Bug#994127: libvirt-daemon: Error creating virtual network - iptables (nf_tables) table `nat' is incompatible, use 'nft'

[Laurent Baillet]

Hello

I was faced to the same problem after a Buster to Bullseye upgrade. The
same commands as you returned the same results.

After a week of unsuccessful attempts, I have been able to get my VM back
and apparently without regression by removing

   - all my *qemu* *libvirt* *iptables* *nftables* named packages
   - my DHCP client packages
   - my orphaned packages (several runs)

After that, I reinstalled them, nftables after all the other ones.

If it can help someone...

Regards

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:03 AM James Youngman  wrote:

> Package: libvirt-daemon
> Version: 7.0.0-3
> Followup-For: Bug #994127
>
> I also find (after upgrade from buster to bullseye) that my default
> network will no longer start:
>
> jupiter:~$ sudo virsh net-list --all
>  Name   State  Autostart   Persistent
> ---
>  defaultinactive   yes yes
>  ipv6-net   inactive   yes yes
>
> jupiter:~$ sudo virsh net-info default
> Name:   default
> UUID:   b5472d74-d362-4d85-900c-14959e3dfd35
> Active: no
> Persistent: yes
> Autostart:  yes
> Bridge: virbr0
>
> jupiter:~$ sudo virsh net-start default
> error: Failed to start network default
> error: internal error: Failed to apply firewall rules /usr/sbin/iptables
> -w --table filter --list-rules: iptables v1.8.7 (nf_tables): table `filter'
> is incompatible, use 'nft' tool.
>
>
> jupiter:~$ dpkg -l nftables iptables
> Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
> |
> Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend
> |/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
> ||/ Name   Version  Architecture Description
>
> +++-==---==
> ii  iptables   1.8.7-1  amd64administration tools for
> packet filtering and NAT
> ii  nftables   0.9.8-3.1amd64Program to control packet
> filtering rules by Netfilter project
> jupiter:~$ readlink -f /usr/sbin/iptables
> /usr/sbin/xtables-nft-multi
> jupiter:~$  update-alternatives --display iptables
> iptables - auto mode
>   link best version is /usr/sbin/iptables-nft
>   link currently points to /usr/sbin/iptables-nft
>   link iptables is /usr/sbin/iptables
>   slave iptables-restore is /usr/sbin/iptables-restore
>   slave iptables-save is /usr/sbin/iptables-save
> /usr/sbin/iptables-legacy - priority 10
>   slave iptables-restore: /usr/sbin/iptables-legacy-restore
>   slave iptables-save: /usr/sbin/iptables-legacy-save
> /usr/sbin/iptables-nft - priority 20
>   slave iptables-restore: /usr/sbin/iptables-nft-restore
>   slave iptables-save: /usr/sbin/iptables-nft-save
> jupiter:~$ ls -l /usr/sbin/iptables   /etc/alternatives/iptables
> /usr/sbin/iptables-nft /usr/sbin/xtables-nft-multi
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Jul 10  2019 /etc/alternatives/iptables ->
> /usr/sbin/iptables-nft
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 26 Jul 10  2019 /usr/sbin/iptables ->
> /etc/alternatives/iptables
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Jan 17  2021 /usr/sbin/iptables-nft ->
> xtables-nft-multi
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 220232 Jan 17  2021 /usr/sbin/xtables-nft-multi
>
> It appears that moving the alternative doesn't fix the problem.   A
> bit confusingly, the command shown, if I run it manually, appears to
> work:
>
> jupiter:~$ sudo virsh net-start default
> error: Failed to start network default
> error: internal error: Failed to apply firewall rules /usr/sbin/iptables
> -w --table filter --list-rules: iptables v1.8.7 (nf_tables): table `filter'
> is incompatible, use 'nft' tool.
>
>
>
> jupiter:~$ sudo /usr/sbin/iptables -w --table filter --list-rules
> -P INPUT ACCEPT
> -P FORWARD ACCEPT
> -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
> jupiter:~$ echo $?
> 0
>
> Though of course, that doesn't get my VMs booted.  None of my guest
> VMs can start.  This is a significant problem for me.
>
> -- System Information:
> Debian Release: 11.1
>   APT prefers stable-updates
>   APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable-security'), (500,
> 'stable')
> Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
>
> Kernel: Linux 5.10.0-9-amd64 (SMP w/12 CPU threads)
> Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_WARN,
> TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
> Locale: LANG=en_IE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_IE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8),
> LANGUAGE=en_IE:en
> Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
> Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
> LSM: AppArmor: enabled
>
> Versions of packages libvirt-daemon depends on:
> ii  libblkid1   2.36.1-8
> ii  libc6   2.31-13+deb11u2
> ii  libdevmapper1.02.1  2:1.02.175-2.1
> ii  libgcc-s1   10.2.1-6
> ii  libglib2.0-02.66.8-1
> ii  libnetcf1   1:0.2.8-1.1
> ii  libparted2  3.4-1
> ii  libpcap0.8  1.10.0-2
> ii  libpciaccess0   0.16-1
> ii  libselinux1 3.1-3
> ii  libudev1

Bug#999342: shadow FTBFS: bd-uninstallable due to conflict on libsepol1-dev

[Helmut Grohne]

Source: shadow
Version: 1:4.8.1-1.1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs patch
User: helm...@debian.org
Usertags: rebootstrap

shadow fails to build from source in unstable, because the selinux
people started a transition, bumped soname and in that process moved to
unversioned -dev packages. The final result is that for now shadow
exhibits a conflict on libsepol1-dev, but before too long it will miss a
versioned -dev package. Switching to unversioned ones fixes the issue in
practice and completes the transition for shadow.

Helmut
diff --minimal -Nru shadow-4.8.1/debian/changelog shadow-4.8.1/debian/changelog
--- shadow-4.8.1/debian/changelog   2021-10-23 21:04:57.0 +0200
+++ shadow-4.8.1/debian/changelog   2021-11-10 07:51:53.0 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+shadow (1:4.8.1-1.2) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
+
+  * Non-maintainer upload.
+  * Fix FTBFS: Use unversioned selinux and semanage dependencies.
+(Closes: #-1)
+
+ -- Helmut Grohne   Wed, 10 Nov 2021 07:51:53 +0100
+
 shadow (1:4.8.1-1.1) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   [ Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues ]
diff --minimal -Nru shadow-4.8.1/debian/control shadow-4.8.1/debian/control
--- shadow-4.8.1/debian/control 2021-10-23 20:29:33.0 +0200
+++ shadow-4.8.1/debian/control 2021-11-10 07:51:49.0 +0100
@@ -12,8 +12,8 @@
docbook-xsl,
docbook-xml,
libxml2-utils,
-   libselinux1-dev [linux-any],
-   libsemanage1-dev [linux-any],
+   libselinux-dev [linux-any],
+   libsemanage-dev [linux-any],
itstool,
bison,
libaudit-dev [linux-any]

Bug#999341: xosview FTCBFS: uses the build architecture compiler in make install

[Helmut Grohne]

Source: xosview
Version: 1.23-2
Tags: patch
User: debian-cr...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftcbfs

The last upload made xosview fail to cross build again, because it
started using make install and when that operates with a different
environment, it builds additional objects. Please also pass PLATFORM and
ARCH there. I'm attaching a patch for your convenience.

