Re: Please allow kaffe 1.1.5-3 into testing
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Wolfgang Baer wrote: Hi, please allow kaffe 2:1.1.5-3 into testing as the last missing architecture (hppa) has been built successfull yesterday. [...] Was already approved while I was discussing java-related stuff with Steve, should go in automatically now. Thanks, however it seems the unblock request gets ignored due to version mismatch. It should be 2:1.1.5-3 and not 1.1.5-3 Wolfgang -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update (I)
Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update == An up-to-date version is at http://people.debian.org/~joey/3.0r6/. I am preparing the next revision of the current stable Debian distribution (woody) and will frequently send reports so people can actually comment on it and intervene whenever this is required. It is scheduled for any time now. If you disagree with one bit or another, please reply to this mail and explain why these things should be handled differently. There is still time to reconsider. The plan is to release this revision roughly two months after the last update. It is required that this happens before the release of sarge since the Debian archive infrastructure can't cope with updates of stable and oldstable. Hence, this update is planned for the end of May. An ftpmaster still has to give the final approval for each package since ftpmasters are responsible for the archive. However, I'm trying to make their work as easy as possible in the hope to get the next revision out properly and without too much hassle. The regulations for updates to the stable Debian release are quite conservative. The requirements for packages to get updated in stable are: 1. The package fixes a security problem. An advisory by our own Security Team is required. Updates need to be approved by the Security Team. 2. The package fixes a critical bug which can lead into data loss, data corruption, or an overly broken system, or the package is broken or not usable (anymore). 3. The stable version of the package is not installable at all due to broken or unmet dependencies or broken installation scripts. 4. All released architectures have to be in sync. 5. The package gets all released architectures back in sync. It is (or (and (or 1 2 3) 4) 5) Regular bugs and upgrade problems don't get fixed in new revisions for the stable distribution. They should instead be documented in the Release Notes which are maintained by Rob Bradford mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and are found at http://www.debian.org/releases/woody/releasenotes. Packages, which will most probably be rejected: . Packages that fix non-critical bugs. . Misplaced uploads, i.e. packages that were uploaded to 'stable unstable' or `frozen unstable' or similar. . Packages for which its binary packages are out of sync with regard to all supported architectures in the stable distribution. . Binary packages for which the source got lost somehow. . Packages that fix an unusable minor part of a package. If you would like to get a package updated in the stable release, you are advised to talk to the stable release manager first (see http://www.debian.org/intro/organization). Accepted Packages - These packages will be installed into the stable Debian distribution and will be part of the next revision. cvs stable1.11.1p1debian-9woody7 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc source cvs updates 1.11.1p1debian-10 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc source DSA 715 cvs - several vulnerabilities ethereal-common stable0.9.4-1woody11 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc ethereal-common updates 0.9.4-1woody12 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc ethereal-dev stable0.9.4-1woody11 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc ethereal-dev updates 0.9.4-1woody12 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc ethereal stable0.9.4-1woody11 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc source ethereal updates 0.9.4-1woody12 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc source tetherealstable0.9.4-1woody11 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc tetherealupdates 0.9.4-1woody12 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc DSA 718 ethereal - buffer overflow f2c stable20010821-3.1 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc source f2c updates 20010821-3.2 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc source Fix bug in DSA-661 gaim-common stable1:0.58-2.4 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc gaim-common updates 1:0.58-2.5 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc gaim-gnome stable1:0.58-2.4 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc gaim-gnome updates 1:0.58-2.5 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc gaim stable1:0.58-2.4 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc source gaim updates 1:0.58-2.5 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc source DSA 716 gaim - denial of service geneweb
Re: Please allow kaffe 1.1.5-3 into testing
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:35:08AM +0200, Wolfgang Baer wrote: Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Wolfgang Baer wrote: Hi, please allow kaffe 2:1.1.5-3 into testing as the last missing architecture (hppa) has been built successfull yesterday. [...] Was already approved while I was discussing java-related stuff with Steve, should go in automatically now. Thanks, however it seems the unblock request gets ignored due to version mismatch. It should be 2:1.1.5-3 and not 1.1.5-3 Yeah, already fixed for the next run. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please remove argouml library packages from sarge
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Fri, 6 May 2005 02:26:49 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 09:26:47AM +0200, Wolfgang Baer wrote: as discussed with Arnaud (the argouml maintainer) argouml should not ship with sarge. It's currently only in unstable but several library packages used only by argouml are left in sarge which should be removed before the release. Therefore, please remove the following library packages from sarge: - libgef-java - libi18n-java - libnsuml-java - libocl-argo-java Done. Thanks. - -- .''`. : :' :rnaud `. `' `- Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCe0cV4vzFZu62tMIRAnfXAJ9uJV2tORiH8HeST/mPh15UAtnJRgCgiqO8 zoTVMuNtFHRzA3KlFSDjzb8= =cnDy -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RFFE for amd64.
