Re: Please remove irssi-plugin-icq from testing

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:01:11PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I'm not quite prepared to remove it completely from the distribution,
> the idea of the package seems useful and there seems to be upstream work
> being done now.

FWIW, someone mentioned on my local LUG list that "bitlbee" is good
to use for this sort of thing; it claims to convert Jabber, ICQ, AIM,
MSN and Yahoo to IRC.

> Oh, and I hope I'm on-topic here...

Yup.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

status of postgresql for sarge?

[Matthias Klose]

postgresql still has one RC report open, which was marked pending on
24 Feb by Martin Pitt. Are there plans to make the pending upload?
When? postgresql currently blocks some more packages.

If the upload is not made ... postgresql had two RC reports, which are
fixed in unstable (versioned shlibs dependency), and which allowed
other packages enter testing (libpqxx-2.1.3, pygresql). Is it ok to
make uploads directly for testing to fix the non-working packages
(undefined symbols in libpq3 library)?

Re: status of postgresql for sarge?

[Martin Pitt]

Hi Matthias!

On 2004-03-06 17:14 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> postgresql still has one RC report open, which was marked pending on
> 24 Feb by Martin Pitt. 

Right, our current CVS fixes some ten bugs, amongst them the RC bug.

> Are there plans to make the pending upload?  When? postgresql
> currently blocks some more packages.

According to Oliver (the primary maintainer) there will be a new
bugfix upstream release soon, which would be a good opportunity to
upload an updated package. 

> If the upload is not made ... postgresql had two RC reports, which are
> fixed in unstable (versioned shlibs dependency), and which allowed
> other packages enter testing (libpqxx-2.1.3, pygresql). Is it ok to
> make uploads directly for testing to fix the non-working packages
> (undefined symbols in libpq3 library)?

Is that really possible? Some time ago I asked on d-devel for this
[1], but never really got a satisfying answer. Nevertheless, I would
not dare to put the new postgresql directly into testing. The
automatic upgrading is still broken; a longer-term solution is
progressing, but far from being ready for shipment.

Have a nice weekend!

Martin

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200309/msg00718.html

-- 
Martin Pitt Debian GNU/Linux Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.piware.de http://www.debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Why is package X not in testing yet?

[Richard B. Kreckel]

Hi there!

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, I wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> > > > It looks to me like they need to be manually hinted to go in together.
> > >
> > > Ah, thanks a lot!  What do I need to do to "manually hint them to go in
> > > together"?  Which button do I have to press??  Whom should I mail about
> > > this problem???
> >
> > They were actually hinted today, but it looks like that failed for some
> > reason. You can see it at the top of
> > http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_output.txt:
> >
> >   Easy hint from vorlon: cln/1.1.6-1 ginac/1.1.6-1
> >   leading: cln,ginac
> >   FAILED
> >
> > I might be reading it wrong, though. I suggest you mail
> > debian-release@lists.debian.org and ask them what happened and if
> > there's anything you can do.
>
> Well then, that said, is there anything I can do to resolve this?

Could you please push those two packages (cln/1.1.6-1 and ginac/1.1.6-1)
into testing ASAP.  I have been talking to a number of Debian folks and
nobody has been able to understand what the problem is.  If there is a
problem, could you please tell me what it is?!  (I hereby admit: I AM TOO
DENSE TO UNDERSTAND UPDATE_OUTPUT.)

Those packages install fine and and fix a number of problems (documented
upstream only).  If cln/1.1.6-1 makes the old ginac/1.1.5-1 uninstallable,
so what?  There is the new ginac/1.1.6-1!  So why the deadlock?

(Also, if cln goes in, then the qalculate-gtk package can follow, too, at
last.)

Regards
-richy.
-- 
  .''`.  Richard B. Kreckel
 : :' :  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 `. `'   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   `-

Re: Why is package X not in testing yet?

[Colin Watson]

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:17:59PM +0100, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, I wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> > > They were actually hinted today, but it looks like that failed for some
> > > reason. You can see it at the top of
> > > http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_output.txt:
> > >
> > >   Easy hint from vorlon: cln/1.1.6-1 ginac/1.1.6-1
> > >   leading: cln,ginac
> > >   FAILED
> > >
> > > I might be reading it wrong, though. I suggest you mail
> > > debian-release@lists.debian.org and ask them what happened and if
> > > there's anything you can do.
> >
> > Well then, that said, is there anything I can do to resolve this?
> 
> Could you please push those two packages (cln/1.1.6-1 and ginac/1.1.6-1)
> into testing ASAP.  I have been talking to a number of Debian folks and
> nobody has been able to understand what the problem is.  If there is a
> problem, could you please tell me what it is?!  (I hereby admit: I AM TOO
> DENSE TO UNDERSTAND UPDATE_OUTPUT.)

Richard, do you read debian-release? If not, it would be helpful if you
had a Mail-Followup-To: header or similar saying so. I answered your
question here:

  
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/debian-release-200403/msg4.html

> Those packages install fine and and fix a number of problems (documented
> upstream only).  If cln/1.1.6-1 makes the old ginac/1.1.5-1 uninstallable,
> so what?  There is the new ginac/1.1.6-1!  So why the deadlock?
> 
> (Also, if cln goes in, then the qalculate-gtk package can follow, too, at
> last.)

qalculate-gtk (0.3.1-2 to 0.4.1-1)
Maintainer: Martin Waitz
Too young, only 2 of 10 days old
out of date on m68k: qalculate (from 0.3.1.1-2)
Not considered
Depends: qalculate-gtk cln

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Removal-from-testing proposals, current version

[Colin Watson]

On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 05:18:53AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> remove pgeasy/1:3.0.1-2
>   No copyright.  Now, this is probably going to be cleared up eventually,
>   but you don't want to release sarge with it in this state.