Helmut
diff --minimal -Nru xosview-1.23/debian/changelog xosview-1.23/debian/changelog
--- xosview-1.23/debian/changelog   2021-10-30 15:46:54.0 +0200
+++ xosview-1.23/debian/changelog   2021-11-10 07:43:54.0 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+xosview (1.23-2.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
+
+  * Non-maintainer upload.
+  * Fix FTCBFS: Also pass PLATFORM and ARCH to dh_auto_install. (Closes: #-1)
+
+ -- Helmut Grohne   Wed, 10 Nov 2021 07:43:54 +0100
+
 xosview (1.23-2) unstable; urgency=low
 
   [ Pino Toscano ]
diff --minimal -Nru xosview-1.23/debian/rules xosview-1.23/debian/rules
--- xosview-1.23/debian/rules   2021-04-14 09:06:06.0 +0200
+++ xosview-1.23/debian/rules   2021-11-10 07:43:35.0 +0100
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
dh_auto_build -- PLATFORM=$(PLATFORM) ARCH=$(ARCH)
 
 override_dh_auto_install:
-   dh_auto_install -- PREFIX=/usr
+   dh_auto_install -- PREFIX=/usr PLATFORM=$(PLATFORM) ARCH=$(ARCH)
install -m 0644 Xdefaults \
debian/xosview/etc/X11/app-defaults/XOsview
grep xosvstipple Xdefaults.stipple >> \

Bug#998893: orphan-sysvinit-scripts: fails to configure: "not replacing deleted config file /etc/init.d/rsyslog"

[Dirk Griesbach]

Hi,

While rsyslog doesn't ship its init script anymore, ucf is still having 
a reference to that script after the rsyslog upgrade.


,
| # ls -l /var/lib/ucf/cache/*rsyslog*
| -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2864  5. Nov 01:24 
/var/lib/ucf/cache/:etc:init.d:rsyslog
`

For ucf, the case is clear. The configuration file is under its control 
and the file was changed (deleted) and per policy, all changes to 
configuration files must be preserved. So, orphan-sysvinit-scripts isn't 
allowed to "overwrite" this change by creating a new file.


As a workaround, the environment variable UCF_FORCE_CONFFMISS=1 can be set 
and then the upgrade will run through.


I guess, rsyslog eventually needs to de-register that file from ucf 
correctly when removing the init script.


Cheers,
Dirk

Am Di, 09. Nov 2021 um 17:05:07 + schrieb Matthew Vernon:

On 09/11/2021 15:45, gregor herrmann wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2021 16:17:31 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:


On two different setups, I get:

Not replacing deleted config file /etc/init.d/rsyslog
update-rc.d: error: initscript does not exist: /etc/init.d/rsyslog
dpkg: error processing package orphan-sysvinit-scripts (--configure):
 installed orphan-sysvinit-scripts package post-installation script subprocess 
returned error exit status 1
Errors were encountered while processing:
 orphan-sysvinit-scripts


Hm, I wonder if this is because rsyslog is more vigorous than it 
should be about removing the init script?


[we've not seen this with any other package to date]

Matthew

Bug#874264: [PATCH] exec: Check executable bit when searching path

[Herbert Xu]

Andrej Shadura  wrote:
> 
> Here’s an old bug from 2017, but it was brought to my attention in some 
> recent discussion about which "which" is which. There’s also a patch in 
> one of the follow-ups, but I’m afraid I don’t know enough about that 
> part of code to judge the consequences of it being applied:
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/874264
> 
>  Forwarded Message 
> Subject: dash: 'command -v' mistakenly returns a shell script whose 
> executable is not set
> Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 10:45:48 -0400
> From: Norman Ramsey 
> To: Debian Bug Tracking System 
> 
> Package: dash
> Version: 0.5.8-2.4
> Severity: normal
> 
> Dear Maintainer,
> 
> 
> I tracked a build bug in s-nail to a problem with dash.  Symptom:
> building s-nail tries to run /home/nr/bin/clang, a script whose
> executable bit is not set.  We tracked the problem to the result of
> running `command -v clang` with /bin/sh:
> 
>   nr@homedog ~/n/s-nail> /bin/sh -c 'command -v clang'
>   /home/nr/bin/clang
>   nr@homedog ~/n/s-nail> ls -l /home/nr/bin/clang
>   -rw-rw-r-- 1 nr nr 1009 Aug 29  2011 /home/nr/bin/clang
>   nr@homedog ~/n/s-nail> ls -l /bin/sh
>   lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jan 24  2017 /bin/sh -> dash
>   nr@homedog ~/n/s-nail> ksh -c 'command -v clang'
>   /usr/bin/clang
>   nr@homedog ~/n/s-nail> bash -c 'command -v clang'
>   /usr/bin/clang
>   nr@homedog ~/n/s-nail> sh -c 'command -v clang'
>   /home/nr/bin/clang
>   nr@homedog ~/n/s-nail> dash -c 'command -v clang'
>   /home/nr/bin/clang
>   nr@homedog ~/n/s-nail> fish -c 'command -v clang'
>   /usr/bin/clang
> 
> When I run `command -v clang` I expect it to answer /usr/bin/clang.
> 
> -- System Information:
> Debian Release: 9.1
>   APT prefers stable
>   APT policy: (990, 'stable'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
> Architecture: i386 (x86_64)
> Foreign Architectures: amd64
> 
> Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
> Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to 
> en_US.utf8), LANGUAGE=C (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_US.utf8)
> Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
> Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
> 
> Versions of packages dash depends on:
> ii  debianutils  4.8.1.1
> ii  dpkg 1.18.24
> ii  libc62.24-11+deb9u1
> 
> dash recommends no packages.
> 
> dash suggests no packages.
> 
> -- debconf information:
> * dash/sh: true

This is inherited from NetBSD.  There is even a commented-out
block of code that tried to fix this.

