Bug#681178: unblock: libburn/1.2.2-2
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Hi, [ please Cc me on replies, I'm not subscribed to -release ] I've got three minor bugfixes from not yet released libburn 1.2.4, which I'd like to apply to libburn/1.2.2-1. I've not yet uploaded libburn 1.2.2-2, so this is a request for upload to sid and unblock. Both, Thomas Schmitt and I agree we want them in wheezy. Our test suite found in libisoburn/releng, which tries to cover most of the libburn, libisofs, libisoburn functionality reveals no regressions. Full debdiff attached, changelog follows inline: libburn (1.2.2-2) unstable; urgency=low * Bugfix patch (Closes: #680910) 01_sao-tracks-started-by-audio-pause: CD SAO sessions with data tracks was started by an audio pause. Affected is an old Sony CD burner, refusing to burn SAO. * Bugfix patch (Closes: #680911) 02_sao-2-sectors-short-fix: CD tracks are perceived 2 sectors too short. A correclty burnt CD media in SAO mode, will not be recognized as correct burn by xorriso inspection, which believes that the track size is two sectors shorter, where it is not. * Bugfix patch (Closes: #680968) 03_cdrskin-sigsegv-track-source-added-no-drive-available cdrskin could SIGSEGV if track source was added when no drive was available. -- George Danchev danc...@spnet.net Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:47:15 +0200 unblock libburn/1.2.2-2 -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash diff -Nru libburn-1.2.2/debian/changelog libburn-1.2.2/debian/changelog --- libburn-1.2.2/debian/changelog 2012-04-03 15:24:18.0 +0200 +++ libburn-1.2.2/debian/changelog 2012-07-10 17:42:31.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,22 @@ +libburn (1.2.2-2) unstable; urgency=low + + * Bugfix patch (Closes: #680910) +01_sao-tracks-started-by-audio-pause: +CD SAO sessions with data tracks was started by an audio pause. +Affected is an old Sony CD burner, refusing to burn SAO. + * Bugfix patch (Closes: #680911) +02_sao-2-sectors-short-fix: +CD tracks are perceived 2 sectors too short. +A correclty burnt CD media in SAO mode, will not be recognized +as correct burn by xorriso inspection, which believes that the +track size is two sectors shorter, where it is not. + * Bugfix patch (Closes: #680968) +03_cdrskin-sigsegv-track-source-added-no-drive-available +cdrskin could SIGSEGV if track source was added when no drive +was available. + + -- George Danchev danc...@spnet.net Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:47:15 +0200 + libburn (1.2.2-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release diff -Nru libburn-1.2.2/debian/patches/01_sao-tracks-started-by-audio-pause libburn-1.2.2/debian/patches/01_sao-tracks-started-by-audio-pause --- libburn-1.2.2/debian/patches/01_sao-tracks-started-by-audio-pause 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100 +++ libburn-1.2.2/debian/patches/01_sao-tracks-started-by-audio-pause 2012-07-10 17:42:31.0 +0200 @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ +Description: CD SAO sessions with data tracks was started by an audio pause. + Affected is an old Sony CD burner, refusing to burn SAO. +Author: Thomas Schmitt scdbac...@gmx.net +Origin: upstream, http://libburnia-project.org/changeset/4744 +Bug: none +Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/680910 +Forwarded: not-needed +Reviewed-By: George Danchev danc...@spnet.net +Last-Update: 2012-07-10 + +--- libburn-1.2.2.orig/doc/cookbook.txt libburn-1.2.2/doc/cookbook.txt +@@ -296,8 +296,9 @@ A pre-gap of 2 seconds is mandatory only + post-gap may be needed with further tracks if they have neighbors with + different DATA FORM values. (Such mixing is not yet supported by libburn.) + +-DATA FORM is 00h for audio payload, 01h for audio pause, 10h for data, +-41h for CD-TEXT in Lead-in. ++DATA FORM is 00h for audio payload, 01h for audio pause (Lead-in and Lead-out), ++10h for data, 14h for data pause (Lead-in and Lead-out). ++This shall be ored with 40h for CD-TEXT in Lead-in. + (mmc5r03c.pdf 6.33.3.11 CD-DA Data Form, 6.33.3.12 CD-ROM mode 1 Form) + + SCMS value 80h in conjunction with bit5 of CTL is an indicator for exhausted +@@ -318,7 +319,8 @@ The next entry (eventually being the fir + Its content is + (CTL|ADR ,00h,00h, DATA FORM ,00h,00h,00h,00h) + With the CTL|ADR for the first track: 41h for data, 01h for audio. +-DATA FORM is 41h if CD-TEXT shall be stored in Lean-in. Else it is 01h. ++DATA FORM is pause (audio=01h, data=14h). Ored with 40h if CD-TEXT shall ++be stored in Lean-in. + + The LBA for the first write is negative: -150. This corresponds to MSF address + 00h:00h:00h. All addresses are to be given in MSF format. +@@ -354,8 +356,9 @@ A track must at least contain 300 payloa +
BinNMU changelog handling for Multi-Arch: same packages
Hi Guillem, On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: I'll be doing a first push today. The remaning things I'll be finishing up next are at least the strings cleanup left out from the 1.16.4 release, the cross-multiarch patches, part of the changelog binNMU solution, and some other multiarch related improvements. So it looks like that the part of the changelog binNMU solution was just the possibility to tag a changelog entry binary-only with a keyword. But that doesn't solve the release team's problem of having to schedule bin-nmus for all arches for Multi-Arch: same. I know that in the long term you're in favor of moving the changelog in the package metadata and I agree with this plan. But IMO we must find an interim solution in the mean time. Here's a suggestion. Please share your thoughts: 1/ we modify dh_installchangelog to strip the binary-only changelog entry for Multi-Arch: same packages Some rough shell code to show the logic: if dpkg-parsechangelog | grep -q ^Binary-Only: yes; then perl -i -ne '$found++ if /^\S/; print if $found = 2;' $changelog fi 2/ we modify dpkg to allow co-installation of M-A: same packages which share the same source version regardless of the binary version 3/ we modify sbuild to add the required binary-only=yes in the binNMU changelog entries. Here's a sample header line: ftplib (3.1-1-9+b1) unstable; urgency=low, binary-only=yes Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120711072305.gg7...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
Re: BinNMU changelog handling for Multi-Arch: same packages
Hi Raphael, Raphael Hertzog wrote: I know that in the long term you're in favor of moving the changelog in the package metadata and I agree with this plan. But IMO we must find an interim solution in the mean time. Here's a suggestion. Please share your thoughts: 1/ we modify dh_installchangelog to strip the binary-only changelog entry for Multi-Arch: same packages [...] 2/ we modify dpkg to allow co-installation of M-A: same packages which share the same source version regardless of the binary version 3/ we modify sbuild to add the required binary-only=yes in the binNMU changelog entries. Here's a sample header line: ftplib (3.1-1-9+b1) unstable; urgency=low, binary-only=yes (2) and (3) sound like very good things. Wouldn't (1) be throwing away information, unless the stripped information goes into another file? Making the stripped info go into another file sounds fine to me. A crazier possibility is teaching the unpack procedure to treat /usr/share/doc/package/changelog.Debian.gz specially, collecting the binary-only changelog entries and merging them in a single file, but that's a pretty severe layering violation and it would not be easy to find which entries are no longer relevant when shrinking the set of installed arches for a package. Thanks, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120711073537.GA2006@burratino
Bug#680951: unblock: ace-of-penguins/1.3-9
2012-07-10 20:00 Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org: | Hi, | | On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:58:53PM +0300, Jari Aalto wrote: | | The Fix | |Add required font package to debian/control | | | | +Recommends: xfonts-100dpi 1.3-9 has been uploaded to unstable with this change. Jari pgpC8UDTkF97j.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#681196: unblock: tryton-proteus/2.2.2-3
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package tryton-proteus. The -3 upload fixes the #680817 FTBFS, revealed by a Lucas-powered rebuild. unblock tryton-proteus/2.2.2-3 debdiff attached tryton-proteus_2.2.2-3.debdiff Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#681150: marked as done (unblock: libfam-ruby/0.2.0-2.1)
Your message dated Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:25:09 +0200 with message-id 4ffd5485.5010...@thykier.net and subject line Re: Bug#681150: unblock: libfam-ruby/0.2.0-2.1 has caused the Debian Bug report #681150, regarding unblock: libfam-ruby/0.2.0-2.1 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.) -- 681150: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681150 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package libfam-ruby Fixes RC bug # 676099. unblock libfam-ruby/0.2.0-2.1 ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On 2012-07-11 01:34, Scott Kitterman wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package libfam-ruby Fixes RC bug #676099. unblock libfam-ruby/0.2.0-2.1 Unblocked, thanks for the fix. ~Niels ---End Message---
Bug#681154: marked as done (unblock: libimlib2-ruby/0.5.2-2.1)
Your message dated Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:26:37 +0200 with message-id 4ffd54dd.6050...@thykier.net and subject line Re: Bug#681154: unblock: libimlib2-ruby/0.5.2-2.1 has caused the Debian Bug report #681154, regarding unblock: libimlib2-ruby/0.5.2-2.1 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.) -- 681154: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681154 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package libimlib2-ruby Fixes RC Bug #676079. unblock libimlib2-ruby/0.5.2-2.1 ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On 2012-07-11 01:51, Scott Kitterman wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package libimlib2-ruby Fixes RC Bug #676079. unblock libimlib2-ruby/0.5.2-2.1 Unblocked, thanks for the fix. ~Niels ---End Message---
Bug#681165: marked as done (unblock: libnet-irc-ruby/0.14-5.1)
Your message dated Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:28:22 +0200 with message-id 4ffd5546.7060...@thykier.net and subject line Re: Bug#681165: unblock: libnet-irc-ruby/0.14-5.1 has caused the Debian Bug report #681165, regarding unblock: libnet-irc-ruby/0.14-5.1 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.) -- 681165: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681165 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package libnet-irc-ruby Fixes RC Bug #676086. unblock libnet-irc-ruby/0.14-5.1 ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On 2012-07-11 03:49, Scott Kitterman wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package libnet-irc-ruby Fixes RC Bug #676086. unblock libnet-irc-ruby/0.14-5.1 Unblocked, thanks for the fix. ~Niels ---End Message---
Bug#681171: marked as done (unblock: geos/3.3.3-1.1)
