Bug#719071: release.debian.org: age-days 5 putty/0.63-1
Package: release.debian.org putty/0.63-1 contains several important security fixes, but it's also just under two years of upstream development. As such, I think urgency=medium would have been appropriate, but I forgot and used urgency=low instead. Would you mind bumping its age for me? Thanks, -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.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/20130808091302.ge27...@riva.ucam.org
Bug#719071: marked as done (release.debian.org: age-days 5 putty/0.63-1)
Your message dated Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:59:29 +0100 with message-id 20130808095929.gb5...@halon.org.uk and subject line Re: Bug#719071: release.debian.org: age-days 5 putty/0.63-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #719071, regarding release.debian.org: age-days 5 putty/0.63-1 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.) -- 719071: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=719071 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org putty/0.63-1 contains several important security fixes, but it's also just under two years of upstream development. As such, I think urgency=medium would have been appropriate, but I forgot and used urgency=low instead. Would you mind bumping its age for me? Thanks, -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 10:13:02AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: putty/0.63-1 contains several important security fixes, but it's also just under two years of upstream development. As such, I think urgency=medium would have been appropriate, but I forgot and used urgency=low instead. Would you mind bumping its age for me? Hint added. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature ---End Message---
Uploaded linux (3.10.5-1)
Since linux 3.10.3-1 failed to build on some architectures, I've made another upload to fix that. This includes the 2 subsequent stable updates with various important fixes as noted in the changelog. There has been a userland compatibility fix to firewire which unfortunately required an ABI bump. This effectively fixes the sparc build failure which was due to an unexpected ABI change. The stable updates also resulted in slightly smaller kernel images for armel, which fixes that build failure. I added a core-modules udeb for hppa which should fix a build failure there. There is now an -rt patch series for 3.10, so I also reenabled the rt featureset using that. I'm also uploading 3.11~rc4-1~exp1 to experimental for those who want to live on the edge. This hasn't had any configuration changes yet, but it builds and boots on amd64. Does anyone have time to review and update the configuration? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Upload of fwknop to stable-proposed-updates
Hi Adam, On 07.08.2013 19:48, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 16:11 +0200, Franck Joncourt wrote: I would like to upload a new release of fwknop to stable-proposed-updates in order to fix the following issue : http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=717754 The patch has been tested by the bug reported and everything works well. I have enclosed the debdiff so that you can have a look at the changes. Thanks; please go ahead with the upload. For future uploads, in order to make sure that we can track the updates effectively, please open pu bugs against the release.debian.org pseudo-package; reportbug will automatically set the correct usertags in this case. Ok. I keep that in mind for the next upload. Fwknop has been uploaded. Thanks. --- Franck Joncourt http://www.debian.org/ - http://smhteam.info/wiki/ -- 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/287f8dd8fe8f9250a7289d585e34b...@dthconnex.com
Re: DSA concerns for jessie architectures
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 09:06:31PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: On 06/22/2013 07:26 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: * sparc: no working nflog (mild concern); no stable kernels in stable (compiling clisp for instance crashes the kernel reliably on smetana). We need to run sparc with oldstable kernels to provide stable machines. That's not an option for long. I think all machines except stadler and sompek are US IIIi machines. The problem with US IIIi is, that sun never published the cpu specs - they would have done it if somebody would have paid for the lawyers to look trough them before publishing. US IIi support was implemented by a student working at SUN under NDA and US IV and later was published. So I think if dropping (official) support for US IIIi CPUs would keep the port alive, we should do that. Running Debian on the more recent machines makes more sense anyway imho. The older ones are nice, but they consume a lt of power. If you drop support for US II and IIIi, we basicly have 2 boxes left, of which one acts as sparc buildd and the other as sparc64 and sparc buildd. Those 2 boxes in their current state really can't keep up, specially since they're not stable at all when trying to use multiple cores. You would also be missing a porterbox. I thought the plan was to drop 32 bit support and move to sparc64? But that still doesn't seem to have moved to the Debian archive. Is there something holding back moving to sparc64? There is also Matthias Klose mail asking what to do with gcc. sparc is still on gcc-4.6 and I think he isn't willing to maintain that any longer. Kurt -- 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/20130808173254.ga25...@roeckx.be