Anyway, we now have faccessat so we can simply use it.

Reported-by: Norman Ramsey 
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu 

diff --git a/src/bltin/test.c b/src/bltin/test.c
index c7fc479..fd8a43b 100644
--- a/src/bltin/test.c
+++ b/src/bltin/test.c
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
 #include 
 #include 
 #include "bltin.h"
+#include "../exec.h"
 
 /* test(1) accepts the following grammar:
oexpr   ::= aexpr | aexpr "-o" oexpr ;
@@ -148,11 +149,6 @@ static int isoperand(char **);
 static int newerf(const char *, const char *);
 static int olderf(const char *, const char *);
 static int equalf(const char *, const char *);
-#ifdef HAVE_FACCESSAT
-static int test_file_access(const char *, int);
-#else
-static int test_access(const struct stat64 *, int);
-#endif
 
 #ifdef HAVE_FACCESSAT
 # ifdef HAVE_TRADITIONAL_FACCESSAT
@@ -527,7 +523,7 @@ static int has_exec_bit_set(const char *path)
return st.st_mode & (S_IXUSR | S_IXGRP | S_IXOTH);
 }
 
-static int test_file_access(const char *path, int mode)
+int test_file_access(const char *path, int mode)
 {
if (faccessat_confused_about_superuser() &&
mode == X_OK && geteuid() == 0 && !has_exec_bit_set(path))
@@ -657,7 +653,7 @@ static int test_file_access(const char *path, int mode)
  * (euid==uid&==gid), but uses st_mode for '-x' iff running as root.
  * i.e. it does strictly conform to 1003.1-2001 (and presumably 1003.2b).
  */
-static int test_access(const struct stat64 *sp, int stmode)
+int test_access(const struct stat64 *sp, int stmode)
 {
gid_t *groups;
register int n;
diff --git a/src/exec.c b/src/exec.c
index 87354d4..184717f 100644
--- a/src/exec.c
+++ b/src/exec.c
@@ -458,20 +458,14 @@ loop:
stunalloc(fullname);
goto success;
}
-#ifdef notdef
-   /* XXX this code stops root executing stuff, and is buggy
-  if you need a group from the group list. */
-   if (statb.st_uid == geteuid()) {
-   if ((statb.st_mode & 0100) == 0)
-   goto loop;
-   } else if (statb.st_gid == getegid()) {
-   if ((statb.st_mode & 010) == 0)
-   goto loop;
-   } else {
-   if ((statb.st_mode & 01) == 0)
-   goto loop;
-   }
+   if ((statb.st_mode & 0111) != 0111 &&
+#ifdef HAVE_FACCESSAT
+   !test_file_access(fullname, 

Bug#999032: pari-elldata: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 09/11/21 at 22:51 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 10:28:17PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Source: pari-elldata
> > Version: 0.20190911-1
> > Severity: important
> > Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
> > Tags: bookworm sid
> > User: debian...@lists.debian.org
> > Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep
> > 
> > Dear maintainer,
> > 
> > Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
> > debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules
> 
> Hello Lucas,
> 
> Given that the package is arch: all, it is a bit pointless to require 
> build-indep which will
> never be called.

That's a point for the policy team, not me?

Lucas

Bug#999298: galib: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Hi Fabio,

is is still useful to keep it in Debian, or should it be removed?

Lucas


On 10/11/21 at 00:36 +, Fábio Roberto Teodoro wrote:
> I want to help. But don't know what to do. I've made this package and 
> submitted the ITP in 2008. Haven't listen about it until today. So I think 
> the format of the package and all the process have completely changed since 
> then. And I'm not using this library anymore too.
> 
> Tell me if there's anything I can do to help, what I can do to help.
> 

Bug#999254: libjs-edit-area: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Control: reopen -1

Hi Thomas,

In which version? Did you forget to upload?

Lucas

On 09/11/21 at 23:35 +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> This was fixed before you wrote the bug report. :)On Nov 9, 2021 22:28, Lucas 
> Nussbaum  wrote:
> >
> > Source: libjs-edit-area 
> > Version: 0.8.2-1.1 
> > Severity: important 
> > Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9 
> > Tags: bookworm sid 
> > User: debian...@lists.debian.org 
> > Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep 
> >
> > Dear maintainer, 
> >
> > Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in 
> > debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012. 
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules
> >  
> >
> > Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software 
> > could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be 
> > affected by this issue. 
> >
> > This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in 
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html . 
> > The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month. 
> >
> > Best, 
> >
> > Lucas 

Bug#999340: amavisd-new: amavis stops with DB unregistering failed

[Yves-Alexis Perez]

Package: amavisd-new
Version: 1:2.11.1-5
Severity: important

Hi,
I recently updated my amavis/spamassassin LXC to bullseye and started
experiencing random amavis shutdowns, which in turn interrupt the mail
pipeline completely. That happens sometime after few minutes, sometimes
after a few hours.

I've tried raising the debug level but it doesn't really help.

In the logs, what I have is:


Nov  9 18:57:49 lxc-amavis amavis[456]: (00456-20) Requesting process rundown 
after 20 tasks (and 20 sessions)
Nov  9 18:57:49 lxc-amavis amavis[456]: (00456-20) TempDir removal: empty 
tempdir is being removed: 
/var/lib/amavis/tmp/amavis-20211109T115021-00456-Z7zXfwfm
Nov  9 18:57:49 lxc-amavis amavis[456]: (00456-20) load: 0 %, total idle 
25624.889 s, busy 22.962 s
Nov  9 18:57:49 lxc-amavis amavis[456]: (00456-20) sd_notify (no socket): 
STOPPING=1\nSTATUS=Server rundown, notifying child processes.
Nov  9 18:57:49 lxc-amavis amavis[456]: (00456-20) Net::Server: 
2021/11/09-18:57:49 Server closing!
Nov  9 18:57:49 lxc-amavis amavis[456]: (00456-20) sd_notify (no socket): 
STATUS=Child processes have been stopped.
Nov  9 18:57:49 lxc-amavis amavis[456]: (00456-20) (!)Amavis::END: DB 
unregistering failed:

The first few logs seem normal (apparently the child processes will stop
after processing a number of tasks and a new child will be started) but
somehow the process then fails with that DB unregistering failed
message.

Unfortunately, I don't have any log (with $log_level=3) after that line,
so I'm unsure what actually happen.