Your message dated Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:30:01 +0200 with message-id 4ffd55a9.5040...@thykier.net and subject line Re: Bug#681171: unblock: geos/3.3.3-1.1 has caused the Debian Bug report #681171, regarding unblock: geos/3.3.3-1.1 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.) -- 681171: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681171 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package geos Fixes RC bug #676094 unblock geos/3.3.3-1.1 ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On 2012-07-11 06:18, Scott Kitterman wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package geos Fixes RC bug #676094 unblock geos/3.3.3-1.1 Unblocked, thanks for yet another ruby fix. :) ~Niels ---End Message---
Bug#681168: unblock: merb/1.0.12+dfsg-4.1
On 2012-07-11 05:45, Scott Kitterman wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package merb Fixes RC bug #676078 unblock merb/1.0.12+dfsg-4.1 Hi, This seems to be scheduled for removal from sid (#681179)? ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ffd5d16.8060...@thykier.net
Bug#681145: marked as done (unblock: libgc/7.1-9)
Your message dated Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:12:07 +0200 with message-id 4ffd5f87.3050...@dogguy.org and subject line Re: Bug#681145: unblock: libgc/7.1-9 has caused the Debian Bug report #681145, regarding unblock: libgc/7.1-9 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.) -- 681145: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681145 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: freeze-exception Please unblock package libgc This upload fixes CVE-2012-2673. It is only using the patches approved upstream to fix this issue (the -malloc.diff one backported to out 7.1 package, rest does work as is). unblock libgc/7.1-9 -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.4-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/6 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash diff -Nru libgc-7.1/debian/changelog libgc-7.1/debian/changelog --- libgc-7.1/debian/changelog 2011-05-29 18:55:21.0 +0200 +++ libgc-7.1/debian/changelog 2012-07-11 00:30:07.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +libgc (1:7.1-9) unstable; urgency=medium + + * Import patches to fix CVE-2012-2673 from upstream git (Closes: #677195) + + -- Christoph Egger christ...@debian.org Sun, 08 Jul 2012 18:27:48 +0200 + libgc (1:7.1-8) unstable; urgency=low * Import patch by Thorsten Glaser diff -Nru libgc-7.1/debian/patches/CVE-2012-2673-calloc-1.diff libgc-7.1/debian/patches/CVE-2012-2673-calloc-1.diff --- libgc-7.1/debian/patches/CVE-2012-2673-calloc-1.diff 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100 +++ libgc-7.1/debian/patches/CVE-2012-2673-calloc-1.diff 2012-07-11 00:26:57.0 +0200 @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +From e10c1eb9908c2774c16b3148b30d2f3823d66a9a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Xi Wang xi.w...@gmail.com +Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 04:46:49 +0800 +Subject: [PATCH] Fix calloc() overflow + +* malloc.c (calloc): Check multiplication overflow in calloc(), +assuming REDIRECT_MALLOC. +--- + malloc.c |5 + + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) + +Index: libgc/malloc.c +=== +--- libgc.orig/malloc.c 2008-03-10 06:33:41.0 +0100 libgc/malloc.c 2012-07-08 18:08:40.030368600 +0200 +@@ -344,8 +344,13 @@ + } + #endif + ++#ifndef SIZE_MAX ++#define SIZE_MAX (~(size_t)0) ++#endif + void * calloc(size_t n, size_t lb) + { ++if (lb n SIZE_MAX / lb) ++ return NULL; + # if defined(GC_LINUX_THREADS) /* !defined(USE_PROC_FOR_LIBRARIES) */ + /* libpthread allocated some memory that is only pointed to by */ + /* mmapped thread stacks. Make sure it's not collectable. */ diff -Nru libgc-7.1/debian/patches/CVE-2012-2673-calloc-2.diff libgc-7.1/debian/patches/CVE-2012-2673-calloc-2.diff --- libgc-7.1/debian/patches/CVE-2012-2673-calloc-2.diff 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100 +++ libgc-7.1/debian/patches/CVE-2012-2673-calloc-2.diff 2012-07-11 00:26:57.0 +0200 @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +From 6a93f8e5bcad22137f41b6c60a1c7384baaec2b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Ivan Maidanski iv...@mail.ru +Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:30:11 +0400 +Subject: [PATCH] Fix calloc-related code to prevent SIZE_MAX redefinition in + sys headers + +* malloc.c: Include limits.h for SIZE_MAX. +* malloc.c (SIZE_MAX, calloc): Define GC_SIZE_MAX instead of SIZE_MAX. +--- + malloc.c | 10 +++--- + 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) + +Index: libgc/malloc.c +=== +--- libgc.orig/malloc.c 2012-07-08 18:08:40.030368600 +0200 libgc/malloc.c 2012-07-08 18:08:45.420373752 +0200 +@@ -344,12 +344,16 @@ + } + #endif + +-#ifndef SIZE_MAX +-#define SIZE_MAX (~(size_t)0) ++#include limits.h ++#ifdef SIZE_MAX ++# define GC_SIZE_MAX SIZE_MAX ++#else ++# define GC_SIZE_MAX (~(size_t)0) + #endif ++ + void * calloc(size_t n, size_t lb) + { +-if (lb n SIZE_MAX / lb) ++if (lb n GC_SIZE_MAX / lb) + return NULL; + # if defined(GC_LINUX_THREADS) /* !defined(USE_PROC_FOR_LIBRARIES) */ + /* libpthread allocated some memory that is only pointed to by */ diff -Nru libgc-7.1/debian/patches/CVE-2012-2673-calloc-3.diff libgc-7.1/debian/patches/CVE-2012-2673-calloc-3.diff --- libgc-7.1/debian/patches/CVE-2012-2673-calloc-3.diff 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100 +++ libgc-7.1/debian/patches/CVE-2012-2673-calloc-3.diff 2012-07-11
Bug#680983: marked as done (RM: libjdic-java/0.9.5-7)
Your message dated Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:33:34 +0200 with message-id 4ffd648e.1030...@dogguy.org and subject line Re: Bug#680983: RM: libjdic-java/0.9.5-7 has caused the Debian Bug report #680983, regarding RM: libjdic-java/0.9.5-7 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.) -- 680983: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=680983 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Please remove libjdic-java/0.9.5-7 from Wheezy. It's RC-buggy since a year (incompatible with current Mozilla), orphaned and apparently dead upstream (upstream homepage vanished). paros/3.2.13-7 needs to be dropped along. It has marginal popcon and the maintainer didn't react to either 678274 or 631039. I didn't file a removal bug yet, since that cannot happen as long as paros uses it, but we should rectify this for Wheezy with a testing removal. Cheers, Moritz ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On 09/07/12 19:46, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Please remove libjdic-java/0.9.5-7 from Wheezy. It's RC-buggy since a year (incompatible with current Mozilla), orphaned and apparently dead upstream (upstream homepage vanished). paros/3.2.13-7 needs to be dropped along. It has marginal popcon and the maintainer didn't react to either 678274 or 631039. I didn't file a removal bug yet, since that cannot happen as long as paros uses it, but we should rectify this for Wheezy with a testing removal. Removal hints for libjdic-java and paros added. Cheers. -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/ ---End Message---
Bug#681201: unblock: salt/0.10.1-2
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package salt while discussing with upstream the Debian package with salt they highly suggested adding an additional dependency to the Debian package resulting in #680410. I updated the package and addressed some minor packaging things which should simplify backports. For the rationale behind tightening the dependencies have a look at 4ffb685f.5020...@debian.org This is the debdiff between 0.10.1-1 and 0.10.1-2: --- salt-0.10.1/debian/changelog 2012-06-22 18:57:02.0 +0200 +++ salt-0.10.1/debian/changelog 2012-07-09 23:15:44.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +salt (0.10.1-2) unstable; urgency=low + + * [bda6011] Add dmidecode to depends for salt-minion. (Closes: #680410) + * [ad4786e] Depend on the same salt version + * [671c2c3] Depend on debhelper version fixing #577040 + + -- Ulrich Dangel u...@debian.org Mon, 09 Jul 2012 23:15:27 +0200 + salt (0.10.1-1) unstable; urgency=low [ Ulrich Dangel ] diff -Nru salt-0.10.1/debian/control salt-0.10.1/debian/control --- salt-0.10.1/debian/control 2012-06-22 18:57:02.0 +0200 +++ salt-0.10.1/debian/control 2012-07-09 23:01:41.0 +0200 @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Maintainer: Michael Prokop m...@debian.org Uploaders: Christian Hofstaedtler christ...@hofstaedtler.name, Ulrich Dangel m...@spamt.net DM-Upload-Allowed: yes -Build-Depends: debhelper (= 8), +Build-Depends: debhelper (= 9.20120410~), cython, libzmq-dev (= 2.1.9), python | python-all | python-dev | python-all-dev, @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ Depends: ${misc:Depends}, python, python-pkg-resources, - salt-common (= ${source:Version}) + salt-common (= ${source:Version}) Description: remote manager to administer servers via salt salt is a powerful remote execution manager that can be used to administer servers in a fast and efficient way. @@ -78,9 +78,10 @@ Package: salt-minion Architecture: all Depends: ${misc:Depends}, + dmidecode, python, python-pkg-resources, - salt-common (= ${source:Version}) + salt-common (= ${source:Version}) Suggests: python-augeas Description: client package for salt, the distributed remote execution system salt is a powerful remote execution manager that can be used to @@ -106,7 +107,7 @@ Depends: ${misc:Depends}, python, python-pkg-resources, - salt-master (= ${source:Version}) + salt-master (= ${source:Version}) Description: master-of-masters for salt, the distributed remote execution system salt is a powerful remote execution manager that can be used to administer servers in a fast and efficient way. unblock salt/0.10.1-2 -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.4-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2012073936.1595.84707.reportbug@shiny
Re: BinNMU changelog handling for Multi-Arch: same packages
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Jonathan Nieder wrote: 1/ we modify dh_installchangelog to strip the binary-only changelog entry for Multi-Arch: same packages Wouldn't (1) be throwing away information, unless the stripped information goes into another file? Making the stripped info go into another file sounds fine to me. Yes, that's another possibility but this changelog entry is not so important that it has to be in the .deb file IMO. The information is already in the .changes file, and thus in the corresponding build logs. Both approaches are fine for me (i.e. throwing the entry away or diverting it to another file). A crazier possibility is teaching the unpack procedure to treat /usr/share/doc/package/changelog.Debian.gz specially, collecting the binary-only changelog entries and merging them in a single file, but that's a pretty severe layering violation and it would not be easy to find which entries are no longer relevant when shrinking the set of installed arches for a package. Indeed, that's a no-no, way too crazy. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2012074439.gd11...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
Bug#681201: marked as done (unblock: salt/0.10.1-2)
