xvidcore_1.3.5-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 21:45:50 +0100 Source: xvidcore Binary: libxvidcore4 libxvidcore-dev Architecture: source amd64 Version: 2:1.3.5-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Multimedia Maintainers

Processed: Bug #888667 in o3dgc marked as pending

Processing control commands: > tag -1 pending Bug #888667 [src:o3dgc] o3dgc: missing Vcs-* fields Added tag(s) pending. -- 888667: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888667 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

liblivemedia_2018.01.24-1_amd64.changes is NEW

binary:liblivemedia62 is NEW. binary:liblivemedia62 is NEW. Your package has been put into the NEW queue, which requires manual action from the ftpteam to process. The upload was otherwise valid (it had a good OpenPGP signature and file hashes are valid), so please be patient. Packages are

Bug#888664: collada2gltf: missing Vcs-* fields

Hi, On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 02:59:11PM +, James Cowgill wrote: > On 28/01/18 14:45, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 02:34:33PM +, James Cowgill wrote: > >> In my analysis of the multimedia team repositories on alioth I noticed > >> that this repository does

Processing of xvidcore_1.3.5-1_amd64.changes

xvidcore_1.3.5-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: xvidcore_1.3.5-1.dsc xvidcore_1.3.5.orig.tar.bz2 xvidcore_1.3.5-1.debian.tar.xz libxvidcore-dev_1.3.5-1_amd64.deb libxvidcore4-dbgsym_1.3.5-1_amd64.deb libxvidcore4_1.3.5-1_amd64.deb

Processing of liblivemedia_2018.01.24-1_amd64.changes

liblivemedia_2018.01.24-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: liblivemedia_2018.01.24-1.dsc liblivemedia_2018.01.24.orig.tar.gz liblivemedia_2018.01.24-1.debian.tar.xz libbasicusageenvironment1-dbgsym_2018.01.24-1_amd64.deb

Re: Proposed multimedia team migration to salsa.d.o

On 01/28/2018 06:17 PM, James Cowgill wrote: >>> # Incorrect Package Naming >>> My script requires repo name = source package name at the moment so >>> these will be omitted. The pd-* repositories are special because they >>> need to be put in a separate group. Should they intentionally not have

Re: Proposed multimedia team migration to salsa.d.o

Hi James, Thanks for doing this. multimedia-blends could do with a refresh, and it is a bit of a special case as the blends task (web) pages (https://blends.debian.org/multimedia/tasks/index) are generated from it. Lots would probably break if it was renamed. I will take care of it manually

Re: Proposed multimedia team migration to salsa.d.o

Hi, On 28/01/18 16:56, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 04:37:36PM +, James Cowgill wrote: >> Now that salsa is stable, I am going to start migrating things over. I > > Thank you for doing the work! > >> One other change from the proposed plan is the addition of the >>

Re: Proposed multimedia team migration to salsa.d.o

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 04:37:36PM +, James Cowgill wrote: > Now that salsa is stable, I am going to start migrating things over. I Thank you for doing the work! > One other change from the proposed plan is the addition of the > "tagpending" webhook described here: >

Re: Proposed multimedia team migration to salsa.d.o

Hi, On 01/01/18 17:43, James Cowgill wrote: > Migration > === > Migration of the maintainer email address can start immediately. New > packages can also immediately start hosting their VCS on salsa.debian.org. > > For existing packages, I propose: > - Wait until salsa.debian.org is declared

Bug#888657: ladish: should this package be removed?

Hi, On 28/01/18 14:16, treb...@tuxfamily.org wrote: > Le 2018-01-28 14:38, Simon McVittie a écrit : >> Source: flowcanvas >> Severity: important >> User: debian...@lists.debian.org >> Usertags: proposed-removal >> Control: clone -1 -2 >> Control: reassign -2 ladish >> Control: retitle -2 ladish:

Bug#888664: collada2gltf: missing Vcs-* fields

Hi, On 28/01/18 14:45, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 02:34:33PM +, James Cowgill wrote: >> In my analysis of the multimedia team repositories on alioth I noticed >> that this repository does not have any Vcs-* fields, but does have a >> repository on both alioth and

Processed: Re: Bug#888664: collada2gltf: missing Vcs-* fields

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tag 888664 + pending Bug #888664 [src:collada2gltf] collada2gltf: missing Vcs-* fields Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #888664 to the same tags previously set > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. --