[no subject]
Распространение Вашей рекламы в интернете. Предлагаем аудиторию: - Москва и Петербург; - Города РФ; - Компании любых сфер бизнеса; - Страны мира. Любые формы оплаты. Быстрый эффект. Самые минимальные цены на рынке. Дателизированный отчет в личном кабинете. [49 5 ]5 02 ~ 61 - 8 5 -- 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/localdomain.localhost
syncevolution bug #679657 in stable
Hello stable release team, this is the first time I do this so please expect some ignorance from my part. Following debian documentation 5.5.1. Special case: uploads to the stable and oldstable distributions (http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#upload-stable), this email is to discuss with the stable release team a possible upload to make a nmu to stable to fix http://bugs.debian.org/679657 in stable. ATM the bug #679657 is present in stable, testing and unstable, but it is fixed in the maintainer's git repository since before the Debian Wheezy release. The fix missed Debian Wheezy release because a new package was not released to unstable since the fix was done in git. It will eventually get fixed in unstable when the next package version is released, along with an upstream source update. So when this new package is released it will not get into stable. Since the bug will get fixed in unstable (and later in testing), I would like to request to fix it in stable. The fix is just the addition of one line to the file debian/syncevolution.install so that a compiled binary in the package build process is actually installed in the system. So this doesn't add a new feature, it just fixes a bug that existed before Debian Wheezy was release. That's is why I'm proposing to fix it in stable instead of wheezy-backports. I'm not aware of the package maintainer activity but he did not reply to the bug report last question (http://bugs.debian.org/679657#55), so I'm bringing this issue here. Should I contact him directly? I've fixed the issue locally by importing the stable source code from Debian Wheezy to a git repository with git-import-dsc, then I've added the package git repository (http://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/syncevolution.git) as a git remote, and then I did a git cherry pick (using gitk) of the git commit that fixes the issue to my imported source code. Finally I've added a debian/changelog entry to build for stable as a Non-maintainer upload (it was automatically selected by dch). Attached to this email is the patch taken from the git package repository from: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/syncevolution.git;a=commit;h=11e39a9a26f6fc70aa82f790f567fb8ef56a7611 Also attached is a debdiff.dsc file with the changes in the source of the debian package I did and described above. So, resuming, I'd like to discuss if it is possible to fix the issue in stable through a nmu and propose to upload the attached source debian package files. If all is ok here I think 'm almost ready to proceed to the next step and use reportbug report a bug against release.debian.org pseudo-package with the attached debdiff attached (I'm following the example from http://bugs.debian.org/714759). Sorry for the long writing. I just don't know how much detail I have to give to this discussion. Regards, Rui From 9705aea8804eb990b0f2d1f1bd2702d04ade4828 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tino Keitel tino+deb...@tikei.de Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 21:02:34 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Install /usr/lib/syncevolution/syncevo-local-sync syncevo-local-sync is missing, but it is required for certain sync operations, e.h. DAV sync. Closes: #679657 Thanks: Gregor Herrmann for the patch. --- debian/syncevolution-libs.install |1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/debian/syncevolution-libs.install b/debian/syncevolution-libs.install index 1864bdc..242891d 100644 --- a/debian/syncevolution-libs.install +++ b/debian/syncevolution-libs.install @@ -1 +1,2 @@ usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/*.so +usr/lib/syncevolution/syncevo-local-sync -- 1.7.10.4 diff -Nru syncevolution-1.2.99.1/debian/changelog syncevolution-1.2.99.1/debian/changelog --- syncevolution-1.2.99.1/debian/changelog 2013-04-01 19:19:15.0 +0100 +++ syncevolution-1.2.99.1/debian/changelog 2013-08-08 03:44:01.0 +0100 @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +syncevolution (1.2.99.1-1.2) stable; urgency=low + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * Install /usr/lib/syncevolution/syncevo-local-sync + + -- Rui Miguel P. Bernardo rui.bernardo...@gmail.com Thu, 08 Aug 2013 03:43:05 +0100 + syncevolution (1.2.99.1-1.1) unstable; urgency=low * Non-maintainer upload. diff -Nru syncevolution-1.2.99.1/debian/syncevolution-libs.install syncevolution-1.2.99.1/debian/syncevolution-libs.install --- syncevolution-1.2.99.1/debian/syncevolution-libs.install2012-06-29 11:42:39.0 +0100 +++ syncevolution-1.2.99.1/debian/syncevolution-libs.install2013-08-08 03:44:01.0 +0100 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ usr/lib/syncevolution/backends/*.so +usr/lib/syncevolution/syncevo-local-sync
