Jose, > > I marked your package for accept. > Don't you want to mention

Re: Regarding VTK 7.0.0

2016-02-04 15:41 GMT+01:00 Ghislain Vaillant : > It is next on my TODO list, I had a bunch of RCs to clear out before. > > I will soon be contacting the VTK 6 maintainers to coordinate our > efforts towards VTK 7. > Hi again Ghislain, I'm just curious if you've had any time

Re: Bug#814680: RFS: stp/2.1.2+dfsg-1 [ITP] -- Simple theorem prover

Dear all, Let me know if I can do something to get you interested in sponsoring this package for the Simple theorem prover. I am desperately looking for a sponsor. The package has been in the New queue before. Its details are given below. The package is also available on Alioth:

Bug#815478: Please re-enable scilab on arm64

Package: getfem++ Version: 4.2.1~beta1~svn4635~dfsg-5 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch User: debian-...@lists.debian.org Usertags: arm64 scilab is availabel on arm64 now, so please re-enable it in getfem++. diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control index 2c5ab17..6f7a9e0 100644 --- a/debian

Re - Did you permit the Change of Fund Ownership.

tter and reconfirm your Information and how you want your said fund to be paid to you without further delay. Send your responses to me immediately by email. Below is the information you are expected to re-confirm. Full Name: Address: Nationality: Sex: Age: Date of Birth: Occupation: Home P

Processed: Re: Bug#811731: dx: FTBFS with GCC 6: narrowing conversion

Processing control commands: > tags -1 pending Bug #811731 [dx] dx: FTBFS with GCC 6: narrowing conversion Added tag(s) pending. -- 811731: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=811731 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --

Re: r-cran-glmnet_2.0-2-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

On 20/02/16 09:32, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Daniel Pocock wrote: >>> as your R-package contains data files, please describe the contents in >>> debian/README.source (the reasoning is explained in [1]). >>> >> >> Is it sufficient for me to include 1 line stating they

Re: r-cran-arm_1.8-6-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

On 20/02/16 11:00, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > as your R-package contains data files, please describe the contents in > debian/README.source (the reasoning is explained in [1]). > I had just noticed that myself and started preparing it too > Please also take care of > W:

Re: r-cran-glmnet_2.0-2-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

On 20/02/16 09:00, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > as your R-package contains data files, please describe the contents in > debian/README.source (the reasoning is explained in [1]). > Is it sufficient for me to include 1 line stating they are sample data files, or if something

Processed: Re: Bug#813248: libdx4-dev: unhandled symlink to directory conversion: /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE

Processing control commands: > tags -1 pending Bug #813248 [libdx4-dev] libdx4-dev: unhandled symlink to directory conversion: /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE Added tag(s) pending. -- 813248: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=813248 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact

Processed: Re: Bug#813248: libdx4-dev: unhandled symlink to directory conversion: /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE

Processing control commands: > severity -1 normal Bug #813248 [libdx4-dev] libdx4-dev: unhandled symlink to directory conversion: /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE Severity set to 'normal' from 'serious' > tags -1 confirmed Bug #813248 [libdx4-dev] libdx4-dev: unhandled symlink to directory conversion:

Re: [vtk6] 12/12: Update changelog for release

Hi Gert, 2016-02-18 13:12 GMT+01:00 Gert Wollny : > > BTW: There is one open task related to java I didn't do yet: As of java > policy [1] the java modules (*Java.so) should go into a package libvtk6 > -jni. But since this would have meant NEW, and I since I need the qt >

Re: [vtk6] 12/12: Update changelog for release

Hello Anton, On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 12:40 +0100, Anton Gladky wrote: > I think, git was not pulled before creating a changelog > entries. Please, do not forget to do it next time. Sorry for that, moving around the java and python modules made the preparation quite complex, so I somehow

Re: [vtk6] 12/12: Update changelog for release

Hi Gert, thanks for preparing new upload of vtk6. There were 2 commits, which did not appear in changelog [1], [2]. I think, git was not pulled before creating a changelog entries. Please, do not forget to do it next time. Thanks [1]

Re: KBibTeX in Debian: even unstable/experimental is outdated

Dear Bastien, On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 09:45:54PM +0100, roucaries bastien wrote: > > I have packaged a newer version but found non free file. Thus > reporting. I plan to readd soon Please try to enhance your communication: "found non free file" - specifically if upstream is involved in the

Re: KBibTeX in Debian: even unstable/experimental is outdated

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Thomas Fischer wrote: > Hello, > > I am the maintainer of KBibTeX, a BibTeX editor for KDE. KBibTeX > has been shipped for Debian since version 0.1.5 back in 2006 > thanks to Michael Hanke. > Unfortunately, the package for KBibTeX in

