Processed: notfound 508642 in 25-2, notfixed 957755 in 1.2.2-1, fixed 957755 in 1:1.2.2-1, tagging 957731 ...
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> notfound 508642 25-2
Bug #508642 {Done: Jonas Smedegaard } [sugar-calculate-activity]
i18n removed
No longer marked as found in versions sugar-calculate-activity/25-2.
> notfixed 957755 1.2.2-1
Bug #957755 {Done: "Chris Lamb" } [src:redisearch]
redisearch: ftbfs with GCC-10
The source 'redisearch' and version '1.2.2-1' do not appear to match any binary
packages
No longer marked as fixed in versions redisearch/1.2.2-1.
> fixed 957755 1:1.2.2-1
Bug #957755 {Done: "Chris Lamb" } [src:redisearch]
redisearch: ftbfs with GCC-10
Marked as fixed in versions redisearch/1:1.2.2-1.
> tags 957731 = ftbfs
Bug #957731 {Done: Dmitry Shachnev }
[src:qtlocation-opensource-src] qtlocation-opensource-src: ftbfs with GCC-10
Added tag(s) ftbfs; removed tag(s) bullseye and sid.
> notfixed 955638 rust-cargo/0.43.1-1
Bug #955638 {Done: Ximin Luo } [cargo] cargo: please
package recent version
The source rust-cargo and version 0.43.1-1 do not appear to match any binary
packages
No longer marked as fixed in versions rust-cargo/0.43.1-1.
> fixed 955638 0.43.1-1
Bug #955638 {Done: Ximin Luo } [cargo] cargo: please
package recent version
Marked as fixed in versions cargo/0.43.1-1.
> fixed 845031 4:4.9.5+dfsg1-2
Bug #845031 {Done: William Desportes } [phpmyadmin] 4.9 on
buster-backports
Marked as fixed in versions phpmyadmin/4:4.9.5+dfsg1-2.
> tags 957730 = ftbfs
Bug #957730 {Done: Dmitry Shachnev }
[src:qtbase-opensource-src] qtbase-opensource-src: ftbfs with GCC-10
Added tag(s) ftbfs; removed tag(s) sid and bullseye.
> reassign 958301 src:cargo
Bug #958301 {Done: Ximin Luo } [src:dh-cargo] dh-cargo:
please make the output reproducible
Bug reassigned from package 'src:dh-cargo' to 'src:cargo'.
No longer marked as found in versions dh-cargo/23.
No longer marked as fixed in versions cargo/0.43.1-2.
> fixed 958301 0.43.1-2
Bug #958301 {Done: Ximin Luo } [src:cargo] dh-cargo:
please make the output reproducible
Marked as fixed in versions cargo/0.43.1-2.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
508642: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=508642
845031: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=845031
955638: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=955638
957730: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=957730
957731: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=957731
957755: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=957755
958301: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=958301
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#948207: kio-gdrive: New Google drive authorisation fail with stable package
Package: kio-gdrive Version: 1.2.5+fixedtarball-1 Followup-For: Bug #948207 Dear Maintainer, I just discovered this bug by reading this opened subject. I requested an new authorization thanks to google account security website and the problem appeared indicating that Google need to validate this app The actual stable revision package of kio-gdrive and kaccounts-integration need maybe to be upgraded according this discussion where i see that a fix is available (requiring unstable packages unfortunately: 19.x). Debian stable buster is using for information. Thanks. -- System Information: Debian Release: 10.4 APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'oldoldstable'), (500, 'stable'), (500, 'oldstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-9-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages kio-gdrive depends on: ii kaccounts-integration 4:17.08.3-1 ii kio5.54.1-1 ii libaccounts-qt5-1 1.15-2 ii libc6 2.28-10 ii libkaccounts1 4:17.08.3-1 ii libkf5coreaddons5 5.54.0-1 ii libkf5i18n55.54.0-1 ii libkf5kiocore5 5.54.1-1 ii libkf5kiowidgets5 5.54.1-1 ii libkf5notifications5 5.54.0-1 ii libkpimgapicore5abi1 18.08.3-2 ii libkpimgapidrive5 18.08.3-2 ii libqt5core5a 5.11.3+dfsg1-1+deb10u3 ii libqt5widgets5 5.11.3+dfsg1-1+deb10u3 ii libstdc++6 8.3.0-6 kio-gdrive recommends no packages. kio-gdrive suggests no packages. -- no debconf information
Bug#962486: additional info
Sorry for the typos in my report. kdialog --passivepopup "Helloworld" 5 kdialog --msgbox "Helloworld" creates a two-line formatted output. In version 19.12 both variants process html tags. Thx, volker
[bts-link] source package kpat