I've tried to remove the dbs in /var/lib/amavis/db in case those would
be corrupted, but it didn't work, I still had the failure above.

I didn't find a lot of references to that log message so I'm opening a
bug here.

I don't have reportbug nor net access on the LXC so I can't provide the
full reportbug output but if you need information on the system please
ask. It's an up to date bullseye LXC running on an up to date bullseye
host.

Regards,
-- 
Yves-Alexis

Bug#998828: apt: man apt_preferences.d wrong definition of priorities

[maxime . deroucy]

On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 15:28 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > Records defined
> > using patterns in the Pin field other than "*" are treated like
> > specific-form records.
> [… vs …]
> > Records defined
> > using exactly "Package: *" are general-form, all the other are
> > specific-form records.
> 
> Aren't that two different ways of saying the same thing?
> 
> Could you give an example where the existing definition of
> priorities is wrong while yours is correct as per bug title?

The current statment mention the "Pin" field, but I think it's the
"Package" field.

`Pin: *` isn't valid.

Also the term "generic-form" is only used in this paragraf, while this
kind of record is called "general form" or "general-form" everywhere
else (if the "generic-form" is actualy equivalent to "general-form"…
which I am not 100% sure). It's confusing.

In fact, my proposition is maybe inaccurate ; to be safe it should be :

   The first specific-form record matching an available package version
   determines the priority of the package version. Failing that, the
   priority of the package is defined as the maximum of all priorities
   defined by general-form records matching the version. The difference
   between specific and general-form records are in section "The Effect
   of APT Preferences".
-- 
Regards
Maxime de Roucy

Bug#998790: firefox: Video not playing

[Christophe Troestler]

I had to create a nex profile for video to work again (I also had many tabs 
open, I have few now).

Bug#999339: plasma-workspace: Maximized windows do not move to primary display when connected

[Norbert Preining]

Hi Shai,

> Since 5.23, I've noted that this doesn't quite work. With the
> current version I've noticed further that it's the maximized
> windows, specifically, which stay on the laptop screen (which,
> when an external is connected, is the secondary display); 
> normal-sized windows behave as expected.

Can you please test 5.23.3 which I have uploaded just today. It has
several fixes included concerning exactly this problem, as far as I read
it.

Thanks

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert  https://www.preining.info
Fujitsu Research  +  IFMGA Guide  +  TU Wien  +  TeX Live  + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Bug#999339: plasma-workspace: Maximized windows do not move to primary display when connected

[Shai Berger]

Package: plasma-workspace
Version: 4:5.23.2-1
Severity: normal

Dear Maintainer,

I use a laptop in different locations, with external screens.
Since the external screens are larger, I usually set them as 
the primary display, and use most of my applications there.

Until (and including) 5.21, when I had windows on the external
screen, disconnected it and reconnected an external screen, the
windows would hop back to the external (primary) display.

Since 5.23, I've noted that this doesn't quite work. With the
current version I've noticed further that it's the maximized
windows, specifically, which stay on the laptop screen (which,
when an external is connected, is the secondary display); 
normal-sized windows behave as expected.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: bookworm/sid
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable-security'), (500, 
'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 5.14.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads)
Locale: LANG=en_IL, LC_CTYPE=en_IL (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_IL:en
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages plasma-workspace depends on:
ii  dbus-user-session [default-dbus-session-bus]1.12.20-3
ii  drkonqi 5.23.2-1
ii  frameworkintegration5.86.0-1
ii  gdb-minimal [gdb]   10.1-2
ii  init-system-helpers 1.60
ii  iso-codes   4.7.0-1
ii  kactivitymanagerd   5.23.2-1
ii  kded5   5.86.0-1
ii  kinit   5.86.0-1
ii  kio 5.86.0-1
ii  kpackagetool5   5.86.0-1
ii  kwin-common 4:5.23.2-1
ii  libappstreamqt2 0.14.6-1
ii  libc6   2.32-4
ii  libcolorcorrect54:5.23.2-1
ii  libegl1 1.3.4-2+b1
ii  libfontconfig1  2.13.1-4.2
ii  libfreetype62.11.0+dfsg-1
ii  libgcc-s1   11.2.0-10
ii  libgl1  1.3.4-2+b1
ii  libgps283.22-4
ii  libice6 2:1.0.10-1
ii  libkf5activities5   5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5activitiesstats1  5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5archive5  5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5authcore5 5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5baloo55.86.0-1
ii  libkf5bookmarks55.86.0-1
ii  libkf5calendarevents5   5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5completion5   5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5config-bin5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5configcore5   5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5configgui55.86.0-1
ii  libkf5configwidgets55.86.0-1
ii  libkf5coreaddons5   5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5crash55.86.0-1
ii  libkf5dbusaddons5   5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5declarative5  5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5globalaccel-bin   5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5globalaccel5  5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5guiaddons55.86.0-1
ii  libkf5holidays5 1:5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5i18n5 5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5iconthemes5   5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5idletime5 5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5itemmodels5   5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5jobwidgets5   5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5kcmutils5 5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5kiocore5  5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5kiofilewidgets5   5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5kiogui5   5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5kiowidgets5   5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5networkmanagerqt6 5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5newstuff5 5.86.0-3
ii  libkf5newstuffcore5 5.86.0-3
ii  libkf5notifications55.86.0-1
ii  libkf5notifyconfig5 5.86.0-1
ii  libkf5package5

Bug#999338: urlscan: New upstream version 0.9.7

[Tobias Frost]

Source: urlscan
Version: 0.9.5-1
Severity: wishlist

Upstream has released 0.9.6 during the freeze and now 0.9.7, with a few nice
new features and fixes. Would be nice to have them in Debian as well.

Thanks for packaging urlscan! 

-- 
tobi

Bug#999101: python-cartopy: autopkgtest failure against python3-defaults/3.9.7-4

[Sebastiaan Couwenberg]

Control: tags -1 pending

Thanks for the patch, it's applied in git.

Kind Regards,

Bas

--
 GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146  50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1

Bug#962003: Still present

[Curt Sampson]

It seems to have been almost five months since the last report on this. I
see this right now on a fully updated Debian 11 on a Thinkpad X201s.

The kernel is 5.10.0-9-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 5.10.70-1 (2021-09-30) x86_64
GNU/Linux.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson 
To iterate is human, to recurse divine.
- L Peter Deutsch

Bug#994055:

[Michael Hudson-Doyle]

Hi, thanks for this fix. I think it meets the threshold for NMU (and also
the maintainer seems to have been awol since 2015) so I'm uploading it to
DELAYED/10.