As discussed elsewhere recently, the pgeasy source package has never
been in testing.

pgeasy |  1:3.0.1-2 |  unstable | source

In testing the library in question was part of postgresql; removing that
obviously isn't an option. We need a later version of postgresql
instead.

> remove gnome-db2/0.12.1-2
>   "Constantly crashes" for one submitter (#228893);
>   "doesn't do anything" for another (#222960);
>   nasty coding error likely to kill all 64-bit arches (#226524);
>   plus more bugs.
>   No maintainer reply to any of them for long periods.
> 
>   Only downside is that gnome-office depends on it.  But it doesn't work,
>   so

That's a showstopper; we can't remove gnome-office. Wait until new
meta-gnome2 is in testing (which requires planner, which requires
postgresql) before suggesting this one.

> remove netsaint-nrpe/1.2.4-4
>   Already supposed to be removed.  Also being removed from unstable.
>   Apparently stalled because it's non-US, perhaps?

Indeed: non-US isn't running at the moment, and I understand it'll
probably be removed in its entirety for sarge. A hint won't make any
difference here, and you should probably not bother reporting any more
suggested non-US removals from testing for the moment.

> remove sleuthkit/1.61-4
>   #205313 (FTBFS).  Also, there's been a newer release for a long time
>   (#221713), plus #196834 (improper directory search locations) and
>   other bugs.  The maintainer hasn't replied to any of the bug trails,
>   and may be MIA.

Agreed that this should be removed. Hint applied.

> remove xfdeskmenu4/4.0.0+cvs.20021222-2
>   #229943, plus, without xfce in sarge, what's the point?

This has been removed from unstable, so should disappear from testing
tonight without the need for a hint.

> remove gnopernicus/0.7.1-1
>   This is needed in order to remove gnome-mag.
>   It's "still experimental" and there is no official release yet, so
>   this shouldn't be a terrible loss in its current state.

I mentioned this to Steve some days back, but I figure he missed it.
Applied.

> remove erlang-slang/1.0-3
>   See below; 1.0-2 was not the correct target version.  :-P
>   Unfortunately it's non-US...

Ergo, no point looking at this; see above.

> --
> Now, the old ones, from
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/debian-release-200402/msg00060.html:
> 
> remove amavis-ng/0.1.6.2-1
>   Note that this will also allow the removal of suidmanager to work.

I'd been hoping not to have to remove this, but it seems too badly
broken at the moment; done.

> remove anubis/3.6.2-2.1

Yes, and a security bug too. Done.

> remove cl-uncommonsql/1.1.8.5-1

Agreed. Done.

I ran out of steam at this point, but thanks for these. I hope somebody
(perhaps me) will have time to look at the rest.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: status of postgresql for sarge?

[Colin Watson]

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 05:14:24PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> postgresql still has one RC report open, which was marked pending on
> 24 Feb by Martin Pitt. Are there plans to make the pending upload?
> When? postgresql currently blocks some more packages.
> 
> If the upload is not made ... postgresql had two RC reports, which are
> fixed in unstable (versioned shlibs dependency), and which allowed
> other packages enter testing (libpqxx-2.1.3, pygresql). Is it ok to
> make uploads directly for testing to fix the non-working packages
> (undefined symbols in libpq3 library)?

We need the version of postgresql from unstable anyway to satisfy
versioned dependencies from things like planner (a meta-gnome2
dependency which needs to be upgraded), so I would suggest concentrating
effort elsewhere in this case.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: status of postgresql for sarge?

[Colin Watson]

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 07:43:15PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> On 2004-03-06 17:14 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Are there plans to make the pending upload?  When? postgresql
> > currently blocks some more packages.
> 
> According to Oliver (the primary maintainer) there will be a new
> bugfix upstream release soon, which would be a good opportunity to
> upload an updated package. 

It would be very nice to have this update, or an earlier one, well on
its way into testing by the time of the projected base freeze (15th
March). Its current brokenness is a problem, so if we can avoid waiting
for upstream then that would be helpful.

Thanks,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Removal-from-testing proposals, current version

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 12:14:08AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > remove gnopernicus/0.7.1-1
> >   This is needed in order to remove gnome-mag.
> >   It's "still experimental" and there is no official release yet, so
> >   this shouldn't be a terrible loss in its current state.

> I mentioned this to Steve some days back, but I figure he missed it.
> Applied.

Was actually planning to NMU gnome-mag to fix up its issues.  Still plan
to do so, time allowing.

Cheers,

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Removal-from-testing proposals, current version

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 05:18:53AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> remove debian-guide/1.1.0

FTBFS, and apparently not updated since potato.  Removing.

> remove debian-guide-zh/0.6

Same problem, same solution.

> remove erlang-mode/2.3-2

I don't see any pressing need to remove this; it will fall out naturally
once removed from unstable, and it doesn't appear to have any RC bugs.

> remove kernel-image-2.4.18-i386bf/2.4.18-5

Looks like one we don't need to release with, at least; removing.

> remove kernel-patch-2.4.17-s390/0.0.20020816-2
> remove kernel-image-2.4.17-s390/2.4.17-3

Since this is the only s390 kernel in testing at all right now, I think
I would rather leave these packages where they are, so that it's easy to
spot this open issue.  It would be embarassing to release s390 with 0
RC bugs, and 0 usable kernel packages. ;)

> remove rcconf/1.6

Removing.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature