Bug#681178: unblock: libburn/1.2.2-2

2012-07-11 Thread George Danchev
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

2012-07-11 Thread Raphael Hertzog
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

2012-07-11 Thread Jonathan Nieder
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

2012-07-11 Thread Jari Aalto
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

2012-07-11 Thread Mathias Behrle
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)

2012-07-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
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)

2012-07-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
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)

2012-07-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
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)

2012-07-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
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

2012-07-11 Thread Niels Thykier
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)

2012-07-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
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)

2012-07-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
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

2012-07-11 Thread Ulrich Dangel
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

2012-07-11 Thread Raphael Hertzog
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)

2012-07-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
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

2012-07-11 Thread Harald Jenny
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

2012-07-11 Thread Mehdi Dogguy

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

2012-07-11 Thread Mehdi Dogguy

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

2012-07-11 Thread Mehdi Dogguy

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)

2012-07-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
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)

2012-07-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
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

2012-07-11 Thread Fabian Greffrath

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

2012-07-11 Thread Dan S
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

2012-07-11 Thread Dan S
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

2012-07-11 Thread Felipe Sateler
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

2012-07-11 Thread Stig Sandbeck Mathisen
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

2012-07-11 Thread Mehdi Dogguy

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

2012-07-11 Thread Russ Allbery
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

2012-07-11 Thread Mehdi Dogguy

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

2012-07-11 Thread Felipe Sateler
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

2012-07-11 Thread Niels Thykier
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

2012-07-11 Thread Osamu Aoki
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

2012-07-11 Thread Osamu Aoki
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

2012-07-11 Thread Jonathan McCrohan
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)

2012-07-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
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

2012-07-11 Thread Sébastien Villemot
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)

2012-07-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
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)

2012-07-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
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

2012-07-11 Thread Raphael Hertzog
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

2012-07-11 Thread Julien Cristau
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

2012-07-11 Thread Julien Cristau
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

2012-07-11 Thread Andreas Beckmann
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

2012-07-11 Thread Mathias Behrle
* 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

2012-07-11 Thread Julien Cristau
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

2012-07-11 Thread Julien Cristau
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

2012-07-11 Thread Julien Cristau
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

2012-07-11 Thread Julien Cristau
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)

2012-07-11 Thread Cyril Brulebois
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

2012-07-11 Thread Cyril Brulebois
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

2012-07-11 Thread Julien Cristau
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

2012-07-11 Thread Julien Cristau
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

2012-07-11 Thread Julien Cristau
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

2012-07-11 Thread Nicholas Bamber
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)

2012-07-11 Thread Cyril Brulebois
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

2012-07-11 Thread Cyril Brulebois
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

2012-07-11 Thread Cyril Brulebois
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

2012-07-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
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

2012-07-11 Thread Cyril Brulebois
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

2012-07-11 Thread Nicholas Bamber
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.

2012-07-11 Thread Cyril Brulebois
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

2012-07-11 Thread Russ Allbery
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

2012-07-11 Thread Russ Allbery
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

2012-07-11 Thread John Stamp
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

2012-07-11 Thread Neil Williams
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

2012-07-11 Thread Philipp Kern
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

2012-07-11 Thread Neil McGovern
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

2012-07-11 Thread Guillem Jover
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

2012-07-11 Thread Scott Kitterman
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

2012-07-11 Thread Chow Loong Jin
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