Bug#995927: possible fix

[Brandeburg, Jesse]

If someone wanted to test my experimental fix for this issue, please give the 
attached a try.



0001-e100-fix-device-suspend-resume.patch
Description: 0001-e100-fix-device-suspend-resume.patch

Bug#998848: thunderbird: please build against librnp-dev (and Depend: on librnp0) directly

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On Mon 2021-11-08 20:11:06 +0100, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
> But I think it's a bit more complicated currently, a quick look into the 
> source shows me that the upstream build system doesn't support the usage 
> of an external librnp-dev package right now.
> This needs to get addressed upstream I think so we can build against the 
> system library.

Thanks, I've opened https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1740320
so that upstream is aware of the issue.

 --dkg


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#997225: Vendoring image-spec and runtime-spec seem to be the issue

[Shengjing Zhu]

Cloud you backport following commit?
https://github.com/containers/libocispec/commit/8489d9b60105e487564c9966b5748e2a6ea2855b


(Sent on my mobile phone)

Reinhard Tartler  于 2021年11月10日周三 07:05写道：

> I took a look at the issue and here are my thoughts:
>
> - the build error is a failure to link some test binaries. excluding them
> from the build might be possible with some patching.
> - I've upgraded the package to the latest upstream 1.3, and was seeing
> exactly the same build failure
> - the build failure goes away when not stripping the bundled copies of
> runtime-spec and image-spec
> - Dimtry had a conversation about this with upstream at
> https://github.com/containers/crun/issues/240. It seems to be that
> upstream strongly recommends to just use the vendored copies of image-spc
> and runtime-spec
> -  I've pushed my work to
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/crun/-/merge_requests/1
> - I believe the issue was introduced by Shengjing's update in
> https://tracker.debian.org/news/1249177/accepted-golang-github-opencontainers-specs-10266g20a2d97-1-source-into-unstable/
> -- but that was already months ago. So that may not be true
>
> With this, I'd like to suggest to move ahead with my merge request and
> don't strip image-spec and runtime-spec from the package.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> --
> regards,
> Reinhard
>

Bug#999336: RFP: jupyter-packaging -- tools to help build and install Jupyter Python packages

[Joseph Nahmias]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: jupy...@googlegroups.com, debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org

* Package name: jupyter-packaging
  Version : 0.11.0
  Upstream Author : Jupyter Development Team 
* URL : https://github.com/jupyter/jupyter-packaging/
* License : BSD
  Programming Lang: Python
  Description : tools to help build and install Jupyter Python packages

Python packaging tools used by the Jupyter project that handle pre-build
steps such as JavaScript/npm/yarn building and installation steps.

Bug#998338: transition: urdfdom

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:54:49AM +0100, Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 9:46 PM Sebastian Ramacher 
> wrote:
>...
> > CMake Error at /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/cmake/urdf/urdfConfig.cmake:171
> > (message):
> >   Project 'rviz' tried to find library
> >   '$<$>:-lurdfdom_sensor'.  The library is neither ja
> >   target nor built/installed properly.  Did you compile project 'urdf'? Did
> >   you find_package() it before the subdirectory containing its code is
> >   included?
> >
> > This looks like a bug in urdfcom to me … three <, but only two >.
> >
> 
> It is, indeed. Jochen sent the patch upstream
> https://github.com/ros/urdfdom/pull/164 and I have uploaded 3.0.0+ds-5
> shipping it. Let's see if that fixes all the problems.

Still fails:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ros-collada-urdf=i386=1.12.13-6%2Bb1=1636504074=0
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ros-kdl-parser=i386=1.14.1-6%2Bb1=1636504092=0
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ros-rviz=i386=1.14.10%2Bdfsg-2%2Bb2=1636504088=0

The problem is that 
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/cmake/urdf/urdfConfig.cmake in ros-urdf got 
miscompiled.

A fresh binNMU of the packags in level 2 of the transition should fix that.

gazebo will then also need another binNMU as part of level 3, since it 
might have silently dropped URDF support after the first binNMU.

cu
Adrian

Bug#999298: galib: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Fábio Roberto Teodoro]

I want to help. But don't know what to do. I've made this package and submitted 
the ITP in 2008. Haven't listen about it until today. So I think the format of 
the package and all the process have completely changed since then. And I'm not 
using this library anymore too.

Tell me if there's anything I can do to help, what I can do to help.

9 de nov de 2021 18:52:12 Lucas Nussbaum :

> Source: galib
> Version: 1:2.4.7-4
> Severity: important
> Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
> Tags: bookworm sid
> User: debian...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep
> 
> Dear maintainer,
> 
> Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
> debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules
> 
> Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
> could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
> affected by this issue.
> 
> This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
> The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Lucas


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#992288: RFA: bitlbee-facebook

[Sean Whitton]

control: retitle -1 O: bitlbee-facebook

Hello,

On Mon 16 Aug 2021 at 12:45PM -07, Sean Whitton wrote:

> Package: wnpp
> Severity: normal
> Control: affects -1 src:bitlbee-facebook
>
> I am being affected by
>  which makes it
> increasingly difficult for me to test this package before uploading.
>
> Perhaps someone who is not affected by that issue would like to take it
> over?

I hereby orphan bitlbee-facebook.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#710375: [Pkg-sugar-devel] Bug#710375: Bug#710375: [Pkg-squeak-devel] Bug#710375: Fwd: RegEx and RePlugin (was: [Vm-dev] Re: [unix] RePlugin patch for pcre)

[Phil B]

Jonas,

On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 10:15 AM Jonas Smedegaard  wrote:

> Quoting Phil B (2021-11-09 15:37:10)
>


> I looked at the above ealier today, but was discouraged by the lack of
> tags since 12 years.
>

Please don't let that discourage you...


>
> Would be really helpful if from time to time the code was tagged.  Bonus
> points if tagged code was published as tarballs, but I can do that
> myself.  I cannot easily guess at which points in a version control
> system is sensible to make a snapshot for long-term use.
>

The short answer is the most recent commit to trunk should be considered
the latest stable at any given point in time.

I've confirmed with Dave that every commit to squeak-vm should be
considered stable at this point as it's essentially in maintenance mode.
Code changes tend to be small with the recent merge of the patches from the
Debian package likely being the most activity in well over a year.  Since
it's a legacy VM, we don't add major new functionality to it but rather
generally fix bugs and rarely (a small handful of times in the last decade)
will add a capability to keep Smalltalk source code compatible with the
modern VM when possible.  The biggest changes tend to be along the lines of
when a new OS/library version is released (i.e. something changed outside
of squeak-vm) and minor changes need to be made in the source code to keep
things running.