Re: python-pynlpl_0.7.7.1-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Quoting Thorsten Alteholz (2016-02-13 00:00:21) > according to the file header, the license is only GPL-3. > So can you please adapt your debian/copyright? Hi Thorsten, Thanks for processing the package. If I understand correctly (it's my first package) this issue is only because of

Re: python-pynlpl_0.7.7.1-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Hi Maarten, On Sat, 13 Feb 2016, Maarten van Gompel wrote: Thanks for processing the package. If I understand correctly (it's my first package) this issue is only because of pynlpl/datatypes.py which subsumes MIT licensed code and I should just stick to the the GPLv3 for it as indicated in the

Processed: Re: Processed (with 2 errors): forwaded

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > forwarded 800384 https://github.com/arrayfire/arrayfire/issues/1038 Bug #800384 [src:arrayfire] arrayfire: random test failures Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 'https://github.com/arrayfire/arrayfire/issues/1038'. > End of message, stopping

Re: shark_3.0.1+ds1-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

On 05/02/16 23:00, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: Hi Ghislain, please mention the BSD license of doc/* in your debian/copyright. Thanks! Thorsten === Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our

Re: Comments regarding apertium-dan_0.3.0~r65318-1_amd64.changes

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > can you please explain why these files are licensed under GPL-3+? > If I remember correctly other apertium stuff is licensed under GPL-!? Hi, Thanks for quick review! New language packs has GPL-3+ or CC

Re: Your nfft upload to unstable

Hi Jonathan, >This said, you got clearance to upload in #813019 which I've just found, >so you aren't really to blame for this. Still, it's a pity the >transition cannot proceed. actually I checked (both the auto-nfft page, and the release.d.o bug), and there were no collisions with other

Re: shark_3.0.1+ds1-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

is on-going to get that done. I'll confirm the build on debomatic first, and then ask Andreas to re-submit. My apologize for not landing that one perfectly the first time around. Best regards to you both, Ghis -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org

Re: Your nfft upload to unstable

On 2016-02-07 17:47, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: Hi, On 2016-02-03 you uploaded nfft 3.3.0-5 to unstable triggering a transition. The reverse dependencies are pynfft and yorick-ynfft. This is not an issue in itself, because that's quite a manageable transition and you staged it in experiemental

Re: Your nfft upload to unstable

On 07/02/16 18:13, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: On 2016-02-07 17:47, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: Hi, On 2016-02-03 you uploaded nfft 3.3.0-5 to unstable triggering a transition. The reverse dependencies are pynfft and yorick-ynfft. This is not an issue in itself, because that's quite a manageable

Processed: Re: Bug#813494: mpi-default-dev: Please depend on openmpi (>= 1.10.2 -3 )

Processing control commands: > tag -1 moreinfo Bug #813494 [mpi-default-dev] mpi-default-dev: Please depend on openmpi (>= 1.10.2 -3 ) Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 813494: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=813494 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with

Processed: Re: Bug#813691: make openmpi the default on s390x

Processing control commands: > tag -1 moreinfo Bug #813691 [src:mpi-defaults] make openmpi the default on s390x Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 813691: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=813691 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --

Processed: Re: Bug#813691: make openmpi the default on s390x

Processing control commands: > tag -1 - moreinfo Bug #813691 [src:mpi-defaults] make openmpi the default on s390x Removed tag(s) moreinfo. -- 813691: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=813691 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --

Re: Regarding VTK 7.0.0

Hi Elvis, we discussed it a couple of days ago with other people, interested in it VTK7 (CC-ing them). We are not sure, whether vtk7 can coexist with vtk6 without conflicts. From my POV, it is a little bit late to start a large transition process. So, if both of those versions can coexist - no

Re: Regarding VTK 7.0.0

2016-02-04 15:41 GMT+01:00 Ghislain Vaillant : > It is next on my TODO list, I had a bunch of RCs to clear out before. > > I will soon be contacting the VTK 6 maintainers to coordinate our > efforts towards VTK 7. > Excellent news Ghis. Elvis > > Cheers, > Ghis > > > On

Re: Regarding VTK 7.0.0

It is next on my TODO list, I had a bunch of RCs to clear out before. I will soon be contacting the VTK 6 maintainers to coordinate our efforts towards VTK 7. Cheers, Ghis On 04/02/16 14:28, Anton Gladky wrote: Hi Elvis, we discussed it a couple of days ago with other people, interested in

Re: Regarding VTK 7.0.0

Hi Anton, 2016-02-04 15:28 GMT+01:00 Anton Gladky : > Hi Elvis, > > we discussed it a couple of days ago with other people, > interested in it VTK7 (CC-ing them). We are not sure, whether > vtk7 can coexist with vtk6 without conflicts. From my > POV, it is a little bit late to