# # bts-link upstream status pull for source package kpat # see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html # https://bts-link-team.pages.debian.net/bts-link/ # user debian-bts-l...@lists.debian.org # remote status report for #946420 (http://bugs.debian.org/946420) # Bug title: kpat is spamming with error messages # * http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407854 # * remote status changed: CONFIRMED -> RESOLVED # * remote resolution changed: (?) -> FIXED # * closed upstream tags 946420 + fixed-upstream usertags 946420 - status-CONFIRMED usertags 946420 + status-RESOLVED resolution-FIXED # remote status report for #946420 (http://bugs.debian.org/946420) # Bug title: kpat is spamming with error messages # * http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407854 # * remote status changed: CONFIRMED -> RESOLVED # * remote resolution changed: (?) -> FIXED # * closed upstream tags 946420 + fixed-upstream usertags 946420 - status-CONFIRMED usertags 946420 + status-RESOLVED resolution-FIXED thanks
Bug#962486: kdialog --passivepopup does not process html tags
Package: kdialog Version: 4:20.04.0-1 Severity: normal Hi, kdialog --passivepopup "Helloworld" 5 print plain text "Helloworld" kdialog --msgbox "Helloworld" 5 -- System Information: Debian Release: bullseye/sid APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 5.6.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE= (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages kdialog depends on: ii kio 5.70.1-1 ii libc6 2.30-8 ii libkf5configcore5 5.70.0-1 ii libkf5coreaddons5 5.70.0-1 ii libkf5dbusaddons5 5.70.0-1 ii libkf5guiaddons5 5.70.0-2 ii libkf5i18n5 5.70.0-1 ii libkf5iconthemes5 5.70.0-1 ii libkf5kiocore55.70.1-1 ii libkf5notifications5 5.70.0-1 ii libkf5textwidgets55.70.0-1 ii libkf5widgetsaddons5 5.70.0-1 ii libkf5windowsystem5 5.70.0-1 ii libqt5core5a 5.12.5+dfsg-10+b1 ii libqt5dbus5 5.12.5+dfsg-10+b1 ii libqt5gui55.12.5+dfsg-10+b1 ii libqt5widgets55.12.5+dfsg-10+b1 ii libstdc++610.1.0-3 ii libx11-6 2:1.6.9-2+b1 kdialog recommends no packages. kdialog suggests no packages. -- no debconf information
Processed: [bts-link] source package kpat
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > # > # bts-link upstream status pull for source package kpat > # see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html > # https://bts-link-team.pages.debian.net/bts-link/ > # > user debian-bts-l...@lists.debian.org Setting user to debian-bts-l...@lists.debian.org (was debian-bts-l...@lists.debian.org). > # remote status report for #946420 (http://bugs.debian.org/946420) > # Bug title: kpat is spamming with error messages > # * http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407854 > # * remote status changed: CONFIRMED -> RESOLVED > # * remote resolution changed: (?) -> FIXED > # * closed upstream > tags 946420 + fixed-upstream Bug #946420 [kpat] kpat is spamming with error messages Bug #941858 [kpat] kpat high cpu usage and show log repeatedly Added tag(s) fixed-upstream. Added tag(s) fixed-upstream. > usertags 946420 - status-CONFIRMED Usertags were: status-CONFIRMED. Usertags are now: . > usertags 946420 + status-RESOLVED resolution-FIXED There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: status-RESOLVED resolution-FIXED. > # remote status report for #946420 (http://bugs.debian.org/946420) > # Bug title: kpat is spamming with error messages > # * http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407854 > # * remote status changed: CONFIRMED -> RESOLVED > # * remote resolution changed: (?) -> FIXED > # * closed upstream > tags 946420 + fixed-upstream Bug #946420 [kpat] kpat is spamming with error messages Bug #941858 [kpat] kpat high cpu usage and show log repeatedly Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #946420 to the same tags previously set Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #941858 to the same tags previously set > usertags 946420 - status-CONFIRMED Usertags were: status-RESOLVED resolution-FIXED. Usertags are now: status-RESOLVED resolution-FIXED. > usertags 946420 + status-RESOLVED resolution-FIXED Usertags were: status-RESOLVED resolution-FIXED. Usertags are now: status-RESOLVED resolution-FIXED. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 941858: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=941858 946420: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=946420 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
md4c_0.4.4-1_amd64.changes is NEW
binary:libmd4c-html0 is NEW. binary:libmd4c-html0-dev is NEW. binary:libmd4c-html0 is NEW. binary:libmd4c-html0-dev is NEW. Your package has been put into the NEW queue, which requires manual action from the ftpteam to process. The upload was otherwise valid (it had a good OpenPGP signature and file hashes are valid), so please be patient. Packages are routinely processed through to the archive, and do feel free to browse the NEW queue[1]. If there is an issue with the upload, you will receive an email from a member of the ftpteam. If you have any questions, you may reply to this email. [1]: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html or https://ftp-master.debian.org/backports-new.html for *-backports
md4c_0.4.4-1_source.changes REJECTED
Source-only uploads to NEW are not allowed. binary:libmd4c-html0 is NEW. binary:libmd4c-html0-dev is NEW. === Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our concerns.