Your message dated Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:45:34 +0200 with message-id 4ffd675e.4040...@dogguy.org and subject line Re: Bug#681201: unblock: salt/0.10.1-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #681201, regarding unblock: salt/0.10.1-2 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.) -- 681201: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681201 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package salt while discussing with upstream the Debian package with salt they highly suggested adding an additional dependency to the Debian package resulting in #680410. I updated the package and addressed some minor packaging things which should simplify backports. For the rationale behind tightening the dependencies have a look at 4ffb685f.5020...@debian.org This is the debdiff between 0.10.1-1 and 0.10.1-2: --- salt-0.10.1/debian/changelog 2012-06-22 18:57:02.0 +0200 +++ salt-0.10.1/debian/changelog 2012-07-09 23:15:44.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +salt (0.10.1-2) unstable; urgency=low + + * [bda6011] Add dmidecode to depends for salt-minion. (Closes: #680410) + * [ad4786e] Depend on the same salt version + * [671c2c3] Depend on debhelper version fixing #577040 + + -- Ulrich Dangel u...@debian.org Mon, 09 Jul 2012 23:15:27 +0200 + salt (0.10.1-1) unstable; urgency=low [ Ulrich Dangel ] diff -Nru salt-0.10.1/debian/control salt-0.10.1/debian/control --- salt-0.10.1/debian/control 2012-06-22 18:57:02.0 +0200 +++ salt-0.10.1/debian/control 2012-07-09 23:01:41.0 +0200 @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Maintainer: Michael Prokop m...@debian.org Uploaders: Christian Hofstaedtler christ...@hofstaedtler.name, Ulrich Dangel m...@spamt.net DM-Upload-Allowed: yes -Build-Depends: debhelper (= 8), +Build-Depends: debhelper (= 9.20120410~), cython, libzmq-dev (= 2.1.9), python | python-all | python-dev | python-all-dev, @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ Depends: ${misc:Depends}, python, python-pkg-resources, - salt-common (= ${source:Version}) + salt-common (= ${source:Version}) Description: remote manager to administer servers via salt salt is a powerful remote execution manager that can be used to administer servers in a fast and efficient way. @@ -78,9 +78,10 @@ Package: salt-minion Architecture: all Depends: ${misc:Depends}, + dmidecode, python, python-pkg-resources, - salt-common (= ${source:Version}) + salt-common (= ${source:Version}) Suggests: python-augeas Description: client package for salt, the distributed remote execution system salt is a powerful remote execution manager that can be used to @@ -106,7 +107,7 @@ Depends: ${misc:Depends}, python, python-pkg-resources, - salt-master (= ${source:Version}) + salt-master (= ${source:Version}) Description: master-of-masters for salt, the distributed remote execution system salt is a powerful remote execution manager that can be used to administer servers in a fast and efficient way. unblock salt/0.10.1-2 -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.4-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On 11/07/12 13:39, Ulrich Dangel wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package salt Unblocked. Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/ ---End Message---
Re: openswan freeze exception
Dear release team, I can only emphasize on the importance of having the latest version of the openswan package in Debian as the fixes will be highly needed for VPN servers dealing with mobile clients. All the patches will (according to the lead developer of openswan upstream) also be included in the RedHat version so testing should be even more thorough than with the current version in unstable. Best regards, Harald -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2012073755.gc3...@harald-has.a-little-linux-box.at
Fixing 634538 for Wheezy
Hi, We would like to 634538 fixed for Wheezy. Unfortunately, the changes brought by tcpreplay/3.4.4-1 are quite large [1] and we are not able to unblock the package for Wheezy. Would it be possible to prepare an upload targeting testing-proposed-updates and versioned 3.4.3-2+wheezy1? [1] after ignoring cruft: 212 files changed, 2842 insertions(+), 2017 deletions(-) -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ffd6aa4.5020...@dogguy.org
Re: Bug#679388: asterisk-prompt-it-menadri-gsm: should be names Menardi instead of Menadri
On 06/07/12 14:19, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: On 04/07/12 17:53, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: Would it be OK to upload the newer version to Unstable in order for it to get into Wheezy? FTR, the package has land in unstable and I've added an unblock hint. Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ffd6bba.9080...@dogguy.org
Fixing #654506 and #674386 in Wheezy
Hi, We would like to fix #654506 and #674386 in Wheezy. Unfortunately, we are not able to accept supercollider/1:3.5.2-1 from Unstable since the changes are quite large. Usually, we ask the maintainer to prepare an upload based on testing's source package and targeting testing-proposed-updates. But for this specific case, I'm not sure what would the best step forward as you seem not interested in fixing #674386 (cf. [1]). Since the package has not been part of any previous stable release, one solution could be to remove this package from testing. What do you think? Regards, [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=674386#10 -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ffd6fa0.9030...@dogguy.org
Bug#680001: marked as done (unblock: freeglut/2.6.0-3)
Your message dated Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:24:46 +0200 with message-id 4ffd708e.4030...@dogguy.org and subject line Re: Bug#680001: unblock: freeglut/2.6.0-3 has caused the Debian Bug report #680001, regarding unblock: freeglut/2.6.0-3 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.) -- 680001: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=680001 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: freeze-exception Severity: normal Please unblock package freeglut It fixes 3 bugs: an rc issue (#678571), a release goal (#677735), and an old bug (#331244). Thanks, Mike unblock freeglut/2.6.0-3 ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On 02/07/12 23:22, Michael Gilbert wrote: unblock freeglut/2.6.0-3 Unblocked. Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/ ---End Message---
Bug#681168: marked as done (unblock: merb/1.0.12+dfsg-4.1)
Your message dated Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:07:08 -0400 with message-id e61bfe55-72ee-41a4-b35b-d4d93da25...@email.android.com and subject line Re: Bug#681168: unblock: merb/1.0.12+dfsg-4.1 has caused the Debian Bug report #681168, regarding unblock: merb/1.0.12+dfsg-4.1 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.) -- 681168: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681168 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package merb Fixes RC bug #676078 unblock merb/1.0.12+dfsg-4.1 ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Apparently. I guess leave it then. ---End Message---
Re: Fixing #654506 and #674386 in Wheezy
Am 11.07.2012 14:20, schrieb Mehdi Dogguy: We would like to fix #654506 and #674386 in Wheezy. Unfortunately, we are not able to accept supercollider/1:3.5.2-1 from Unstable since the changes are quite large. Usually, we ask the maintainer to prepare an upload based on testing's source package and targeting testing-proposed-updates. But for this specific case, I'm not sure what would the best step forward as you seem not interested in fixing #674386 (cf. [1]). From a quick glance it looks like fixing #674386 would be as easy as doing 's/DEB_BUILDDIR/DEB_SRCDIR/' in debian/rules. - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ffd75cd.80...@greffrath.com
Re: Fixing #654506 and #674386 in Wheezy
Hi - It's easy to fix #654506 because supercollider never used waf so the file can simply be deleted in repacking a ~dfsg version, and build will still work fine. I don't want to work on #674386 because working on the scons build is a waste of time when we've junked it long ago, and the bug is apparently caused by a limitation in dh's handling of scons, i.e. not code I have any expertise in. Does anyone have a patch that might fix it? If so then maybe we can go for it. Dan 2012/7/11 Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org: Hi, We would like to fix #654506 and #674386 in Wheezy. Unfortunately, we are not able to accept supercollider/1:3.5.2-1 from Unstable since the changes are quite large. Usually, we ask the maintainer to prepare an upload based on testing's source package and targeting testing-proposed-updates. But for this specific case, I'm not sure what would the best step forward as you seem not interested in fixing #674386 (cf. [1]). Since the package has not been part of any previous stable release, one solution could be to remove this package from testing. What do you think? Regards, [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=674386#10 -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/canuikkrw_xotnoj2+0iobyymgwjn965mkdu+t1olgtcfh2e...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Fixing #654506 and #674386 in Wheezy
2012/7/11 Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com: Am 11.07.2012 14:20, schrieb Mehdi Dogguy: We would like to fix #654506 and #674386 in Wheezy. Unfortunately, we are not able to accept supercollider/1:3.5.2-1 from Unstable since the changes are quite large. Usually, we ask the maintainer to prepare an upload based on testing's source package and targeting testing-proposed-updates. But for this specific case, I'm not sure what would the best step forward as you seem not interested in fixing #674386 (cf. [1]). From a quick glance it looks like fixing #674386 would be as easy as doing 's/DEB_BUILDDIR/DEB_SRCDIR/' in debian/rules. Aha thanks - will try this later. Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/canuikko_mfm4n2qkgpzd+fggzuhqcbq_uqz_t284h9w+zx2...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Fixing #654506 and #674386 in Wheezy
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org wrote: Hi, We would like to fix #654506 and #674386 in Wheezy. Unfortunately, we are not able to accept supercollider/1:3.5.2-1 from Unstable since the changes are quite large. I think you mean 1:3.5.3~repack-1? That is what's currently in unstable, and 1:3.5.2-1 was uploaded before the freeze. Unfortunately, it couldn't migrate because it failed to build on non-x86 archs. We are currently working on fixing that. So, in a way, the changes are not that large ;). I had planned to mail d-r after we got the last round of fixes ready. Is there a chance we can convince you to let 3.5.3 migrate to testing? -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caafdzj9fqaa_znmwvndmeboobzb05zrkkchqgsq-2k4jqrp...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#681220: unblock: puppet/2.7.18-1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package puppet The 2.8.18 upstream release is a security release, fixing four security issues. - http://puppetlabs.com/security/cve/cve-2012-3864/ - http://puppetlabs.com/security/cve/cve-2012-3865/ - http://puppetlabs.com/security/cve/cve-2012-3866/ - http://puppetlabs.com/security/cve/cve-2012-3867/ The 2.7.18-1 debian release restricts puppet 2.7 to ruby1.8 only, it is not compatible with ruby 1.9.1, and this is not supported upstream. Puppet 2.7.17 was packaged for both ruby versions. - http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/platforms.html unblock puppet/2.7.18-1 -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120711135559.20428.66012.report...@turbotape.w.bitbit.net
Re: Fixing #654506 and #674386 in Wheezy