Hi, I would like to see a few packages with amd64 specific bugs be fixed in sarge. I currently have 3 such packages: - libglademm2.0: #279985: Fix a configure problem caused by using an old libtool version resulting in link failures. - libhdf4: #251275: Patches hdfi.h to known about amd64. - esound: #288903: Change control file to also build alsa support for amd64. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
please put sbcl 1:0.9.0.0-1. common-lisp-controller 4.14 into testing/sarge
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, The version in unstable is significantly better then the one in testing. As upstream put it: Do you want to push for 0.9.0 to go into sarge? It is notably better than 0.8.16 from our point of view (and also supports amd64 and Unicode, which 0.8.16 doesn't). There are a few small bugfixes that came out after 0.9.0.0 that I want to include. I see no new feature up to 0.9.0.20 in CVS, only bugfixes. common-lisp-controller 4.14 is only a bugfix release with respect to the version in testing. Groetjes, Peter -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCe2sE11ldN0tyliURAvGJAKC6g4WhDwwNHk6wyL8FI6101jGwMgCeMOll fq4XMi9VFM0HkzsgD8gspLI= =W/kA -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please accept ocamldsort 0.14.3-1.1
Hi, The NMU 0.14.3-1.1 of ocamldsort fixes the RC bug #307708: the build dependency on ocaml-nox just needed to be updated according to the new version of ocaml. Thanks for your work. Regards, Sam. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please accept tdb [Bug #307214]
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:11:42PM +0200, Elrond wrote: According to the bug logs, this was a trivial fix to the include file. Approved Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
approval of python-xmpp and jabber-irc
Hello. I am not a DD but have three packages in debian archive. My sponsor is Cosimo Alfarano. Two my packages needs updating and my sponsor have not responded yet in two days. Both packages have bugs: 1) jabber-irc have grave severity bug #307734 (and some unreported others). 2) python-xmpp have several bugs that is not posted to BTS but they can be considered as important. I can stand for this severity since I am the author of this package. For both packages updates that contain bugfixes (and one minor improvement for python-xmpp) are prepared and uploaded to http://www.penza-gsm.ru/snake/xmpp/ but my sponsor have not responded so I am fear that packages can go buggy into sarge or even be removed from it. Can anybody help me please? -- Respectfully Alexey Nezhdanov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please consider qvwm 1.1.12-2.1 for sarge (fixes #286282)
Hi, please consider qvwm 1.1.12-2.1 for sarge. It fixes bug #286282, which makes the package unusable for people using alternatives. The change is very small and should make no trouble (http://people.debian.org/~falk/qvwm-286282-fix.patch). Falk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
push to sarge: ldaptor 0.0.39, now in unstable, fixes FTBFS bug#307101
Hi. I'd like to see ldaptor 0.0.39 in sarge. It fixes an overzealous unit test that made it randomly FTBFS. See bug #307101. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package djvulibre
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 07:15:06AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: Just uploaded a new version of djvulibre to unstable. It generates identical (up to changelog and timestamps and such) binaries to the version in testing, *except* that it also generates a new -dev package. The -dev package was not previously needed, but is now necessary to build some Gnome tools. Which tools are those? Surely, not any that are shipping with sarge... Wouldn't it be better to leave this out of sarge, since people using it are most likely going to be developing for etch/sid? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFFE: ia32-libs
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:29:50PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: (RFFE is of course Request For Freeze Exception) I've just uploaded a new version of ia32-libs which fixes all the outstanding bugs: #305122: /usr/bin/ld:/emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib/libc.so:1: parse error #307521: ia32-libs: Broken on amd64 / Compilation with 'gcc-3.4 -m32' does not work #306512: bad libc-2.3.2.so causes segfaults Please allow for a freeze exception once the new version has stayed its few days in unstable; the current version in testing is fairly broken. Approved. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-build 0.11.9 into sarge