Processing of md4c_0.4.4-1_source.changes
md4c_0.4.4-1_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: md4c_0.4.4-1.dsc md4c_0.4.4.orig.tar.gz md4c_0.4.4-1.debian.tar.xz md4c_0.4.4-1_source.buildinfo Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
Bug#962348: kig: boost1.67 is being removed from testing
In data lunedì 8 giugno 2020 14:19:39 CEST, Dimitri John Ledkov ha scritto: > You are not being reasonable either. I am being reasonable as your unreasonable attitude. > Boost1.71 transition was prepared since February. > > kig, like majority of packages, succeeded to build in all test rebuilds & > passed autopkgtest if any. Packages that successfully binNMU are not > notified about upcoming transitions. > Packages that ftbfs have patches developed and bugs opened. Again, I know how transitions works, no need for lecturing things that I've done for more than a decade. > kig gets binNMUed successfully. That is the unexpected part: the new boost ships cmake config files that make the cmake search for the "python" component of the Boost cmake package refer to the shipped boost-python, which is the Python 3 one. boost 1.67.0 does not have cmake config files, and thus the FindBoost.cmake provided by cmake detects the Python2-based boost-python as "python" component. This is why... > Then two days later you upload a uncoordinated downgrade to reintroduce > dependency on old python2 and old boost, in full knowledge that you are > hindering other people's work. ... I uploaded kig to switch it back to Python 2, because the automatic switch was not supposed to happen. More than "hindering other people's work", I restored a broken functionality that was switched because of the new boost. > Without opening any bug reports. I explained the reason in the changelog message, please do read it. > And during > that time tracker.d.o should have had a message that kig should not be > uploaded as it is part of an ongoing transition. There was no message in pts/tracker back then, and still there is nothing as of right now. Also, boost transitions works slightly different than other library transitions: the old and the new libraries are provided by different sources and they are co-installable (not their -dev, though). It's enough that the new boost is available in testing, so the switch of boost-default is not a blocker transition but a a gradual rebuild/fix that can generally happen side by side with other changes. This is similar to what happens when the default Python version is switched: both the old and the new are co-installable, and already in testing. > I notice regression in transition counts, and open a bug report to prevent > regressions entering testing and making it harder to remove boost1.67 & > python2. I explained already that the boost rebuild already created a buggy functionality, and because of the transition it already migrated to testing. > You then downgrade the bug report to force broken stuff into testing and > anchor it there. Sigh. > >From my point of view, [...] ... you ought to provide the information as they were asked, and leave the judgement the maintainer, especially if you clearly have NO IDEA about the sitation of kig. Now, I need the current version in unstable to migrate to testing, because as I said the boost binNMU created issues (and I got a private email by an user reporting that). In a couple of days I will check this again, and decide what to do. -- Pino Toscano signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#962348: kig: boost1.67 is being removed from testing
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020, 12:14 Pino Toscano, wrote: > In data lunedì 8 giugno 2020 12:49:19 CEST, Dimitri John Ledkov ha scritto: > > On Mon, 08 Jun 2020 08:38:44 +0200 Pino Toscano wrote: > > > In data lunedì 8 giugno 2020 08:06:42 CEST, Dimitri John Ledkov ha > scritto: > > > > > I'm pretty sure boost 1.67.0 can stay 3 months more around, > especially > > > > > since I see it is still not the only package using the old boost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it cannot as it entangles too many other transitions. > > > > > > Which ones exactly, other than the ICU one? (And the ICU one could be > > > easily done by rebuilding boost1.67.0 too) > > > > > > > No, boost1.67 will not be rebuilt against new ICU as that will break > > upgrades from stable. > > > > See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962040 from > > release team & the discussion on the boost1.71 transition bug. > > OK, and this is useful information. It would have been nicer to have > it at the beginning instead of poking after a useless initial bug > report. > > > > > boost1.67 will be shortly removed from both testing and unstable. > > > > > > Again, please open bugs about this. Also, where is this info coming > > > from? I don't see anything in > > > https://bugs.debian.org/961995 (boost-defaults transitions) > > > https://bugs.debian.org/ftp.debian.org (ftp-masters bugs) > > > > > > > boost1.67 is RC buggy in both testing & unstable. I'm not sure what > > else i need to open? And those bugs already blocked by kig's bug > > RE:python2 removal. > > Like, a classic RM bug for ftp-masters? How else do you expect to > remove a package from Debian? > > > > > Please stop intentionally delaying completion of multiple archive > > > > transitions. > > > > > > This is definitely way too harsh and untrue, especially when you are > > > providing