On 11/07/12 16:01, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Mehdi Dogguyme...@dogguy.org wrote: Hi, We would like to fix #654506 and #674386 in Wheezy. Unfortunately, we are not able to accept supercollider/1:3.5.2-1 from Unstable since the changes are quite large. I think you mean 1:3.5.3~repack-1? Yes, sorry. It was a bad copy/paste :/ That is what's currently in unstable, and 1:3.5.2-1 was uploaded before the freeze. Unfortunately, it couldn't migrate because it failed to build on non-x86 archs. We are currently working on fixing that. So, in a way, the changes are not that large ;). We don't seem to have the same definition of large. For this specific case, the changes between the unblocked version and sid's current version look like: $ debdiff supercollider_3.5.2-1.dsc supercollider_3.5.3~repack-1.dsc \ | diffstat | tail -n1 3040 files changed, 5266 insertions(+), 581639 deletions(-) This pretty looks as large. Ignoring the bits that were deleted when repacking, the debian/ directory, etc… this leads us to: 53 files changed, 746 insertions(+), 701 deletions(-) which is nicer indeed but still qualifies as large. Why did you import 3.5.3 instead of working on fixing 3.5.2? (I'm not sure it is relevant now but that might help us to understand the situation better). I had planned to mail d-r after we got the last round of fixes ready. Is there a chance we can convince you to let 3.5.3 migrate to testing? We would prefer targeted fixes based on the version of testing. Kind Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ffd8dfb.4080...@dogguy.org
Re: BinNMU changelog handling for Multi-Arch: same packages
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes: On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Wouldn't (1) be throwing away information, unless the stripped information goes into another file? Making the stripped info go into another file sounds fine to me. Yes, that's another possibility but this changelog entry is not so important that it has to be in the .deb file IMO. The information is already in the .changes file, and thus in the corresponding build logs. Both approaches are fine for me (i.e. throwing the entry away or diverting it to another file). I don't think it's mandatory that we save the information, but it certainly would be nice. I'd like apt-listchanges to show me the binary NMU changelog. I've used that information before on the local system, and that's a lot more convenient than going to the web and trying to do archeology on what happened. Saving the binary NMU changelog in a separate file feels like the right solution to me. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bojm8ejo@windlord.stanford.edu
Bug#680693: unblock: qemu-kvm/1.1.0+dfsg-1
On 08/07/12 21:10, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Maybe we could make something happen anyway, e.g. by letting it stay for a longer period in unstable before considering an unblock. But I'll let some other team members voice their opinion on this topic. I second this. I think we could add an age-days 15. We should also keep in mind that spice got an automatic freeze exception and qemu-kvm needs it. So if after 15 days, qemu-kvm isn't affected by any RC bug and is ready to be unblocked, we should be ready to unblock spice as well. (if the automatic unblocks were dropped by then). Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ffda8df.4080...@dogguy.org
Re: Fixing #654506 and #674386 in Wheezy
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org wrote: On 11/07/12 16:01, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Mehdi Dogguyme...@dogguy.org wrote: Hi, We would like to fix #654506 and #674386 in Wheezy. Unfortunately, we are not able to accept supercollider/1:3.5.2-1 from Unstable since the changes are quite large. I think you mean 1:3.5.3~repack-1? Yes, sorry. It was a bad copy/paste :/ That is what's currently in unstable, and 1:3.5.2-1 was uploaded before the freeze. Unfortunately, it couldn't migrate because it failed to build on non-x86 archs. We are currently working on fixing that. So, in a way, the changes are not that large ;). We don't seem to have the same definition of large. For this specific case, the changes between the unblocked version and sid's current version look like: $ debdiff supercollider_3.5.2-1.dsc supercollider_3.5.3~repack-1.dsc \ | diffstat | tail -n1 3040 files changed, 5266 insertions(+), 581639 deletions(-) This pretty looks as large. Ignoring the bits that were deleted when repacking, the debian/ directory, etc… this leads us to: 53 files changed, 746 insertions(+), 701 deletions(-) which is nicer indeed but still qualifies as large. I made some local git branches with the upstream source of 3.5.2 and 3.5.3, with patches applied. Updating to 3.5.3 allowed us to drop all the 3.5.2 patches: $ git show --stat 3.5.2-withpatches'^' | tail -1 7 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 100 deletions(-) So, taking into account this, the stat becomes: $ git diff 3.5.2-withpatches..3.5.3-withpatches --stat \ | tail -1 52 files changed, 631 insertions(+), 198 deletions(-) However, a big chunk of that is documentation updates: $ git diff 3.5.2-withpatches..3.5.3-withpatches --stat \ -- HelpSource/| tail -1 18 files changed, 439 insertions(+), 131 deletions(-) That leaves as with a diff of: 34 files changed, 192 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-) Of that, most of it is bugfixes, and an un-deprecation of a few methods. Why did you import 3.5.3 instead of working on fixing 3.5.2? (I'm not sure it is relevant now but that might help us to understand the situation better). Mostly because it allowed us to drop the patches we had. Also, upstreams release management seems sane enough, commits on the 3.5 branch are mostly cherry-picked from the master branch plus documentation fixes. I had planned to mail d-r after we got the last round of fixes ready. Is there a chance we can convince you to let 3.5.3 migrate to testing? We would prefer targeted fixes based on the version of testing. I understand. But on the other hand, we would prefer shipping upstreams latest version, which is why I asked if there was a chance we could convince you. In particular, since 3.5 sc has a new Qt based widget system, and debian does not have any other sc widget system (AFAICT, they were all third party), wheezy users would not be able to build SC GUIs. Dan can probably tell of more advantages of 3.5 over 3.4. That's why I asked if there was a chance that we could convince you. I wasn't asking if we had clearance yet. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAAfdZj-UXq-p�8pcn4k1mdasroquhgzggodvf6qu5fae8...@mail.gmail.com
Re: (future unblock) RFS: mobile-broadband-provider-info/20120708-1
On 2012-07-08 19:57, Bhavani Shankar R wrote: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, [] -- Bhavani Shankar bh...@ubuntu.com Sun, 08 Jul 2012 22:08:46 +0530 I am hereby requesting for a freeze exception as it gets in new and updated network support to the package compared in testing right now Also furthermore from the package readme: The Package contains only informational files so it's safe for distributions to grab updates even during feature freeze and maintenance stages. and this package in the past has got freeze exceptions due to the above: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/11/msg00143.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/11/msg00145.html A diff from the current version in testing is also attached for your reference Kindly request somebody to upload the package. Have a nice day! Regards, Hi, Seemed reasonable, unblocked. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ffdaa8f.90...@thykier.net
Bug#681239: unblock: getmail4/4.32.0-1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package getmail4 getmail4 (4.32.0-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release. - Prevent some nuisance stack traces if getmail cannot connect to the POP/ IMAP server correctly. - Restore use_peek IMAP retriever parameter which accidentally got removed in 4.30. - Improved backwards compatibility with pre-v.4.22.0 oldmail files, so IMAP mail is not re-retrieved if you upgrade from a 4.22 or earlier. This is for Debian system upgrading from squeeze (4.20.0). -- Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:37:18 +0900 Package currently in testing is based on 4.30. unblock getmail4/4.32.0-1 -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (10, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.4-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Upstream tarball diff 4.30.2 -- 4.32 is attached. diff -Nru getmail4-4.30.2.orig/docs/CHANGELOG getmail4-4.32.0.orig/docs/CHANGELOG --- getmail4-4.30.2.orig/docs/CHANGELOG 2012-06-28 09:45:33.0 +0900 +++ getmail4-4.32.0.orig/docs/CHANGELOG 2012-07-07 05:00:33.0 +0900 @@ -1,3 +1,16 @@ +Version 4.32.0 +6 July 2012 +-prevent some nuisance stack traces if getmail cannot connect to the POP/ +IMAP server correctly. Thanks: Daniel Dumke. +-restore use_peek IMAP retriever parameter which accidentally got removed +in 4.30. Thanks: Andreas Amann. + +Version 4.31.0 +5 July 2012 +-improved backwards compatibility with pre-v.4.22.0 oldmail files, so IMAP +mail is not re-retrieved if you upgrade from a 4.22 or earlier to this one; +no user action necessary. Thanks: Osamu Aoki, Tim van der Molen. + Version 4.30.2 27 June 2012 -fix a nuisance stack trace that would be dumped if a connection failed in diff -Nru getmail4-4.30.2.orig/getmailcore/__init__.py getmail4-4.32.0.orig/getmailcore/__init__.py --- getmail4-4.30.2.orig/getmailcore/__init__.py 2012-06-28 09:45:33.0 +0900 +++ getmail4-4.32.0.orig/getmailcore/__init__.py 2012-07-07 05:00:33.0 +0900 @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ raise ImportError('getmail version 4 requires Python version 2.3.3' ' or later') -__version__ = '4.30.2' +__version__ = '4.32.0' __all__ = [ 'baseclasses', diff -Nru getmail4-4.30.2.orig/getmailcore/_retrieverbases.py getmail4-4.32.0.orig/getmailcore/_retrieverbases.py --- getmail4-4.30.2.orig/getmailcore/_retrieverbases.py 2012-06-28 09:45:33.0 +0900 +++ getmail4-4.32.0.orig/getmailcore/_retrieverbases.py 2012-07-07 05:00:33.0 +0900 @@ -381,6 +381,7 @@ self.__initialized = False self.gotmsglist = False self._clear_state() +self.conn = None ConfigurableBase.__init__(self, **args) def _clear_state(self): @@ -472,6 +473,13 @@ continue try: (msgid, timestamp) = line.split('\0', 1) +if msgid.count('/') == 2: +# Was pre-4.22.0 file format, which includes the +# mailbox name in the msgid, in the format +# 'uidvalidity/mailbox/serveruid'. +# Strip it out. +fields = msgid.split('/') +msgid = '/'.join([fields[0], fields[2]]) self.oldmail[msgid] = int(timestamp) except ValueError: # malformed @@ -743,6 +751,8 @@ def abort(self): self.log.trace() RetrieverSkeleton.abort(self) +if not self.conn: +return try: self.conn.rset() self.conn.quit() @@ -753,7 +763,7 @@ def quit(self): RetrieverSkeleton.quit(self) self.log.trace() -if not getattr(self, 'conn', None): +if not self.conn: return try: self.conn.quit() @@ -1141,11 +1151,19 @@ def _getmsgbyid(self, msgid): self.log.trace() -return self._getmsgpartbyid(msgid, '(BODY.PEEK[])') +if self.conf.get('use_peek', True): +part = '(BODY.PEEK[])' +else: +part = '(RFC822)' +return self._getmsgpartbyid(msgid, part) def _getheaderbyid(self, msgid): self.log.trace() -return self._getmsgpartbyid(msgid, '(BODY.PEEK[header])') +if self.conf.get('use_peek', True): +part = '(BODY.PEEK[header])' +else: +part = '(RFC822[header])' +return self._getmsgpartbyid(msgid, part) def initialize(self, options): self.log.trace() @@ -1209,6 +1227,8 @@ def abort(self): self.log.trace() RetrieverSkeleton.abort(self) +if not self.conn: +