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:47:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: Hi Julien, Hi Steve, On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:28:30PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: apt-build 0.11.9 only contains an italian template translation update. Please push it to Sarge. --- /tmp/fileHibtat/apt-build-0.11.8/apt-build Tue Mar 22 18:28:16 2005 +++ /tmp/file4nnFgM/apt-build-0.11.9/apt-build Sat Apr 23 17:30:14 2005 @@ -42,7 +40,7 @@ # Initial -my $VERSION = 0.11.7; +my $VERSION = unreleased; my ($conf, %conf, @builddep, @apt_args); @apt_args = qw/--yes/; # and DEFAULT = 1, down in parse_config() [snip] Hmm, well, neither of those versions is right, so I suppose it's not a big deal. :) But perhaps you'd like to fix this before it gets pushed in? This version is changed on build, from debian/rules: sed 's/my $$VERSION = .*/my $$VERSION = $(shell head -n 1 debian/change log | cut -d -f 2 | sed -e 's/(//; s/)//;' | cut -d - -f 2);/' apt-build So this is not a problem ;-) Cheers, -- Julien Danjou .''`. Debian Developer : :' : http://julien.danjou.info `. `' http://people.debian.org/~acid `- 9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974 C95C A462 B51E C2FE E5CD signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: please allow tclcurl 0.13.2-1 enter sarge
Hi Domenico, On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 04:00:33PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: i'd like to make tclcurl 0.13.2-1 enter sarge, it is the last curl package i'm maintaining which has not the latest version in sarge. the package missed the freeze for only two days! it is a new upstream version but the package, with priority extra, isn't really important... Without specific bugs that are being fixed, the answer is no. No matter how unimportant the package, it still takes time for the release team to review the changes being included, and that time needs to be spent on release-critical issues whenever possible. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-build 0.11.9 into sarge
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:05:11PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:47:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:28:30PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: apt-build 0.11.9 only contains an italian template translation update. Please push it to Sarge. --- /tmp/fileHibtat/apt-build-0.11.8/apt-build Tue Mar 22 18:28:16 2005 +++ /tmp/file4nnFgM/apt-build-0.11.9/apt-build Sat Apr 23 17:30:14 2005 @@ -42,7 +40,7 @@ # Initial -my $VERSION = 0.11.7; +my $VERSION = unreleased; my ($conf, %conf, @builddep, @apt_args); @apt_args = qw/--yes/; # and DEFAULT = 1, down in parse_config() [snip] Hmm, well, neither of those versions is right, so I suppose it's not a big deal. :) But perhaps you'd like to fix this before it gets pushed in? This version is changed on build, from debian/rules: sed 's/my $$VERSION = .*/my $$VERSION = $(shell head -n 1 debian/change log | cut -d -f 2 | sed -e 's/(//; s/)//;' | cut -d - -f 2);/' apt-build So this is not a problem ;-) Ah... sure, I did read the part in debian/rules where the updated version is only written out to the binary package. Approved, then. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: please push agenda.app 0.1.3 to testing
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 04:17:37PM +0200, Gürkan Sengün wrote: can you push agenda.app 0.1.3 to testing, it's only a small change that makes it built clean with newer gcc. gcc-4.0 build failures are not RC or important, because no architecture (including unreleased architectures) uses this as a default compiler. I would allow this in if you were fixing other bugs, but I'm not going to cause more churn in testing for bugs that don't need to be fixed. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Issue with grub documentation about booting a kernel only once