Bug#888664: collada2gltf: missing Vcs-* fields

tag 888664 + pending thanks Hi, On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 03:45:18PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 02:34:33PM +, James Cowgill wrote: > > In my analysis of the multimedia team repositories on alioth I noticed > > that this repository does not have any Vcs-* fields, but

Bug#888664: collada2gltf: missing Vcs-* fields

Hi, On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 02:34:33PM +, James Cowgill wrote: > In my analysis of the multimedia team repositories on alioth I noticed > that this repository does not have any Vcs-* fields, but does have a > repository on both alioth and salsa. I consider that a bug when that one was

Processed: Bug #888664 in collada2gltf marked as pending

Processing control commands: > tag -1 pending Bug #888664 [src:collada2gltf] collada2gltf: missing Vcs-* fields Added tag(s) pending. -- 888664: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888664 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#888667: o3dgc: missing Vcs-* fields

Source: o3dgc Version: 0~20131011-3 Severity: minor Hi, In my analysis of the multimedia team repositories on alioth I noticed that this repository does not have any Vcs-* fields, but does have a repository on alioth. Probably these fields should be added. Thanks, James signature.asc

Bug#888668: pd-purepd: missing Vcs-* fields

Source: pd-purepd Version: 0.1.1-1 Severity: minor Hi, In my analysis of the multimedia team repositories on alioth I noticed that this repository does not have any Vcs-* fields, but does have a repository on alioth. Probably these fields should be added. Thanks, James signature.asc

Bug#888657: ladish: should this package be removed?

Le 2018-01-28 14:38, Simon McVittie a écrit : Source: flowcanvas Severity: important User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: proposed-removal Control: clone -1 -2 Control: reassign -2 ladish Control: retitle -2 ladish: should this package be removed? flowcanvas depends on numerous obsolete

Bug#888666: libshairport: incorrect Vcs-* fields

Source: libshairport Version: 1.2.1~git20120510.cbed0c1-3 Severity: minor Hi, The Vcs-* fields for libshairport point to a repository on collab-maint, but it appears that the real packaging is hosted with the multimedia team on alioth. Please update these fields. Thanks, James signature.asc

Bug#888665: libsamplerate: missing Vcs-* fields

Source: libsamplerate Version: 0.1.9-1 Severity: minor Hi, In my analysis of the multimedia team repositories on alioth I noticed that this repository does not have any Vcs-* fields, but does have a repository on alioth. Probably these fields should be added. Thanks, James signature.asc

Bug#888664: collada2gltf: missing Vcs-* fields

Source: collada2gltf Version: 20140924-4 Severity: minor Hi, In my analysis of the multimedia team repositories on alioth I noticed that this repository does not have any Vcs-* fields, but does have a repository on both alioth and salsa. Probably these fields should be added. Thanks, James

Re: [Audacity-devel] Bug#888332: audacity: FTBFS with FFmpeg 3.5

Hi, On 27/01/18 18:30, Paul Licameli wrote: > On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: >> 2018-01-26 21:00 GMT+01:00 Paul Licameli : >>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Darrell Walisser < >>> darrell.walis...@gmail.com> wrote: On

Processed: flowcanvas: should this package be removed? (superseded by ganv)

Processing control commands: > clone -1 -2 Bug #888656 [src:flowcanvas] flowcanvas: should this package be removed? (superseded by ganv) Bug 888656 cloned as bug 888657 > reassign -2 ladish Bug #888657 [src:flowcanvas] flowcanvas: should this package be removed? (superseded by ganv) Bug

Bug#888656: flowcanvas: should this package be removed? (superseded by ganv)

Source: flowcanvas Severity: important User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: proposed-removal Control: clone -1 -2 Control: reassign -2 ladish Control: retitle -2 ladish: should this package be removed? flowcanvas depends on numerous obsolete GNOME 2-era libraries (e.g. #885095) and hasn't

Bug#888654: mpv: CVE-2018-6360

Source: mpv Version: 0.23.0-1 Severity: grave Tags: security upstream Forwarded: https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/5456 Hi, the following vulnerability was published for mpv. CVE-2018-6360[0]: | mpv through 0.28.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code | via a crafted web