literally no references to blocked things or schedules for > > > removals. > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=936794 was filed on > > Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 07:22:06 + > > > > kig is a leaf package, itself not blocked by anything to migrate to > > python3 or at least stop (temporarily) using python2. > > I don't see what Python 2 has anything to do here, and mixing up > issues. I also explained in previous email in this bug report that > the current stable version does not have all the changes needed for > full Python 3 support, so your "not blocked by anything to migrate to > python3" statement is false. > > > leaf packages like kig are overdue to drop python2 support. > > Your patches are welcome! > > > > > Would you like me to upload NMU to delayed/2 that disable python > bindings? > > > > > > Please not, and please rather answer the questions I asked. > > > > kig had 9 months notice that it is blocking removal of python2 from > unstable. > > Again, Python 2 is unrelated to this bug. > > > you can see progress of boost transition at > > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/boost1.71.html > > Yes, I know how transitions work, no need to lecture me about them. > And TBH this transition has been badly handled, with no prior > notifications to involved packages about them (like test rebuilds with > bugs filed in advance about the lack of compatibility with boost 1.71). > > Also, with all the respect possible: please do not play with severity, > especially when you have lacking to provide useful information for two > emails so far. I'm monitoring these bugs, I can make a maintainer > decision/choice once I have enough information, which finally you > decided to provide _just now_. IOW, if you want maintainers' > cooperation, please learn to provide information _in advance_, rather > than just useless "everything is broken! remove! remove!" panic bug > reports. > You are not being reasonable either. Boost1.71 transition was prepared since February. kig, like majority of packages, succeeded to build in all test rebuilds & passed autopkgtest if any. Packages that successfully binNMU are not notified about upcoming transitions. Packages that ftbfs have patches developed and bugs opened. boost-defaults gets uploaded. kig gets binNMUed successfully. Then two days later you upload a uncoordinated downgrade to reintroduce dependency on old python2 and old boost, in full knowledge that you are hindering other people's work. Without opening any bug reports. And during that time tracker.d.o should have had a message that kig should not be uploaded as it is part of an ongoing transition. I notice regression in transition counts, and open a bug report to prevent regressions entering testing and making it harder to remove boost1.67 & python2. You then downgrade the bug report to force broken stuff into testing and anchor it there. >From my point of view, it is best to drop boost-python buildepedencie from kig. This way it builds, and migrates, and does not use any RC buggy components. If and when kig upstream supports python3 properly, reintroduce boost-python build dep and bu
Bug#962348: kig: boost1.67 is being removed from testing
In data lunedì 8 giugno 2020 12:49:19 CEST, Dimitri John Ledkov ha scritto: > On Mon, 08 Jun 2020 08:38:44 +0200 Pino Toscano wrote: > > In data lunedì 8 giugno 2020 08:06:42 CEST, Dimitri John Ledkov ha scritto: > > > > I'm pretty sure boost 1.67.0 can stay 3 months more around, especially > > > > since I see it is still not the only package using the old boost. > > > > > > > > > > No, it cannot as it entangles too many other transitions. > > > > Which ones exactly, other than the ICU one? (And the ICU one could be > > easily done by rebuilding boost1.67.0 too) > > > > No, boost1.67 will not be rebuilt against new ICU as that will break > upgrades from stable. > > See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962040 from > release team & the discussion on the boost1.71 transition bug. OK, and this is useful information. It would have been nicer to have it at the beginning instead of poking after a useless initial bug report. > > > boost1.67 will be shortly removed from both testing and unstable. > > > > Again, please open bugs about this. Also, where is this info coming > > from? I don't see anything in > > https://bugs.debian.org/961995 (boost-defaults transitions) > > https://bugs.debian.org/ftp.debian.org (ftp-masters bugs) > > > > boost1.67 is RC buggy in both testing & unstable. I'm not sure what > else i need to open? And those bugs already blocked by kig's bug > RE:python2 removal. Like, a classic RM bug for ftp-masters? How else do you expect to remove a package from Debian? > > > Please stop intentionally delaying completion of multiple archive > > > transitions. > > > > This is definitely way too harsh and untrue, especially when you are > > providing literally no references to blocked things or schedules for > > removals. > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=936794 was filed on > Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 07:22:06 + > > kig is a leaf package, itself not blocked by anything to migrate to > python3 or at least stop (temporarily) using python2. I don't see what Python 2 has anything to do here, and mixing up issues. I also explained in previous email in this bug report that the current stable version does not have