Bug#681240: unblock: refcard/5.0.8
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package refcard Many I18N updates and better looking build pages. refcard (5.0.8) unstable; urgency=low * Team upload. [ W. Martin Borgert ] * Translation added: - Indonesian: Kemas Antonius kyanton...@gmail.com [ David Prévot ] * Update Reference Card URL. (Closes: #647062) * Fix Swedish typo, thanks to Andreas Rönnquist. (Closes: #668317) * Fix English typo, thanks to Holger Wansing. (Closes: #630924) * Add xz to (de)compressing tools, thanks to Cesar Gil. (Closes: #649413) * dblatex.xsl: change xsl:choose for de, it and ro, thanks to Holger Wansing. (Closes: #630923) [ Osamu Aoki ] * texlive-xetex (2012.20120611-3) lists tipa in Depends and fixed build problem. (Closes: #22) * Use proper native package version system. * Bump Standards-Version: 3.9.3 and add compat. -- Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:51:24 +0900 unblock refcard/5.0.8 -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (10, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.4-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120711163452.GA23418@goofy.localdomain
Bug#681109: nmu: llvm-3.0_3.0-9
On 10 July 2012 18:46, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: I suspect this may just swap you one bug report for another - libllvm3.0 is multi-arch: same, which means that if it's binNMUed then e.g. libllvm3.0:amd64 and libllvm3.0:i386 will no longer be co-installable. I assume a dummy sourceful upload would be the best course of action here? I assume there shouldn't be any issues getting it unblocked from testing migration either? Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CALouZp0LRc-sSvwiPvNLcrNEnxfTbCUR1EYM9zzKc0auNXY=q...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#681239: marked as done (unblock: getmail4/4.32.0-1)
Your message dated Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:40:25 +0200 with message-id 4ffdac79.2050...@thykier.net and subject line Re: Bug#681239: unblock: getmail4/4.32.0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #681239, regarding unblock: getmail4/4.32.0-1 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.) -- 681239: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681239 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package getmail4 getmail4 (4.32.0-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release. - Prevent some nuisance stack traces if getmail cannot connect to the POP/ IMAP server correctly. - Restore use_peek IMAP retriever parameter which accidentally got removed in 4.30. - Improved backwards compatibility with pre-v.4.22.0 oldmail files, so IMAP mail is not re-retrieved if you upgrade from a 4.22 or earlier. This is for Debian system upgrading from squeeze (4.20.0). -- Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:37:18 +0900 Package currently in testing is based on 4.30. unblock getmail4/4.32.0-1 -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (10, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.4-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Upstream tarball diff 4.30.2 -- 4.32 is attached. diff -Nru getmail4-4.30.2.orig/docs/CHANGELOG getmail4-4.32.0.orig/docs/CHANGELOG --- getmail4-4.30.2.orig/docs/CHANGELOG 2012-06-28 09:45:33.0 +0900 +++ getmail4-4.32.0.orig/docs/CHANGELOG 2012-07-07 05:00:33.0 +0900 @@ -1,3 +1,16 @@ +Version 4.32.0 +6 July 2012 +-prevent some nuisance stack traces if getmail cannot connect to the POP/ +IMAP server correctly. Thanks: Daniel Dumke. +-restore use_peek IMAP retriever parameter which accidentally got removed +in 4.30. Thanks: Andreas Amann. + +Version 4.31.0 +5 July 2012 +-improved backwards compatibility with pre-v.4.22.0 oldmail files, so IMAP +mail is not re-retrieved if you upgrade from a 4.22 or earlier to this one; +no user action necessary. Thanks: Osamu Aoki, Tim van der Molen. + Version 4.30.2 27 June 2012 -fix a nuisance stack trace that would be dumped if a connection failed in diff -Nru getmail4-4.30.2.orig/getmailcore/__init__.py getmail4-4.32.0.orig/getmailcore/__init__.py --- getmail4-4.30.2.orig/getmailcore/__init__.py 2012-06-28 09:45:33.0 +0900 +++ getmail4-4.32.0.orig/getmailcore/__init__.py 2012-07-07 05:00:33.0 +0900 @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ raise ImportError('getmail version 4 requires Python version 2.3.3' ' or later') -__version__ = '4.30.2' +__version__ = '4.32.0' __all__ = [ 'baseclasses', diff -Nru getmail4-4.30.2.orig/getmailcore/_retrieverbases.py getmail4-4.32.0.orig/getmailcore/_retrieverbases.py --- getmail4-4.30.2.orig/getmailcore/_retrieverbases.py 2012-06-28 09:45:33.0 +0900 +++ getmail4-4.32.0.orig/getmailcore/_retrieverbases.py 2012-07-07 05:00:33.0 +0900 @@ -381,6 +381,7 @@ self.__initialized = False self.gotmsglist = False self._clear_state() +self.conn = None ConfigurableBase.__init__(self, **args) def _clear_state(self): @@ -472,6 +473,13 @@ continue try: (msgid, timestamp) = line.split('\0', 1) +if msgid.count('/') == 2: +# Was pre-4.22.0 file format, which includes the +# mailbox name in the msgid, in the format +# 'uidvalidity/mailbox/serveruid'. +# Strip it out. +fields = msgid.split('/') +msgid = '/'.join([fields[0], fields[2]]) self.oldmail[msgid] = int(timestamp) except ValueError: # malformed @@ -743,6 +751,8 @@ def abort(self): self.log.trace() RetrieverSkeleton.abort(self) +if not self.conn: +return try: self.conn.rset() self.conn.quit() @@ -753,7 +763,7 @@ def quit(self): RetrieverSkeleton.quit(self) self.log.trace() -if not getattr(self, 'conn', None): +if not self.conn: return try: self.conn.quit() @@ -1141,11 +1151,19 @@ def
Bug#681245: unblock: octave/3.6.2-3
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package octave This version fixes an RC bug (#681064) which manifests during Squeeze-Wheezy upgrades. unblock octave/3.6.2-3 Thanks, -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120711165304.28601.28635.report...@karaba.cepremap.org
Bug#681240: marked as done (unblock: refcard/5.0.8)
Your message dated Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:59:41 +0200 with message-id 4ffdbf0d.2020...@dogguy.org and subject line Re: Bug#681240: unblock: refcard/5.0.8 has caused the Debian Bug report #681240, regarding unblock: refcard/5.0.8 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.) -- 681240: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681240 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package refcard Many I18N updates and better looking build pages. refcard (5.0.8) unstable; urgency=low * Team upload. [ W. Martin Borgert ] * Translation added: - Indonesian: Kemas Antonius kyanton...@gmail.com [ David Prévot ] * Update Reference Card URL. (Closes: #647062) * Fix Swedish typo, thanks to Andreas Rönnquist. (Closes: #668317) * Fix English typo, thanks to Holger Wansing. (Closes: #630924) * Add xz to (de)compressing tools, thanks to Cesar Gil. (Closes: #649413) * dblatex.xsl: change xsl:choose for de, it and ro, thanks to Holger Wansing. (Closes: #630923) [ Osamu Aoki ] * texlive-xetex (2012.20120611-3) lists tipa in Depends and fixed build problem. (Closes: #22) * Use proper native package version system. * Bump Standards-Version: 3.9.3 and add compat. -- Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:51:24 +0900 unblock refcard/5.0.8 -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (10, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.4-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On 11/07/12 18:34, Osamu Aoki wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package refcard Unblocked. Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/ ---End Message---
Bug#681245: marked as done (unblock: octave/3.6.2-3)
Your message dated Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:03:55 +0200 with message-id 4ffdc00b.2000...@dogguy.org and subject line Re: Bug#681245: unblock: octave/3.6.2-3 has caused the Debian Bug report #681245, regarding unblock: octave/3.6.2-3 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.) -- 681245: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681245 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package octave This version fixes an RC bug (#681064) which manifests during Squeeze-Wheezy upgrades. unblock octave/3.6.2-3 Thanks, -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On 11/07/12 18:53, Sébastien Villemot wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package octave This version fixes an RC bug (#681064) which manifests during Squeeze-Wheezy upgrades. unblock octave/3.6.2-3 Unblocked. Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/ ---End Message---
Re: BinNMU changelog handling for Multi-Arch: same packages
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Russ Allbery wrote: I don't think it's mandatory that we save the information, but it certainly would be nice. I'd like apt-listchanges to show me the binary NMU changelog. I've used that information before on the local system, and that's a lot more convenient than going to the web and trying to do archeology on what happened. Saving the binary NMU changelog in a separate file feels like the right solution to me. The right *temporary* solution then. Remember that this was meant as an intermediary solution until the full changelog (with the bin-nmu entry) is just integrated in the package medata (control.tar). But it's true that it might require more than a cycle until we're there so it's probably best to not drop this information, even if it's only a temporary measure. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120711184515.gg14...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
Re: BinNMU changelog handling for Multi-Arch: same packages
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:23:05 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: I know that in the long term you're in favor of moving the changelog in the package metadata and I agree with this plan. But IMO we must find an interim solution in the mean time. Whatever solution ends up being chosen in the end (whether it's dropping the binNMU changelog, moving it to a separate file, or moving the whole changelog away, I don't hugely care), it's too late to make these changes for wheezy IMO. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Pending freeze and packages pending upload
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 23:54:26 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: This has been done. I've now uploaded 5.2.9-1, which is just 5.2.8 plus the Debian patches incorporated upstream and some translation updates and very minor bugfixes. If this could be allowed into testing, that would be much appreciated. Unblocked. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
fglrx [non-free] status for wheezy