Hi! Today I was doing some work on a new shiny remote server, and when I decided to recompile the kernel I wanted to have a way to revert back to my the default one, should the boot have failed... I thus startend searching for how to do that, and I found a very confusing situation... In particular the grub manual (in grub-doc) suggests using some features (grub-set-default, fallback) that don't exist in the debian package, because they have been disabled in the debian version (see: debian/patches/revert_grub-set-default.diff in the source of the grub package) This is reported as a normal bug against grub (#306899) http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=306899 Moreover it seems that there might be another way to achieve this, but it doesn't seem documented in the manual itself... I was able to make this work using the savedefault --once --default=N command inside grub, but I discovered this just by looking at the BTS. There is also a grub-reboot command that does that for you... Unfortunately this is a debian-specific feature and it's not documented (or at least not enough... I haven't found anything about it except in the BTS and some reference to it in the changelog). Of course probably it's too late to revert the patch and introduce the upstream way in sarge, but I think that the less that can be done is a huge disclaimer about this in the README.Debian for grub and grub-doc explaining that the feature discussed in the manual is not implemented in debian, for now, that there is another way to achieve the result, and saying what this way is... Since grub is now the default boot loader I think this issue might affect a lot of people and should be fixed before the release... What do people think? Should we file and RC bug against grub (or grub-doc) (or raise the severity of #260391) for mischievous information till a disclaimer is added? Thanks, Guido -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Security upload for kdewebdev (1:3.3.2-6)
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:46:37AM +1000, Ben Burton wrote: I've just made a high-priority upload for kdewebdev (1:3.3.2-6) to unstable. The previous upload (-5) fixed a security hole in kommander (CAN-2005-0754), but it was later realised by upstream that the patch was not correct. The new upload (-6) fixes this. The entire diff between -5 and -6 is included below. If you could approve -6 for sarge it would be appreciated. Approved. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please push rubilicious 0.1.4-2 into sarge.
Hi, On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:33:44PM +0900, Nobuhiro IMAI wrote: And next, please push rubilicious 0.1.4-2 into sarge. This revision fixed #306794[1] and makes those who use proxy happy. Depends: was also adjusted, because librexml-ruby1.8 is now provided by libruby1.8, and ruby1.8 which is in the Depends: line is depends on libruby1.8 appropriately. Approved. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#307816: cweb is not installable / unusable
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:07:47PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: The new dummy cweb package which now depends on tetex-bin has been sitting in unstable for almost a month but has not yet migrated. So I suggest letting: * tetex-bin_2.0.2-29 (and packages built from it: libkpathsea3 and libkpathsea-dev) * cweb_3.64.debian-2 into sarge. Approved. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFFE for amd64.
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:32:57PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: I would like to see a few packages with amd64 specific bugs be fixed in sarge. I currently have 3 such packages: - libglademm2.0: #279985: Fix a configure problem caused by using an old libtool version resulting in link failures. - libhdf4: #251275: Patches hdfi.h to known about amd64. - esound: #288903: Change control file to also build alsa support for amd64. Approved. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#304933: openafs-krb5: FTBFS: asetkey.c:80: error: too few arguments to function `afsconf_AddKey'
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 04:11:09PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 07:38:18AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: I won't speak for Sam on that, but incidentally, I've tested that the following patch does indeed fix the compilation problem. It appears to be correct so far as I can tell, although I alas don't have a suitable environment for testing it completely. Since this was the exact same solution that Sam also proposed in the discussion about #196094 I've now uploaded an NMU with this patch. Approved. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#306141: NMU for krb4 uploaded
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 04:15:57PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: I've uploaded an NMU for this issue. For -release: The patch can be found in the bug report http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi/krb4.1_2_2-11_2.patch?bug=306141msg=21att=1 Please approve krb4 1.2.2-11.2 Approved. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
