Bug#251159: [Pkg-openssl-devel] Re: Bug#251159: Bug still open?
* Alexis Sukrieh [Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:14:11 +0100]: Hi, > * Christoph Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) disait : > > > But I must be wrong, sorry for the noise. > > No. Thanks for your work. If you think a real NMU would make the case > > clearer and speed up the inclusion in testing, go ahead. The maintainer > > of cl-tclink is really not responsive. > Ok, then I'll contact my sponsor for NMU'ing this package. > Thanks for your responses. > I do think it's cleaner to have a changelog entry whenever something > changes in the Debian archive. Binary-only NMUs are perfectly ok to solve bugs like this, where only a recompilation is needed. They just need to get scheduled on all arches, but there's nothing "unclean" about them. Do you have any issues with them that you'd like to clear up? :) Incidentally, though, in this _particular_ case the package could use a NMU: not because of the existance of previous binNMUs, but because one of them failed: see #344485. If you feel like it, you could give it a shot; it'd make a nice one for your NM process, IMHO (but TeX is involved, so it may end up being a non-trivial one). Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Guy on cell: Yeah, I mean she's not easy to talk to, because, you know, she'll be like, "What did you do this weekend?" and I'll say, "Nothing", but really I was fucking some other girl. -- http://www.overheardinnewyork.com/archives/003179.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#251159: [Pkg-openssl-devel] Re: Bug#251159: Bug still open?
Hi Christoph, * Christoph Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) disait : > > But I must be wrong, sorry for the noise. > > No. Thanks for your work. If you think a real NMU would make the case > clearer and speed up the inclusion in testing, go ahead. The maintainer > of cl-tclink is really not responsive. Ok, then I'll contact my sponsor for NMU'ing this package. Thanks for your responses. I do think it's cleaner to have a changelog entry whenever something changes in the Debian archive. Regards, -- Alexis Sukrieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x1EE5DD34 Debian http://www.debian.org Backup Manager http://www.backup-manager.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#251159: [Pkg-openssl-devel] Re: Bug#251159: Bug still open?
Hi Alexis, Alexis Sukrieh schrieb: > * Christoph Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) disait : > >>If I understand this correct the packages has only to be rebuild and no >>changes have to be make in the sources. What do you want to change in >>the sources for the NMU? > > Well, I thought the source should have been sync with the binary. Forget > my mail if that's useless. I was also thinking that a changelog entry > would have been cleaner than a binary-only NMU. Yes it would be nice to have the two in sync. However there is a changelog entry in the binary package for the binary NMU. > But I must be wrong, sorry for the noise. No. Thanks for your work. If you think a real NMU would make the case clearer and speed up the inclusion in testing, go ahead. The maintainer of cl-tclink is really not responsive. Cheers Christoph -- Christoph Martin, Leiter der EDV der Verwaltung, Uni-Mainz, Germany Internet-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telefon: +49-6131-3926337 Fax: +49-6131-3922856 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#251159: Bug still open?
* Christoph Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) disait : > If I understand this correct the packages has only to be rebuild and no > changes have to be make in the sources. What do you want to change in > the sources for the NMU? Well, I thought the source should have been sync with the binary. Forget my mail if that's useless. I was also thinking that a changelog entry would have been cleaner than a binary-only NMU. But I must be wrong, sorry for the noise. -- Alexis Sukrieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x1EE5DD34 Debian http://www.debian.org Backup Manager http://www.backup-manager.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#251159: Bug still open?
Hi Alexis, Alexis Sukrieh schrieb: > * Christoph Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) disait : > >>>So I guess that bug can be closed by hand, can't it? >> >>I think you have to wait some more time. It looks like someone did a non >>maintainer binary only upload: > > Well, ok, but I think NMU'ing the source package is welcome, isn't it? If I understand this correct the packages has only to be rebuild and no changes have to be make in the sources. What do you want to change in the sources for the NMU? I can't speak for cl-tclink because I am the submitter of the bug. If your concern ist to get cl-tclink into testing, try to get the buildd maintainers to rebuild the package on the missing archs. Christoph -- Christoph Martin, Leiter der EDV der Verwaltung, Uni-Mainz, Germany Internet-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telefon: +49-6131-3926337 Fax: +49-6131-3922856 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#251159: Bug still open?
* Christoph Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) disait : > > So I guess that bug can be closed by hand, can't it? > > I think you have to wait some more time. It looks like someone did a non > maintainer binary only upload: Well, ok, but I think NMU'ing the source package is welcome, isn't it? -- Alexis Sukrieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x1EE5DD34 Debian http://www.debian.org Backup Manager http://www.backup-manager.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#251159: Bug still open?
Hi Alexis Sukrieh schrieb: > I was looking for some RC bugs to close and found that one. > > When I look to the debian/control file, I don't see any build-dependency > against libssl0.9.7, but a one against libssl-dev which is good. > > Moreover, looking to the binary package in sid, I find that the > dependency is good: > > Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.5-1), libssl0.9.8, common-lisp-controller (>= > 3.37), cl-split-sequence, cl-uffi > > So I guess that bug can be closed by hand, can't it? I think you have to wait some more time. It looks like someone did a non maintainer binary only upload: cl-tclink (3.3.1-3.0.1) unstable; urgency=low * Binary-only non-maintainer upload for i386; no source changes. * Rebuild with libssl0.9.8 -- Debian/i386 Build Daemon Wed, 12 Oct 2005 02:01:31 -0700 But as you can see here the upload is missing for some archs: http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?searchon=names&version=all&exact=1&keywords=cl-tclink Christoph -- Christoph Martin, Leiter der EDV der Verwaltung, Uni-Mainz, Germany Internet-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telefon: +49-6131-3926337 Fax: +49-6131-3922856 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#251159: Bug still open?
Hello, I was looking for some RC bugs to close and found that one. When I look to the debian/control file, I don't see any build-dependency against libssl0.9.7, but a one against libssl-dev which is good. Moreover, looking to the binary package in sid, I find that the dependency is good: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.5-1), libssl0.9.8, common-lisp-controller (>= 3.37), cl-split-sequence, cl-uffi So I guess that bug can be closed by hand, can't it? Regards, -- Alexis Sukrieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x1EE5DD34 Debian http://www.debian.org Backup Manager http://www.backup-manager.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