Dear Release Managers, the status of the non-free fglrx driver does not look too good at the moment: fglrx-driver is not in wheezy (it was removed in favor of Xorg Xserver 1.12). Current Xorg is now supported, but the package is RC-buggy on amd64, requiring a new upstream release to fix (which has not yet happened). AMD took a very long time to release a driver (Catalyst 12-6, released end of June) that finally supports Xserver 1.12. At the same time they changed their release model and removed support for all graphics cards before the Radeon HD 5000 series. Unfortunately this driver is broken on amd64 where it causes X to crash during startup (#675940), so this currently won't migrate to testing. We hope this will be fixed in the next release, but it's unclear when that will arrive. Patrick has got the information, that there may be a point release for Debian this month, which will just fix the regression on amd64, but it is not for 100% sure if it really will happen. So we already look forward for other solutions. Surprisingly last week a beta legacy driver was published that supports the previously removed Radeon HD 2000/3000/4000 series (but nothing newer) and adds support for Xserver 1.12 (without being buggy on amd64). Preliminary tests have been promising :-) I've been working on packaging this legacy driver (ITP #680654), it's nearly ready for NEW. This will be similar to the current fglrx-driver packages, just with s/fglrx/fglrx-legacy/. There will be Conflicts between the fglrx packages and their fglrx-legacy counterparts because they ship the same file names. There is one package in fglrx-driver that needs a rename to be compatible with this setup: libxvbaw1 - libfglrx-amdxvba1. Before proceeding with uploading these changes I have two questions: * can we expect a freeze exception for fglrx-legacy-driver - a new source package, but based on fglrx-driver)? * can we expect a freeze exception for fglrx-driver - for a new upstream release - a single binary package rename (compared to what is currently in sid and has an automatic freeze exception, but is RC buggy) -- only in case a new upstream release actually arrives in time and fixes the RC bug? Otherwise there won't be any proprietary fglrx driver along with wheezy - which would be the first release without fglrx. So in the best case we could have both fglrx-driver and fglrx-legacy-driver in wheezy, which support the old hardware that was supported in squeeze and the current hardware, too. Note that these are leaf packages in non-free, so they are not going to break or block any other packages but themselves. Regards, Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ffdd74b.1040...@abeckmann.de
Bug#681196: unblock: tryton-proteus/2.2.2-3
* Betr.: Bug#681196: unblock: tryton-proteus/2.2.2-3 (Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:11:14 +0200): Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package tryton-proteus. The -3 upload fixes the #680817 FTBFS, revealed by a Lucas-powered rebuild. unblock tryton-proteus/2.2.2-3 debdiff attached 2.2.2-3 was rejected, because it was built against tar.gz, not the actual tar.xz tarball. This is the only change in 2.2.2-4, which now was accepted by ftp-master. Please unblock 2.2.2-4. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: asterisk
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 09:29:55 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote: There was a mistake in the slibs for mysql 5.5.24+dfsg-1 and asteisk built against it. Once 5.5.24+dfsg-2 has finished building asterisk should be built again. You need to give more details for such requests. What architectures are affected? What was the mistake, and how can we check if other packages were also affected? Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: qemu-kvm and wheezy
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 19:00:20 +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: Hello. Since the wheezy freeze is nearby, I wanted to notify the Release Team about possible issue with qemu-kvm package. Sorry we didn't get back to you earlier. Right now qemu-kvm 1.0 is in testing, 1.1 is in sid, but is stuck behind spice 0.11.0, which itself seeems to want a new spice-gtk. I don't feel I can review the spice changes, any volunteer? Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Package libtango
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 14:18:54 +0200, Eva Ramon wrote: Hello, the package libtango has a bug which cannot be resolved #665017, because it has a dependency on ldc, which cannot be satisfied (the package ldc isn't in testing anymore). The libtango source package and its binary packages should be removed from testing. The package libassimp2-d-dev depends on libtango-headers. This package should also be removed from testing. I reported the bug #619697 for that. libtango and assimp were removed from testing about a week ago. Thanks for the note. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Preparation for d-i beta 1
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:20:24 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (07/07/2012): As for the kernel, linux can't migrate on its own, packages would become uninstallable. linux-latest is needed but is missing its s390 build (hence the poke on IRC and the extra Cc now). Trying easy from autohinter: linux/3.2.21-3 nvidia-graphics-modules/302.17+1 linux-latest/45 leading: linux,nvidia-graphics-modules,linux-latest start: 30+0: i-4:a-0:a-0:a-5:i-0:k-6:k-6:m-0:m-0:p-0:s-1:s-6:s-2 orig: 30+0: i-4:a-0:a-0:a-5:i-0:k-6:k-6:m-0:m-0:p-0:s-1:s-6:s-2 easy: 31+0: i-5:a-0:a-0:a-5:i-0:k-6:k-6:m-0:m-0:p-0:s-1:s-6:s-2 * i386: linux-patch-debian-3.2 yay.. I think I fixed that by adding the linux-2.6 removal to the hint. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Unblocks/urgents for d-i beta 1 (take 3)
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk (10/07/2012): With the exception of slang2, these versions already had freeze exceptions and were only blocked by the udeb freeze; all unblocked, hoping that the last set of changes in slang2 don't cause any issues. Thanks again. And possibly the final one for beta 1: # 20120711 # RoKiBi: make grub-install work on RAID/LVM again unblock grub-installer/1.75 unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.75 urgent grub-installer/1.75 Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Preparation for d-i beta 1
Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org (11/07/2012): I think I fixed that by adding the linux-2.6 removal to the hint. Sorry I didn't reply on that point. Yes, you did. (I noticed it when mine failed due to yours being processed before, in my test run.) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question about my package kde-config-gtk-style
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 15:55:58 +0300, Boris Pek wrote: The package was uploaded to unstable on June 18. But it have not migrated to testing automatically [2] because of new bug report [3] with severity grave. I should note, that this level of severity is questionable, because circular symlinks is not common situation. So nor I nor other users haven't faced with problem from that bug report. The bug severity seems right to me. I might have been willing to grant an exception based on the binary being present in squeeze, but with the first upload only a month ago (to experimental) and an unfixed RC bug I'm not sure. Anyway, get back to us once the package is no longer RC buggy. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question about my QA uploads
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 16:32:45 +0300, Boris Pek wrote: Hi, I have done some QA work and have prepared few updates for packages which are currently have no maintainers. Most of them were sponsored. But unfortunately four packages were not uploaded before freeze: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?include=subject%3A[QA];dist=unstable;package=sponsorship-requests All these updated packages include non-RC bugfixes (for important and normal bugs). Also they have improvements not related with bugs (just fixes for lintian warnings and notes). The question is: could the exception be granted in this case? For the bug fixes maybe (or the package could be removed, in some cases that's a better outcome). For lintian fixes, less likely. If no, should I prepare uploads to experimental or just left them as is? I don't think targetting experimental for unmaintained packages makes sense. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Freeze Exception for taglib-sharp 2.0.5.0
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 15:07:11 +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote: The bug[1] fixed by the commit that caused the ABI break is pretty serious -- all faac-generated files are rejected by Banshee. So you're saying that bug can't be fixed without breaking the ABI? Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: asterisk
On 11/07/12 20:45, Julien Cristau wrote: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 09:29:55 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote: There was a mistake in the slibs for mysql 5.5.24+dfsg-1 and asteisk built against it. Once 5.5.24+dfsg-2 has finished building asterisk should be built again. You need to give more details for such requests. What architectures are affected? What was the mistake, and how can we check if other packages were also affected? Cheers, Julien I think it was just asterisk. But to be sure can we grep the build logs? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ffde2b7.7050...@periapt.co.uk
Re: Unblocks/urgents for d-i beta 1 (take 3)
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (11/07/2012): And possibly the final one for beta 1: # 20120711 # RoKiBi: make grub-install work on RAID/LVM again unblock grub-installer/1.75 unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.75 urgent grub-installer/1.75 Sorry for having processed that myself, but clock's ticking and I don't want to delay beta 1 any longer, it's way too late already. Added to my hints file… Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: openswan freeze exception
Hello, taking off any hat I could have and talking as a random user. René Mayrhofer rm...@debian.org (08/07/2012): Unfortunately, we (Harald Jenny, the real maintainer of openswan for the past 6 months or so, and me, the one who is only doing uploads) missed the freeze deadline due to various issues. However, we feel that the version of openswan that is now in experimental (and which we plan to upload to unstable as soon as you agree to it) is indeed needed in Wheezy, because it fixes a few important bugs concerning compatibility with mobile clients such as iOS and Android devices particularly in combination with NAT traversal (which most mobile devices will have to go through). Unfortunately, fixing these bugs requires a new upstream version with a few cherry-picked patches. Internal testing indicates that it is stable and does not introduce any regressions. I'm not sure how openswan and strongswan relate to each other, but seeing the regressions while upgrading from strongswan 4.5 to strongswan 4.6, I'm not sure how stable those two things can be (not to mention RC bug #680480). Yeah, that specific strongswan still has to be reported, but I had (paid) work to do urgently, so we just all downgraded promptly… Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#681109: nmu: llvm-3.0_3.0-9
Jonathan McCrohan jmccro...@gmail.com (11/07/2012): On 10 July 2012 18:46, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: I suspect this may just swap you one bug report for another - libllvm3.0 is multi-arch: same, which means that if it's binNMUed then e.g. libllvm3.0:amd64 and libllvm3.0:i386 will no longer be co-installable. I assume a dummy sourceful upload would be the best course of action here? I assume there shouldn't be any issues getting it unblocked from testing migration either? Yes; yes (assuming no actual changes are included; otherwise, changes will needed to get reviewed). Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: your mail