>
> > I also keep a "how to" page with instructions at
> > https://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6354
>
> Thanks, that one is new to me.  I will try read that. :-)
>

Please let me know if you have any questions.


>
>
>  - Jonas
>
>
Thanks,
Phil

-- 
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private--
> pkg-sugar-devel mailing list
> pkg-sugar-de...@alioth-lists.debian.net
> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-sugar-devel
>

Bug#998108: Acknowledgement (firefox freezes shortly after start)

[Christoph Anton Mitterer]

Not sure if this is related, but since a while I've noted even bigger
than the usual performance problems of firefox...

Crackling sound is something I've heard for a month now... but since
about FF93 came out CPU utilisation seems to be much higher.
I just load simple webpages and may CPU goes up to 70-80°C.

Anyone else seen this, too?

Bug#998338: transition: urdfdom

[Jose Luis Rivero]

On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 9:46 PM Sebastian Ramacher 
wrote:

> On 2021-11-08 23:03:51, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 = confirmed
> >
> > On 2021-11-08 22:41:02 +0100, Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
> > > Hi Sebastian:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 5:39 PM Sebastian Ramacher <
> sramac...@debian.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why is liburdfom-tools  being renamed? This packages does not
> contain a
> > > > shared library.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > No reason. Good catch. I've uploaded 3.0.0+ds-3 that revert the
> > > liburdfdom-tools name change.
> > >
> > > Run ratt again with this new version:
> > > https://build.osrfoundation.org/job/debian-ratt-builder/126/
> > >
> > > 2021/11/08 17:25:15 PASSED: ros-collada-urdf
> > > 2021/11/08 17:25:15 PASSED: ros-kdl-parser
> > > 2021/11/08 17:25:15 PASSED: ros-urdf
>
> They all failed with:
>

Holy moly, the ratt build is using the 3.0.0 version and did not fail.
https://build.osrfoundation.org/job/debian-ratt-builder/126/artifact/logs/buildlogs/ros-urdf_1.13.2-7/*view*/
I don't know why, I need to look deeper into the problem. Sorry for that
Sebastian.


> CMake Error at /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/cmake/urdf/urdfConfig.cmake:171
> (message):
>   Project 'rviz' tried to find library
>   '$<$>:-lurdfdom_sensor'.  The library is neither ja
>   target nor built/installed properly.  Did you compile project 'urdf'? Did
>   you find_package() it before the subdirectory containing its code is
>   included?
>
> This looks like a bug in urdfcom to me … three <, but only two >.
>

It is, indeed. Jochen sent the patch upstream
https://github.com/ros/urdfdom/pull/164 and I have uploaded 3.0.0+ds-5
shipping it. Let's see if that fixes all the problems.


>
> Cheers
>
>
> >
> > Please go ahead
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you please proceed with the transition?
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sebastian Ramacher
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Sebastian Ramacher
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Ramacher
>

Bug#995668: RFS: cppimport/21.3.7-1 [RFP] -- cppimport - Import C++ directly from Python! (Python 3)

[Bastian Germann]

Control: tags -1 moreinfo

On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 20:27:39 + Joshua Peisach  
wrote:

Hello, all issues (that you mentioned and others) have been resolved with this 
latest revision. It is all based from PyPi (which does meet debian python team 
standards). The lintian missing-from-source override is intentional, and I have 
filed a bug upstream about it.


Actually, Python Team usually prefers to use the source repository or release tarballs if there is 
no good reason to build from PyPI.


You say lintian overrides are intentional. But the lintian complaint is valid. You do not know if 
the binaries are actually compiled from source. So this is actually a really good reason to build 
from the GitHub tarball. Please change back and do not forget to add the leading zeros to the 
version components. And change the watch file.


I have pushed two commits with minor changes.

Bug#999335: cura: Zeroconf no longer works due to API change

[Gregor Riepl]

Package: cura
Version: 4.8-4
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: onit...@gmail.com

When loading the zeroconf module, the following stack trace is produced:

UM3NetworkPrinting.src.Network.ZeroConfClient._handleOnServiceChangedRequests
[99]: Exception: Failed to get service info for [_ultimaker._tcp.local.]
[ultimakersystem-ccbdd3003991._ultimaker._tcp.local.], the request will be
rescheduled
UM3NetworkPrinting.src.Network.ZeroConfClient._handleOnServiceChangedRequests
[99]: Traceback (most recent call last):
UM3NetworkPrinting.src.Network.ZeroConfClient._handleOnServiceChangedRequests
[99]:   File
"/usr/lib/cura/plugins/UM3NetworkPrinting/src/Network/ZeroConfClient.py", line
95, in _handleOnServiceChangedRequests
UM3NetworkPrinting.src.Network.ZeroConfClient._handleOnServiceChangedRequests
[99]: result = self._onServiceChanged(zeroconf, service_type, name,
state_change)
UM3NetworkPrinting.src.Network.ZeroConfClient._handleOnServiceChangedRequests
[99]:   File
"/usr/lib/cura/plugins/UM3NetworkPrinting/src/Network/ZeroConfClient.py", line
117, in _onServiceChanged
UM3NetworkPrinting.src.Network.ZeroConfClient._handleOnServiceChangedRequests
[99]: return self._onServiceAdded(zero_conf, service_type, name)
UM3NetworkPrinting.src.Network.ZeroConfClient._handleOnServiceChangedRequests
[99]:   File
"/usr/lib/cura/plugins/UM3NetworkPrinting/src/Network/ZeroConfClient.py", line
132, in _onServiceAdded
UM3NetworkPrinting.src.Network.ZeroConfClient._handleOnServiceChangedRequests
[99]: if info.address:
UM3NetworkPrinting.src.Network.ZeroConfClient._handleOnServiceChangedRequests
[99]: AttributeError: 'ServiceInfo' object has no attribute 'address'

This was caused by: https://github.com/jstasiak/python-zeroconf/pull/260

It shouldn't be too hard fix. Here's and example how it could be done:
https://github.com/rytilahti/python-miio/pull/898/files
And it's possibly already fixed upstream?