Processed: Re: Bug#791195: fixed in lttoolbox 3.3.2~r61000-3.1

Processing control commands: > found -1 3.3.2~r63423-1 Bug #791195 [src:lttoolbox] lttoolbox: library transition may be needed when GCC 5 is the default Marked as found in versions lttoolbox/3.3.2~r63423-1. -- 791195: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=791195 Debian Bug Tracking

Re: polyml 5.6-2

(Cc'd Debian Science as I forgot to in my original email) That's odd; the only thing I can think of is I changed git-buildpackage from re-creating the orig.tar.gz from the upstream tag to it using the pristine-tar branch... Perhaps they're not identical then? Anyway, thanks! I didn't realise

Re: polyml 5.6-2

Hi, >That's odd; the only thing I can think of is I changed git-buildpackage from >re-creating the orig.tar.gz from the upstream tag to it using the pristine-tar >>branch... Perhaps they're not identical then? Anyway, thanks! the problem seems to be about compression level.

Processed: Re: Bug#805193: aster: FTBFS: Fatal Error: finclude/petscsys.h: No such file or directory

Processing control commands: > tags -1 pending Bug #805193 [src:aster] aster: FTBFS: Fatal Error: finclude/petscsys.h: No such file or directory Added tag(s) pending. -- 805193: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=805193 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org

Re: What is up with cddlib in NEW?

[Tobias Hansen] > Hi, > > yes, I asked ftpmasters twice (on 07/31/15 and 09/01/15) if they could > review it because I wanted to package a new upstream version. I did not > get an answer. It's only in NEW because I renamed the package > libcdd-test to libcdd-tools. It's an easy review. I guess now

Re: What is up with cddlib in NEW?

Hi, yes, I asked ftpmasters twice (on 07/31/15 and 09/01/15) if they could review it because I wanted to package a new upstream version. I did not get an answer. It's only in NEW because I renamed the package libcdd-test to libcdd-tools. It's an easy review. I guess now nobody reviews it because

Processed: Re: opencv: FTBFS on sparc64

cv] opencv: FTBFS on sparc64 'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version; all fixed versions will be cleared, and you may need to re-add them. Bug reopened No longer marked as fixed in versions opencv/2.4.6.1+dfsg-2. > End of message, stopping processing here. Please c

Re: polyml 5.6-1 (was: polyml 5.5.2-4)

Great, thanks! And yes, the ABI bump annoyingly slows things down a little... Regards, James > On 26 Jan 2016, at 10:26, Gianfranco Costamagna > wrote: > > Hi, sponsoring in a few moments. > > note: it will go through binNEW queue :) > > cheers, > > G. > >

Re: polyml 5.6-1 (was: polyml 5.5.2-4)

Hi, sponsoring in a few moments. note: it will go through binNEW queue :) cheers, G. Il Martedì 26 Gennaio 2016 10:12, James Clarke ha scritto: Hi Gianfranco, I have uploaded 5.6-1 to mentors; could you please review it? Thanks, James > On 25 Jan 2016, at 21:08,

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

Hi Gianfranco, >> I think it’s implemented in glibc, not gcc; certainly fe{g,s}etround are. >> Should I get in touch with debian-arm? > > probably yes, even if I don't care there are much armel porters there... > > You might end up in asking ftpmaster to remove the armel binary. Ok, I think

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

Again, I think I'll trust your dsc file, but unfortunately I need to prior have one to test and double check/report back in case of issues. So if you have a dsc, please share, I think it will be fine! Cheers,G. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Mon, 25 Jan, 2016 at 22:00, James

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

Ok, hopefully my s390x build will finish soon and I can then upload 5.6-1 to mentors including S/390 support (and thus, barring any regressions, have support for every release architecture!). Thanks, James > On 25 Jan 2016, at 21:07, Gianfranco Costamagna >

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

Hi, you are the maintainer, so it should be only up to you to make the final decision about architectures to support.You need to understand the use case of this particular test, what is the probability to hit this with real code running on an armel machine? In fact since this has almost never

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

Hi Gianfranco, For platforms where fe{g,s}etround (and other equivalent functions for different platforms), the implementation of {g,s}etRoundingMode is to raise an exception saying “Unable to set floating point rounding control” which can be either be caught in the user’s ML code or left to

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

> On 25 Jan 2016, at 08:03, James Clarke wrote: > > Hi Gianfranco, > >>> Is there any way in which I could get access to an armel porter box to try >>> and work out what’s causing the failure? >> >> as a normal contributor not, as a DM yes, after you requested the access,

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

Hi Gianfranco, >> Is there any way in which I could get access to an armel porter box to try >> and work out what’s causing the failure? > > as a normal contributor not, as a DM yes, after you requested the access, as > a DD yes. That was my guess. > that said, I'm happy to test patches if

