Bug#918958: marked as done (RFS: monitorix/3.10.1-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Sat, 12 Jan 2019 04:25:21 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: monitorix/3.10.1-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #918958, regarding RFS: monitorix/3.10.1-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 918958: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=918958 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "monitorix" * Package name: monitorix Version : 3.10.1-1 Upstream Author : Jordi Sanfeliu * URL : https://www.monitorix.org * License : GPL-2 Section : utils It builds those binary packages: monitorix - lightweight system monitoring tool To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/monitorix The repository for packaging is hosted on salsa: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/monitorix Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/monitorix/monitorix_3.10.1-1.dsc More information about monitorix can be obtained from https://www.monitorix.org. Changes since the last upload: * New package Regards, -- Baptiste BEAUPLAT - lyknode signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Package monitorix version 3.10.1-1 is in NEW now, and the package at mentors is not newer (2019-01-10) than the package in NEW (2019-01-10), so there is currently no package to sponsor. https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/monitorix_3.10.1-1.html https://mentors.debian.net/package/monitorix Please remove the package from mentors or mark it "needs sponsor = no". If for some reason you need to replace the package in NEW, then you can upload an updated package to mentors and feel free to reopen this RFS 918958 or open a new RFS.--- End Message ---
Bug#919013: marked as done (RFS: arptables/0.0.4+snapshot20181021-3 - ARP table administration)
Your message dated Fri, 11 Jan 2019 22:20:37 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: arptables/0.0.4+snapshot20181021-3 - ARP table administration has caused the Debian Bug report #919013, regarding RFS: arptables/0.0.4+snapshot20181021-3 - ARP table administration to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 919013: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919013 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "arptables" * Package name: arptables Version : 0.0.4+snapshot20181021-3 Upstream Author : Bart De Schuymer * URL : http://www.netfilter.org * License : GPL-2 Section : net It builds those binary packages: arptables - ARP table administration To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/arptables Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/arptables/arptables_0.0.4+snapshot20181021-3.dsc More information about arptables can be obtained from https://www.example.com. Changes since the last upload: * [090bcbc] d/dirs: /sbin no longer required * [85e682e] d/patches: rename arptables-save and arptables-restore (Closes: #918900) * [a419984] d/arptables.manpages: rename arptables-* man pages * [b8fc52f] d/patch: Add CPPFLAGS Regards, Alberto Molina Coballes --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Package arptables version 0.0.4+snapshot20181021-3 is in unstable now. https://packages.qa.debian.org/arptables--- End Message ---
Bug#918958: RFS: monitorix/3.10.1-1 [ITP]
Control: owner -1 Pierre-Elliott Bécue Hi Baptiste, Le 11/01/2019 à 00:13, Baptiste BEAUPLAT a écrit : > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "monitorix" > > * Package name: monitorix >Version : 3.10.1-1 >Upstream Author : Jordi Sanfeliu > * URL : https://www.monitorix.org > * License : GPL-2 >Section : utils > > It builds those binary packages: > > monitorix - lightweight system monitoring tool > > To access further information about this package, please visit the > following URL: > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/monitorix > > The repository for packaging is hosted on salsa: > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/monitorix > > Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: > > dget -x > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/monitorix/monitorix_3.10.1-1.dsc > > More information about monitorix can be obtained from > https://www.monitorix.org. > > Changes since the last upload: > > * New package > > Regards, I'll take care of that this evening. Cheers, -- PEB
Bug#919016: RFS: tintin++/2.01.5-1 [ITA]
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for package "tintin++" * Package name: tintin++ Version : 2.01.5-1 Upstream Author : Igor van den Hoven * URL : http://tintin.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL-2 Section : games It builds the following binary package: tintin++ - classic text-based MUD client To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/tintin%2B%2B Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tintin++/tintin++_2.01.5-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * New upstream release and new maintainer. * Update to Standards-Version 4.3.0: - Switch to FreeDesktop menu standard * Include upstream changelog and documentation on scripts and chat protocol. Best Regards, Joe
Bug#919013: RFS: arptables/0.0.4+snapshot20181021-3 - ARP table administration
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "arptables" * Package name: arptables Version : 0.0.4+snapshot20181021-3 Upstream Author : Bart De Schuymer * URL : http://www.netfilter.org * License : GPL-2 Section : net It builds those binary packages: arptables - ARP table administration To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/arptables Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/arptables/arptables_0.0.4+snapshot20181021-3.dsc More information about arptables can be obtained from https://www.example.com. Changes since the last upload: * [090bcbc] d/dirs: /sbin no longer required * [85e682e] d/patches: rename arptables-save and arptables-restore (Closes: #918900) * [a419984] d/arptables.manpages: rename arptables-* man pages * [b8fc52f] d/patch: Add CPPFLAGS Regards, Alberto Molina Coballes
Re: Help for SIGSEGV in test suite needed when built with gcc 8.2 what works nicely with gcc 6.3
On Wed, 09 Jan 2019 22:42:43 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > The values of the structure are set in line 350[3] and are OK there. What looks suspicious to me is that an unsigned long long value is assigned to struct members of type size_t. In the previous upstream release that worked, the return value of ffparse_ulong was used which was unsigned long. I doubt this is the culprit but may be something worth looking at. > I admit I fail to see why the code works under stretch with gcc 6.3 > but fails with gcc 8.2. If the code works with an old compiler but fails with a modern one, in 99.99% of the cases it's a bug in the code. These bugs are revealed due to new and more aggressive optimization techniques/algorithms that assume undefined behavior. IOW, the code was/is buggy by definition but you got away with it somehow. The remaining 0.01% is due to compiler bugs but I bet that's not the case here.