-- System Information:
Debian Release: bookworm/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (900, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 
'testing-debug'), (300, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental-debug'), (1, 
'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 5.14.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_USER
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), 
LANGUAGE=en_GB:en
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages cura depends on:
ii  cura-engine 1:4.8-1
ii  fdm-materials   4.8-1
ii  fonts-open-sans 1.11-1.1
ii  python3 3.9.2-3
ii  python3-certifi 2020.6.20-1
ii  python3-charon  4.8-1
ii  python3-cryptography3.3.2-1
ii  python3-pynest2d4.8.0-2
ii  python3-pyqt5   5.15.6+dfsg-1
ii  python3-pyqt5.qtopengl  5.15.6+dfsg-1
ii  python3-requests2.25.1+dfsg-2
ii  python3-savitar 4.8-1+b1
ii  python3-serial  3.5~b0-1
ii  python3-shapely 1.8.0-1
ii  python3-uranium 4.8-1
ii  qml-module-qt-labs-folderlistmodel  5.15.2+dfsg-8
ii  qml-module-qt-labs-settings 5.15.2+dfsg-8
ii  qml-module-qtqml-models25.15.2+dfsg-8
ii  qml-module-qtquick-controls 5.15.2-2
ii  qml-module-qtquick-controls25.15.2+dfsg-4
ii  qml-module-qtquick-dialogs  5.15.2-2
ii  uranium-plugins 4.8-1

Versions of packages cura recommends:
ii  python3-zeroconf  0.36.9-1

cura suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

Bug#997225: Vendoring image-spec and runtime-spec seem to be the issue

[Reinhard Tartler]

I took a look at the issue and here are my thoughts:

- the build error is a failure to link some test binaries. excluding them
from the build might be possible with some patching.
- I've upgraded the package to the latest upstream 1.3, and was seeing
exactly the same build failure
- the build failure goes away when not stripping the bundled copies of
runtime-spec and image-spec
- Dimtry had a conversation about this with upstream at
https://github.com/containers/crun/issues/240. It seems to be that upstream
strongly recommends to just use the vendored copies of image-spc and
runtime-spec
-  I've pushed my work to
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/crun/-/merge_requests/1
- I believe the issue was introduced by Shengjing's update in
https://tracker.debian.org/news/1249177/accepted-golang-github-opencontainers-specs-10266g20a2d97-1-source-into-unstable/
-- but that was already months ago. So that may not be true

With this, I'd like to suggest to move ahead with my merge request and
don't strip image-spec and runtime-spec from the package.

Any thoughts?

-- 
regards,
Reinhard

Bug#979102: Legally problematic GPL-3+ readline dependency

[Bastian Germann]

Hi Camm,

On 09.11.21 23:12, Camm Maguire wrote:

But in any case, I no longer understand the premise of this
bug, unless it was your understanding that the source was gplv2*only*
instead of "or any later version".


Yes, this was the premise and that is what debian/copyright claims at the 
bottom.

Grepping through the source I can quickly identify some GPL-2-only files:
src/numth.lisp
src/nset.lisp
share/stringproc/printf.lisp
share/stringproc/stringproc.lisp

Thanks,
Bastian

Bug#979102: Legally problematic GPL-3+ readline dependency

[Camm Maguire]

Greetings!  I've uploaded a gcl and maxima closing this to see how it
goes.  This will require changing the build-depends of every reverse gcl
dependency, which is a little annoying but ok I suppose.  The obvious
alternative is to stick with readline and indicate that the binary is
gclv3, as I do not think we have any gplv2 *only* code (checking this).
The latest standard for the debian/copyright file refers to source
files only.  In fact I do not see how it could do otherwise, as say
someone revives libreadline-gplv2 and runs maxima with that installed --
one cannot figure out the binary license until it is actually run.
Hence the GCL runtime banner, which could be extended for this purpose I
suppose.  But in any case, I no longer understand the premise of this
bug, unless it was your understanding that the source was gplv2 *only*
instead of "or any later version".  To my (extremely limited)
understanding, we do not have a systematic way to track binary licenses
which can only be determined at runtime in Debian.

If I have overlooked anything, my humblest apologies -- am eager to be
enlightened further.

Take care,

Bastian Germann  writes:

> Hi Camm,
>
> I think the runtime cannot distinguish between libraries because it is
> the library that gcl is linked with that is loaded. You can also
> compile gcl with build dependency libeditreadline-dev if you remove
> the RL_READLINE_VERSION check that is introduced with patch
> Version_2_6_13pre12. Additionally you could remove "READLINE" from the
> GPL banner then (not necessary).
>
> I see that you are also the gcl maintainer, so you can coordinate
> uploads of maxima and gcl linked with libedit.
>
> Thanks,
> Bastian
>
> Am 12.10.21 um 16:07 schrieb Camm Maguire:
>> Greetings, and thanks for this!
>> It would be nice to migrate to editreadline.  GCL at present
>> constructs
>> a binary license banner indicating GPL'ed components.  How would runtime
>> gcl distinguish between these two libraries of the same name?
>> Take care,
>> Bastian Germann  writes:
>> 
>>> Control: found -1 5.44.0-3
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 18:48:19 +0100 Bastian Germann 
>>>  wrote:
 However, that is orphaned in Debian, so libeditreadline-dev should
 be preferred, which does not compile with your package without any
 patch. It links with the BSD-licensed libedit library which is a
 readline replacement.
>>>
>>> The current version compiles with libeditreadline-dev without any patch.
>>> I do not see the build influenced by it and guess libreadline is still 
>>> loaded via gcl.
>>> Can you please comment on this?
>
>
>

-- 
Camm Maguirec...@maguirefamily.org
==
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah

Bug#999334: android-platform-tools: FTBFS: error: no member named 'unique_lock' in namespace 'std'

[Sebastian Ramacher]

Source: android-platform-tools
Version: 29.0.6-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Justification: fails to build from source
X-Debbugs-Cc: sramac...@debian.org

| clang++ -c -o system/core/liblog/event_tag_map.o 
system/core/liblog/event_tag_map.cpp -g -O2 
-ffile-prefix-map=/<>=. -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat 
-Werror=format-security -fPIC -std=gnu++17 -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 
-DNDEBUG -UDEBUG -Isystem/core/liblog/include -Isystem/core/include 
-Isystem/core/base/include -I/usr/include/android -DLIBLOG_LOG_TAG=1006 
-DFAKE_LOG_DEVICE=1 -DSNET_EVENT_LOG_TAG=1397638484 
| system/core/liblog/logger_write.cpp:147:20: error: no member named 
'unique_lock' in namespace 'std'
|   auto lock = std::unique_lock{default_tag_lock};
|   ~^
| system/core/liblog/logger_write.cpp:147:31: error: expected ';' at end of 
declaration
|   auto lock = std::unique_lock{default_tag_lock};
|   ^
|   ;
| system/core/liblog/logger_write.cpp:170:20: error: no member named 
'unique_lock' in namespace 'std'
|   auto lock = std::unique_lock{logger_function_lock};
|   ~^
| system/core/liblog/logger_write.cpp:170:31: error: expected ';' at end of 
declaration
|   auto lock = std::unique_lock{logger_function_lock};
|   ^
|   ;
| system/core/liblog/logger_write.cpp:187:20: error: no member named 
'unique_lock' in namespace 'std'
|   auto lock = std::unique_lock{aborter_function_lock};
|   ~^
| system/core/liblog/logger_write.cpp:187:31: error: expected ';' at end of 
declaration
|   auto lock = std::unique_lock{aborter_function_lock};
|   ^
|   ;
| 6 errors generated.