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

Hi, >Meant to say: I have one, though it’s running raspbian; would that mess with >things? not sure, I'm pretty sure the bug has always been there, just hidden because of a missing testsuite run... and you don't have too much dependencies on your package, so probably you will hit the bug on

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

Hi Gianfranco, >> I quickly looked at the test >> setRoundingMode(TO_POSINF); >> check(getRoundingMode() = TO_POSINF); >> val pos = 1.0/3.0; >> check(pos * 3.0 > 1.0); >> val neg = ~1.0/3.0; >> check(neg * 3.0 > ~1.0); >> >> >> well, I'm not sure the test is correct, I mean, you might have the

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

Hi, >That’s my guess. The test suite wasn’t run before I took over (I feared I had >stopped it running when I changed debian/rules to modern debhelper) either, so >who >knows how long it’s been there. I don't find running testsuites there

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

> Hi, > >> Meant to say: I have one, though it’s running raspbian; would that mess with >> things? > not sure, I'm pretty sure the bug has always been there, just hidden because > of a missing > testsuite run… That’s my guess. The test suite wasn’t run before I took over (I feared I had

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

://sources.debian.net/src/insighttoolkit4/4.8.2-3.1/debian/rules/ I’m aware of the sh syntax; the trouble is, the test suite doesn’t log anything to a file like that example, so I would have to re-run the failed tests manually, or mess with the testing code itself. Have you had a look at my

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

est suite doesn’t log >anything to a file like that example, so I would have to re-run the failed >tests manually, >or mess with the testing code itself. mmm I was thinking about: dh_auto_test || for i=1 to n do ./poly < Tests/Succeed/Test$$i.ML; done && exit 1 what is prin

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

Hi, >> Besides FE_UPWARD having a different value (given that it’s >> platform-specific), armel calculates 1.0 / 3.0 as 0.15, >> which is wrong for FE_UPWARD (but correct for FE_NEAREST), and I imagine >> there are similar issues for the other rounding modes (other than >>

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

Hi, > 1/3 can’t be represented exactly, so when rounding to +Inf, you get a little > bit more than 1/3. 3 can be represented exactly, so 3 * 1/3 is a little more > than 1, >and since the rounding mode is set to +Inf it should therefore round > to a little over 1. I’m pretty sure the test is

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

Hi, >I think it’s implemented in glibc, not gcc; certainly fe{g,s}etround are. >Should I get in touch with debian-arm? probably yes, even if I don't care there are much armel porters there... You might end up in asking ftpmaster to remove the armel binary. cheers, Gianfranco --

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

Hi James, >I have been working with upstream to port Poly/ML to additional architectures, >and have backported these changes. I have uploaded 5.5.2-4 to mentors; could >you >please check it and then upload it? wonderful, lets review: 1) you took over the package maintenance, can I see a

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

mentioned in changelog > 3) patches against mips* not mentioned in changelog. > > basically I would change changelog mentioning the patch name, e.g. > new patches: > foo.diff: add support for foo architecture > > and so on. > the patches should be good :) I have amended the cha

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

t; G. > ---- > Dom 24/1/16, James Clarke <jrt...@jrtc27.com> ha scritto: > > Oggetto: Re: polyml 5.5.2-4 > A: "Gianfranco Costamagna" <costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it> > Cc: "Debian Science Team" > <debian-sc

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

Hi again, >Is there any way in which I could get access to an armel porter box to try and >work out what’s causing the failure? as a normal contributor not, as a DM yes, after you requested the access, as a DD yes. that said, I'm happy to test patches if you have some, but I can't easily

Processed: Re: libvigraimpex: FTBFS in sid: test suite failure due to pynum 1.10

Processing control commands: > block 650601 by -1  Bug #650601 [release.debian.org] transition: libpng 1.6 650601 was blocked by: 641889 809949 810197 662443 810201 662476 636998 809941 650567 809879 809955 809898 809873 810176 809960 809883 810202 809948 742569 810175 809938 809951 809942

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

gainst mips* not mentioned in changelog. >> >> basically I would change changelog mentioning the patch name, e.g. >> new patches: >> foo.diff: add support for foo architecture >> >> and so on. >> the patches should be good :) > > I have amended the cha

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

3) patches against mips* not mentioned in changelog. >> >> basically I would change changelog mentioning the patch name, e.g. >> new patches: >> foo.diff: add support for foo architecture >> >> and so on. >> the patches should be good :) > > I have

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

ease see the entirety of this thread in debian-science: >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2016/01/msg00035.html >> >>> 2) a patch against testsuite not mentioned in changelog >>> 3) patches against mips* not mentioned in changelog. >>> >>

Re: polyml 5.5.2-4

log mentioning the patch name, e.g. > new patches: > foo.diff: add support for foo architecture > > and so on. > the patches should be good :) I have amended the changelog and re-uploaded to mentors; how is it now? Thanks, James -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-scie

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   >