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: retitle 681196 unblock: tryton-proteus/2.2.2-4 Bug #681196 [release.debian.org] unblock: tryton-proteus/2.2.2-3 Changed Bug title to 'unblock: tryton-proteus/2.2.2-4' from 'unblock: tryton-proteus/2.2.2-3' thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 681196: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681196 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.134204631031300.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Re: Freeze exception request: liblastfm 0.4.0~git20090710-2
Hello, and thanks for checking with us. John Stamp jst...@users.sourceforge.net (05/07/2012): Because the last upload was so long ago, I modified the packaging to take advantage of multiarch and hardened build flags. A debdiff is attached. Last upload long ago doesn't mean you get to rewrite the packaging during freeze, that's really not appreciated. Reminder: http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html diff -Nru liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/changelog liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/changelog --- liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/changelog 2012-07-05 15:30:33.0 -0700 +++ liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/changelog 2012-07-03 15:57:50.0 -0700 @@ -1,3 +1,16 @@ +liblastfm (0.4.0~git20090710-2) unstable; urgency=medium + + * Fix compilation with ruby = 1.9.2 (Closes: #676104) 1.9.2 really? + * Use source format 3.0 (quilt) Again, really not a good time. + * Update the *.install files to accommodate multiarch + * Update to dh 9 to take advantage of hardening build flags + * Add missing misc:Depends and misc:Pre-Depends + * Fix lintian warnings description-synopsis-starts-with-article + * Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.3. + * Update debian/copyright format to version 1.0 Please check the freeze policy above. Keeping bug fixes only would be appreciated. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: asterisk
On 11/07/12 21:31, Nicholas Bamber wrote: On 11/07/12 20:45, Julien Cristau wrote: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 09:29:55 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote: There was a mistake in the slibs for mysql 5.5.24+dfsg-1 and asteisk built against it. Once 5.5.24+dfsg-2 has finished building asterisk should be built again. You need to give more details for such requests. What architectures are affected? What was the mistake, and how can we check if other packages were also affected? Cheers, Julien I think it was just asterisk. But to be sure can we grep the build logs? Julien, The following are the only affected for asterisk: asterisk_1:1.8.13.0~dfsg-1_i386.log asterisk_1:1.8.13.0~dfsg-1_mipsel.log asterisk_1:1.8.13.0~dfsg-1_s390.log asterisk_1:1.8.13.0~dfsg-1_s390x.log -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ffe048f.3050...@periapt.co.uk
Re: Request for kvirc freeze exception.
Hello, and thanks for checking with us. Raúl Sánchez Siles rasas...@gmail.com (06/07/2012): Since I don't have upload rights I requested regular uploaders first, then kde- extras team for sponsoring. The situation was such that I failed to manage time left to freeze properly and upload didn't happen. Moreover upstream released the 4.2.0 version, which I'm proposing now and which differs slightly with my sponsoring requests. I'm asking now considering kvirc package 4:4.2.0-1 into wheezy, Taking into account [2], I'd like to support my petition on the following points: · Bugs 658058 and 669189 matches multiarch and hardening flags release goals, respectively. We could consider that. · All packages generated are priority optional or extra, and therefore unlikely to harm any other parts of the system. There is no other debian package, excluding those generated by kvirc source package, that depends on it. Noted, but that alone won't make us give you carte blanche. · New upstream release include a very high density of translation updates. For instance, full debdiff [3] shows 646 files changed, 99946 insertions(+), 72202 deletions(-) whereas debdiff [4], excluding po dir shows 305 files changed, 5472 insertions(+), 6656 deletions(-) Even excluding translation updates (which is at least for now very OK according to our freeze policy), that's still huge. · New upstream release starts 4.2.x major versions, Historically there have been 1 or 2 upstream minor revisions which we (debian) may profit from, specially as regards with security or serious issues. If 4.2.0 is not deployed in Wheezy our base version will be 4.1.3+2024.svn5988-1, based on a development snapshot. From the maintainers point of view, basing on a stable release is more than convenient. I can understand that, but that's unfortunate it got released so late as far as the wheezy freeze is concerned. · One extra cosmetic-point is that this upload means zero bug package. Something that I guess every package maintainer would like to see for his packaged stuff :) Sorry, but totally irrelevant. :p To summarize, not sure what to advise for this package. Surely the proposed changes are much larger than what I'd like at this point of the release cycle. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BinNMU changelog handling for Multi-Arch: same packages
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes: The right *temporary* solution then. Remember that this was meant as an intermediary solution until the full changelog (with the bin-nmu entry) is just integrated in the package medata (control.tar). Oh, yes, absolutely agreed. Sorry for not making that clear. Putting the changelog in the package metadata makes a ton of sense. In fact, if we could also do that with the copyright file, that would eliminate nearly all of our issues with linked doc directories and would simplify a whole currently-contentious area of Policy, replacing it with a much simpler debate about the right interface to view those files for installed packages. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87394xn8yz@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: BinNMU changelog handling for Multi-Arch: same packages
Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org writes: On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:23:05 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: I know that in the long term you're in favor of moving the changelog in the package metadata and I agree with this plan. But IMO we must find an interim solution in the mean time. Whatever solution ends up being chosen in the end (whether it's dropping the binNMU changelog, moving it to a separate file, or moving the whole changelog away, I don't hugely care), it's too late to make these changes for wheezy IMO. My gut instinct is to agree. Given the incomplete multiarch conversion, it seems like we should just do a final consistency binNMU on all affected packages right before the wheezy release so that they all match (I assume it's possible to do that? if not, we could do a sourceful upload/NMU through testing-proposed-updates) and call it good enough for wheezy. Stable updates are unlikely to have this problem, since I believe binNMUs are very rare inside stable. Doing new feature and design work in dpkg at this point in the release cycle doesn't seem like a good idea. I think using the separate file approach makes sense for wheezy+1 if the dpkg maintainers don't think that the move to package metadata will be done in time. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mx35ltrt@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: Freeze exception request: liblastfm 0.4.0~git20090710-2
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:42:22AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Last upload long ago doesn't mean you get to rewrite the packaging during freeze, that's really not appreciated. Reminder: http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html OK. Thank you. I've attached a debdiff that fixes #676104 without extraneous changes. Does that look acceptable? diff -Nru liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/changelog liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/changelog --- liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/changelog2012-07-05 15:30:33.0 -0700 +++ liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/changelog2012-07-03 15:57:50.0 -0700 @@ -1,3 +1,16 @@ +liblastfm (0.4.0~git20090710-2) unstable; urgency=medium + + * Fix compilation with ruby = 1.9.2 (Closes: #676104) 1.9.2 really? Yes. Starting with version 1.9.2 ruby no longer includes '.' in its $LOAD_PATH. But that version of ruby is in ruby1.9.1. I tried to clarify that in the attached debdiff. + * Use source format 3.0 (quilt) Again, really not a good time. Until now, I haven't needed to patch the source. Using source format 3.0 (quilt) seems better than modifying the Build-Depends and debian/rules. Or would the latter still be preferable? John diff -Nru liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/changelog liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/changelog --- liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/changelog 2012-07-11 17:50:05.0 -0700 +++ liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/changelog 2012-07-11 17:39:31.0 -0700 @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +liblastfm (0.4.0~git20090710-2) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium + + * Fix compilation with ruby1.9.1 = 1.9.2 (Closes: #676104) + * Use source format 3.0 (quilt) + + -- John Stamp jst...@users.sourceforge.net Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:47:54 -0700 + liblastfm (0.4.0~git20090710-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release from git snapshot. diff -Nru liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/patches/fix-build-with-ruby-1.9.patch liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/patches/fix-build-with-ruby-1.9.patch --- liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/patches/fix-build-with-ruby-1.9.patch 1969-12-31 16:00:00.0 -0800 +++ liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/patches/fix-build-with-ruby-1.9.patch 2012-07-11 16:47:01.0 -0700 @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +Description: Fixes builds agains ruby = 1.9.2 + Ruby 1.9.2 no longer includes the current directory in the LOAD_PATH + so we'll just use absolute paths instead. +Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=676104 +Author: John Stamp jst...@users.sourceforge.net +Last-Update: 2012-06-06 +--- a/admin/Makefile.rb b/admin/Makefile.rb +@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ + + cwd = File.dirname( __FILE__ ) + require 'find' +-require #{cwd}/platform.rb ++require File.expand_path(File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), 'platform.rb')) + + + # defs +--- a/admin/qpp b/admin/qpp +@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ + + cwd=File.dirname __FILE__ + require 'find' +-require #{cwd}/findsrc ++require File.expand_path(File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), 'findsrc.rb')) + + sources = Array.new + headers = Array.new diff -Nru liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/patches/series liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/patches/series --- liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/patches/series 1969-12-31 16:00:00.0 -0800 +++ liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/patches/series 2012-07-11 16:47:01.0 -0700 @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +fix-build-with-ruby-1.9.patch diff -Nru liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/source/format liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/source/format --- liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/source/format 1969-12-31 16:00:00.0 -0800 +++ liblastfm-0.4.0~git20090710/debian/source/format 2012-07-11 17:39:31.0 -0700 @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +3.0 (quilt)