all the changes needed for full Python 3 support, so your "not blocked by anything to migrate to python3" statement is false. > leaf packages like kig are overdue to drop python2 support. Your patches are welcome! > > > Would you like me to upload NMU to delayed/2 that disable python bindings? > > > > Please not, and please rather answer the questions I asked. > > kig had 9 months notice that it is blocking removal of python2 from unstable. Again, Python 2 is unrelated to this bug. > you can see progress of boost transition at > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/boost1.71.html Yes, I know how transitions work, no need to lecture me about them. And TBH this transition has been badly handled, with no prior notifications to involved packages about them (like test rebuilds with bugs filed in advance about the lack of compatibility with boost 1.71). Also, with all the respect possible: please do not play with severity, especially when you have lacking to provide useful information for two emails so far. I'm monitoring these bugs, I can make a maintainer decision/choice once I have enough information, which finally you decided to provide _just now_. IOW, if you want maintainers' cooperation, please learn to provide information _in advance_, rather than just useless "everything is broken! remove! remove!" panic bug reports. Thanks, -- Pino Toscano signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#962348: kig: boost1.67 is being removed from testing
I have doublechecked that all other packages that still depend on boost1.67 are all marked RC-buggy and pending autoremovals with various dates. kig is not an exception, and is treated the same way as all other packages still using boost1.67. since kig rebuilds against boost1.71 were successful prior to starting the transition, it was unknown to boost maintainer that it is buggy. But nonetheless kig alone, does not warrant for boost maintainers to keep boost1.67 in the archive. -- Regards, Dimitri.
Processed: severity of 936794 is important
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > severity 936794 important Bug #936794 [src:kig] kig: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye Severity set to 'important' from 'serious' > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 936794: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=936794 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#962348: kig: boost1.67 is being removed from testing
On Mon, 08 Jun 2020 08:38:44 +0200 Pino Toscano wrote: > In data lunedì 8 giugno 2020 08:06:42 CEST, Dimitri John Ledkov ha scritto: > > > I'm pretty sure boost 1.67.0 can stay 3 months more around, especially > > > since I see it is still not the only package using the old boost. > > > > > > > No, it cannot as it entangles too many other transitions. > > Which ones exactly, other than the ICU one? (And the ICU one could be > easily done by rebuilding boost1.67.0 too) > No, boost1.67 will not be rebuilt against new ICU as that will break upgrades from stable. See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962040 from release team & the discussion on the boost1.71 transition bug. > > boost1.67 will be shortly removed from both testing and unstable. > > Again, please open bugs about this. Also, where is this info coming > from? I don't see anything in > https://bugs.debian.org/961995 (boost-defaults transitions) > https://bugs.debian.org/ftp.debian.org (ftp-masters bugs) > boost1.67 is RC buggy in both testing & unstable. I'm not sure what else i need to open? And those bugs already blocked by kig's bug RE:python2 removal. > > Since the package is broken in both testing and unstable, in different > > ways, please request its removal. > > The package in unstable is *not* broken. > It build-depends & depends on an RC buggy package, and thus is RC too, making kig subject to autoremoval. > > Please stop intentionally delaying completion of multiple archive > > transitions. > > This is definitely way too harsh and untrue, especially when you are > providing literally no references to blocked things or schedules for > removals. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=936794 was filed on Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 07:22:06 + kig is a leaf package, itself not blocked by anything to migrate to python3 or at least stop (temporarily) using python2. leaf packages like kig are overdue to drop python2 support. > > > Would you like me to upload NMU to delayed/2 that disable python bindings? > > Please not, and please rather answer the questions I asked. kig had 9 months notice that it is blocking removal of python2 from unstable. you can see progress of boost transition at https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/boost1.71.html mips builders are a bit slow, and there are lots of patches uploaded to DELAYED/2 to fix outstanding packages. boost1.67 is declared RC buggy by the release team, thus everything outstanding will be removed as soon as practical. -- Regards, Dimitri.
Processed: severity of 936794 is serious
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > severity 936794 serious Bug #936794 [src:kig] kig: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye Severity set to 'serious' from 'normal' > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 936794: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=936794 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