See
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=android-platform-tools=amd64=29.0.6-1%2Bb1=1636368880=0

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#999032: pari-elldata: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Bill Allombert]

On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 10:28:17PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Source: pari-elldata
> Version: 0.20190911-1
> Severity: important
> Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
> Tags: bookworm sid
> User: debian...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep
> 
> Dear maintainer,
> 
> Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
> debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Hello Lucas,

Given that the package is arch: all, it is a bit pointless to require 
build-indep which will
never be called.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Bug#999333: asmixer: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: asmixer
Version: 0.5-14
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999332: libgcr410: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: libgcr410
Version: 2.4.0-9.2
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999331: cl-pubmed: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: cl-pubmed
Version: 2.1.3-5.1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999330: floatbg: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: floatbg
Version: 1.0-28
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999329: libfile-rsyncp-perl: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: libfile-rsyncp-perl
Version: 0.74-2.1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999328: mbw: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: mbw
Version: 1.2.2-1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999327: muttprint: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: muttprint
Version: 0.73-10
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999326: sntop: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: sntop
Version: 1.4.3-5
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999325: pcaputils: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: pcaputils
Version: 0.8-1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999324: libapache-mod-auth-kerb: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: libapache-mod-auth-kerb
Version: 5.4-2.5
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999323: libapache-mod-encoding: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: libapache-mod-encoding
Version: 0.0.20021209-11
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999322: bonnie++: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: bonnie++
Version: 2.00a
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999321: elscreen: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: elscreen
Version: 1.4.6-5.3
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999320: libwww-indexparser-perl: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: libwww-indexparser-perl
Version: 0.91-1.1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999319: popularity-contest: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: popularity-contest
Version: 1.73
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999318: libpam-blue: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: libpam-blue
Version: 0.9.0-3
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999317: itop: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: itop
Version: 0.1-4
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999316: xgammon: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: xgammon
Version: 0.99.1128-5
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999315: apwal: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: apwal
Version: 0.4.5-1.1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999314: xinv3d: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: xinv3d
Version: 1.3.6-6
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999313: log4net: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: log4net
Version: 1.2.10+dfsg-8
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999312: ssed: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: ssed
Version: 3.62-7
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999311: convlit: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: convlit
Version: 1.8-2
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999310: libxml-dumper-perl: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: libxml-dumper-perl
Version: 0.81-1.3
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999309: tetrinetx: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: tetrinetx
Version: 1.13.16-14
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999308: xplot: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: xplot
Version: 1.19-9
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999307: jargon: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: jargon
Version: 4.0.0-5.2
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999306: libjpeg6b: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: libjpeg6b
Version: 1:6b2-3
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999305: iat: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: iat
Version: 0.1.3-7
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999304: quickml: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: quickml
Version: 0.7-6
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999303: pfqueue: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: pfqueue
Version: 0.5.6-9
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999302: fortunes-bg: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: fortunes-bg
Version: 1.3+nmu1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999301: vsdump: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: vsdump
Version: 0.0.45-1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999300: pgpgpg: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: pgpgpg
Version: 0.13-9.1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999299: gpsim-doc: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: gpsim-doc
Version: 0.22.0-2.1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999298: galib: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: galib
Version: 1:2.4.7-4
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999297: screentest: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: screentest
Version: 2.0-2.2
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999296: tagcloud: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: tagcloud
Version: 1.4-1.2
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999295: chuck: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: chuck
Version: 1.2.0.8.dfsg-1.5
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999294: sisc: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: sisc
Version: 1.16.6-1.2
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999293: proj-ps-doc: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: proj-ps-doc
Version: 4.3.3-5.1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999292: zlib: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: zlib
Version: 1:1.2.11.dfsg-2
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999291: xfsdump: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: xfsdump
Version: 3.1.9+0
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999290: geki3: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: geki3
Version: 1.0.3-8.1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999289: falselogin: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: falselogin
Version: 0.3-4
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999288: pppconfig: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: pppconfig
Version: 2.3.25
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999287: binfmtc: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: binfmtc
Version: 0.17-2
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999286: scalable-cyrfonts: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: scalable-cyrfonts
Version: 4.17+nmu1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999285: net-telnet-cisco: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: net-telnet-cisco
Version: 1.10-5.3
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999284: gdb-msp430: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: gdb-msp430
Version: 7.2a~mspgcc-20111205-3.1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999283: literki: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: literki
Version: 0.0.0+20100113.git1da40724-1.2
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999282: spell: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: spell
Version: 1.0-24
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999281: xfonts-bolkhov: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: xfonts-bolkhov
Version: 1.1.20001007-8.2
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999280: empire-lafe: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: empire-lafe
Version: 1.1-1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999279: swish-e: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: swish-e
Version: 2.4.7-6
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999278: libio-dirent-perl: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: libio-dirent-perl
Version: 0.05-1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999277: hawknl: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: hawknl
Version: 1.6.8+dfsg2-1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999276: dh-kpatches: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: dh-kpatches
Version: 0.99.36+nmu4
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999275: libnzb: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: libnzb
Version: 0.0.20050629-6.2
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999274: datapacker: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: datapacker
Version: 1.0.3
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999273: postal: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: postal
Version: 0.76
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999272: libxml-tokeparser-perl: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: libxml-tokeparser-perl
Version: 0.05-3.1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999271: socket: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: socket
Version: 1.1-10
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999270: ez-ipupdate: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: ez-ipupdate
Version: 3.0.11b8-13.4.1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999269: mhddfs: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: mhddfs
Version: 0.1.39+nmu1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas

Bug#999268: vncsnapshot: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Source: vncsnapshot
Version: 1.2a-5.1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep

Dear maintainer,

Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules

Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.

This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.

Best,

Lucas