Re: BinNMU changelog handling for Multi-Arch: same packages
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:01:24 -0700 Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes: The right *temporary* solution then. Remember that this was meant as an intermediary solution until the full changelog (with the bin-nmu entry) is just integrated in the package medata (control.tar). Please don't put that into the files used to prepare content for dpkg -s and apt-cache - that output is large enough as it is. A single step like this could seriously compromise package handling on low resource machines and push apt passed it's memory mapping limits again even on more powerful machines. Oh, yes, absolutely agreed. Sorry for not making that clear. Putting the changelog in the package metadata makes a ton of sense. In fact, if we could also do that with the copyright file, that would eliminate nearly all of our issues with linked doc directories and would simplify a whole currently-contentious area of Policy, replacing it with a much simpler debate about the right interface to view those files for installed packages. ... and that would be even worse if not isolated from the status and cache information at the point where it is unpacked. Wherever the data lives inside the .deb is not the problem. Where the data gets cached, copied, listed and parsed is likely to be a major problem. -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpxAKk7tlVeC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#681178: unblock: libburn/1.2.2-2
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 08:27:23AM +0200, George Danchev wrote: I've got three minor bugfixes from not yet released libburn 1.2.4, which I'd like to apply to libburn/1.2.2-1. I've not yet uploaded libburn 1.2.2-2, so this is a request for upload to sid and unblock. Both, Thomas Schmitt and I agree we want them in wheezy. Our test suite found in libisoburn/releng, which tries to cover most of the libburn, libisofs, libisoburn functionality reveals no regressions. Please go ahead. I cannot do the unblock right away though. Please ping after it got accepted. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#680951: unblock: ace-of-penguins/1.3-9
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:19:04PM +0300, Jari Aalto wrote: 2012-07-10 20:00 Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org: | Hi, | | On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:58:53PM +0300, Jari Aalto wrote: | | The Fix | |Add required font package to debian/control | | | | +Recommends: xfonts-100dpi 1.3-9 has been uploaded to unstable with this change. Ok, looking at the actual diff, I also see: -45-libpng15 +50-buildflags.patch These aren't mentioned in the changelog - care to explain? Thanks, Neil signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BinNMU changelog handling for Multi-Arch: same packages
Sigh, again... On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 09:23:05 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: I'll be doing a first push today. The remaning things I'll be finishing up next are at least the strings cleanup left out from the 1.16.4 release, the cross-multiarch patches, part of the changelog binNMU solution, and some other multiarch related improvements. So it looks like that the part of the changelog binNMU solution was just the possibility to tag a changelog entry binary-only with a keyword. But that doesn't solve the release team's problem of having to schedule bin-nmus for all arches for Multi-Arch: same. No, the part of the solution was to create the needed user and program infrastructure interfaces to retrieve the metadata files from the db in a future-proof way. That's the new commands «dpkg-query --control-list pkg» and «dpkg-query --control-show pkg file», which should eventually replace the previous semi-private «dpkg-query --control-path pkg [file]». There's no other changes required from the dpkg side. To get changelog (and possibly copyright files) as package metadata, I think the only remaining things that would need to happen if the project agreed that's the right path would be: * Change apt-listchanges to use «dpkg-deb -I pkg changelog» to try to get the package changelog. * Change the “website” to use «dpkg-deb -I pkg changelog» to try to get the package changelog (and possibly copyright). * Change policy to allow packages to ship changelogs (and possibly copyright) as package metadata instead of «/use/share/doc/pkg/». * Change lintian per the above. * Change dh_installchangelogs to install the changelog in the DEBIAN/ dir instaed of «/use/share/doc/pkg/». * Progressively change any remaning package not using debhelper to store these under DEBIAN/. ? If there's any program showing changelog files from installed paths switch them to use «dpkg-query --control-show pkg changelog». I know that in the long term you're in favor of moving the changelog in the package metadata and I agree with this plan. But IMO we must find an interim solution in the mean time. First, I don't see why we _must_, it's been a known limitation of the spec for a long time and as Julien said now it's probably too late anyway, there's always the possibility for a last sourceful upload before the release, and I've said before I think a solution to this should really not be rushed... *But* if something needed to be done, I keep failing to see the point in temporary hacks which imply, as much if not more work (as it needs to be reverted back and switched to the new scheme) or wrongness, instead of just going for the metadata solution... Here's a suggestion. Please share your thoughts: 1/ we modify dh_installchangelog to strip the binary-only changelog entry for Multi-Arch: same packages Some rough shell code to show the logic: if dpkg-parsechangelog | grep -q ^Binary-Only: yes; then perl -i -ne '$found++ if /^\S/; print if $found = 2;' $changelog fi For packages not using debhelper this would need to be duplicated all over the place, to later on having to be reverted. 2/ we modify dpkg to allow co-installation of M-A: same packages which share the same source version regardless of the binary version As I've said before, this right here seems unacceptable. This implies at least: * loosing the binNMU changelog entry, with a version in the changelog not matching the one on the dpkg db (in possibly both directions). * making installed file contents flip-flop depending on what package got installed last. * making dpkg unable to detect different generated file contents on different binary rebuilds. 3/ we modify sbuild to add the required binary-only=yes in the binNMU changelog entries. Here's a sample header line: ftplib (3.1-1-9+b1) unstable; urgency=low, binary-only=yes This could be done regardless if the buildd people agree to it, and that was the idea when I added this. guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120712050630.gb11...@gaara.hadrons.org
Bug#681287: unblock: imageshack-uploader/2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428-5.1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package imageshack-uploader Fixes RC bug #672084, unblock imageshack-uploader/2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428-5.1 diff -Nru imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/debian/changelog imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/debian/changelog --- imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/debian/changelog 2012-06-03 01:41:49.0 -0400 +++ imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/debian/changelog 2012-07-12 01:05:55.0 -0400 @@ -1,9 +1,24 @@ +imageshack-uploader (2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428-5.1) unstable; urgency=low + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * Restore previous NMU for GCC 4.7 compatiblity that was inadvertently +reverted in the last maintainer upload (Closes: #672084) (again) + + -- Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:04:20 -0400 + imageshack-uploader (2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428-5) unstable; urgency=low * Re-enable uploading with new Qt versions. (LP: #995300) -- Luke Faraone lfara...@debian.org Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:41:33 -0700 +imageshack-uploader (2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428-4.1) unstable; urgency=low + + * Non maintainer upload. + * Fix build ailure with GCC 4.7. Closes: #672084. + + -- Matthias Klose d...@debian.org Tue, 22 May 2012 23:11:28 + + imageshack-uploader (2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428-4) unstable; urgency=low * Correct error in debian/rules which prevented the installation of diff -Nru imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/debian/patches/g++-4.7.patch imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/debian/patches/g++-4.7.patch --- imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/debian/patches/g++-4.7.patch 1969-12-31 19:00:00.0 -0500 +++ imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/debian/patches/g++-4.7.patch 2012-07-12 01:02:31.0 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +Index: imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/qtsingleapplication/qtlocalpeer.cpp +=== +--- imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428.orig/qtsingleapplication/qtlocalpeer.cpp 2010-04-20 20:51:25.0 + imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/qtsingleapplication/qtlocalpeer.cpp 2012-05-22 23:11:17.965909142 + +@@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ + #if defined(Q_OS_UNIX) + #include time.h + #endif ++#include unistd.h + + namespace QtLP_Private { + #include qtlockedfile.cpp diff -Nru imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/debian/patches/series imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/debian/patches/series --- imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/debian/patches/series 2012-06-03 01:41:49.0 -0400 +++ imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/debian/patches/series 2012-07-12 01:03:18.0 -0400 @@ -2,3 +2,4 @@ 1001-fix-ffmpeg-6.0.diff 1002-fix-FTBFS-libav-0.7.diff 1003-fix-login-failure.diff +g++-4.7.patch
Re: Freeze Exception for taglib-sharp 2.0.5.0
On 12/07/2012 04:26, Julien Cristau wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 15:07:11 +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote: The bug[1] fixed by the commit that caused the ABI break is pretty serious -- all faac-generated files are rejected by Banshee. So you're saying that bug can't be fixed without breaking the ABI? Yes. The ABI break in concern is the changing of the base class of AppleAdditionalInfoBox from FullBox to Box, which can be seen in commit 363f8aeb89739dce4a88e22e42410b9eb0eed074[1] [1] https://github.com/mono/taglib-sharp/commit/363f8aeb89739dce4a88e22e42410b9eb0eed074 -- Kind regards, Loong Jin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature