Bug#708350: marked as done (transition: java7)
Your message dated Thu, 10 Jul 2014 09:37:57 +0200 with message-id 53be42d5.4050...@debian.org and subject line Re: Bug#708350: transition: java7 has caused the Debian Bug report #708350, regarding transition: java7 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.) -- 708350: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=708350 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: transition jessie won't ship anymore with OpenJDK 6, so we have to build and run using OpenJDK 7. The good thing is that almost everything will continue to run, we just have to fix build failures with OpenJDK 7. See [1] for the discussion of the transition, and [2] for the list of issues which need to get addressed. Planning to do the transition in two steps: - Change the jre/jdk defaults to OpenJDK 7 from OpenJDK 6 which do have a working OpenJDK 7. Keep OpenJDK 6 as the default for architectures with a non-working OpenJDK 7. This decouples the transition from having to change build dependencies in packages building bindings. From my point of view this can happen anytime soon, and is mostly independent from other transitions. - When done, drop java support for architectures not having OpenJDK 7 anymore (mips, mipsel, maybe s390). Nothing needs to be done if these architectures don't qualify as release architectures anymore. Matthias [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2013/05/msg00020.html [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=openjdk-7-transition;users=ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On 02/07/14 10:29, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: On 01/07/14 10:42, Matthias Klose wrote: I would like to keep openjdk-6 in unstable (with a RC issue so that it doesn't migrate) to prepare and test security updates. You may want to close #720911 then. There were just two packages in testing still depending on openjdk-6, so I removed them from testing together with openjdk-6. There is #675495 so it will not enter jessie again. Closing. Emilio---End Message---
Bug#753474: marked as done (transition: libibumad/libibmad/opensm)
Your message dated Thu, 10 Jul 2014 09:56:04 +0200 with message-id 20140710075604.ga31...@pryan.ekaia.org and subject line Re: Bug#753474: transition: libibumad/libibmad/opensm has caused the Debian Bug report #753474, regarding transition: libibumad/libibmad/opensm 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.) -- 753474: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=753474 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: transition Hi, I'd like to migrate libibumad and other two OFED libraries, libibmad and opensm from experimental to unstable. The three of them have a new soname. See: http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libibumad.html https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libibmad.html https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-opensm.html All the package using these libraries belong to OFED, so the upload shouldn't impact any other package. Also, I'll be uploading all the packages depending on these libraries later because they need a packaging revamp. Ana ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 11:24:03AM +0200, Ana Guerrero Lopez wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Hi, I'd like to migrate libibumad and other two OFED libraries, libibmad and opensm from experimental to unstable. The three of them have a new soname. See: http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libibumad.html https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libibmad.html https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-opensm.html Everything is now in Jessie \o/ Closing.---End Message---
Bug#753781: Heads up: transition: xserver 1.16
On 09/07/14 22:48, Steven Chamberlain wrote: Hi Emilio, On 05/07/14 10:55, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: We're planning on uploading xserver 1.16 to unstable. [...] I haven't tried to rebuild the drivers in non-free. Please check those. Thanks. I've checked that xserver-xorg-video-nv (non-free, meant for kfreebsd systems) still builds OK with xorg-video-abi-18, xserver-xorg-core (= 2:1.15.99.903). I don't have hardware available to test it with unfortunately. Please could you schedule a binNMU for it in any case? That package is not marked as auto-buildable, which means it doesn't build on the Debian buildds and thus it can't be binNMUed. So you'll have to upload it manually, or ask the wanna-build team to make it auto-buildable. Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53be49b9.5090...@debian.org
Bug#753781: Heads up: transition: xserver 1.16
On 10/07/14 09:07, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: That package is not marked as auto-buildable, which means it doesn't build on the Debian buildds and thus it can't be binNMUed. So you'll have to upload it manually, or ask the wanna-build team to make it auto-buildable. Strange, I thought someone had previously requested this... the latest build is 1:2.1.20-2+b1 which looks like it was binNMUd once before? Anyway I'll try to request this; it should be a valid candidate because it is freely-licensed, just nobody could understand it... Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53be7b1b.9030...@pyro.eu.org
Bug#753781: Heads up: transition: xserver 1.16
On 2014-07-10 12:38, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 10/07/14 09:07, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: That package is not marked as auto-buildable, which means it doesn't build on the Debian buildds and thus it can't be binNMUed. So you'll have to upload it manually, or ask the wanna-build team to make it auto-buildable. Strange, I thought someone had previously requested this... the latest build is 1:2.1.20-2+b1 which looks like it was binNMUd once before? Not on the buildds: projectb= select distinct u.name from changes c inner join fingerprint fpr on c.fingerprint=fpr.fingerprint inner join uid u on u.id=fpr.uid where changesname like 'xserver-xorg-video-nv%' and version = '1:2.1.20-2+b1'; name --- Robert Millan (1 row) Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/f4ad95f1ab738beb29d7877a6b676...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Bug#753781: Heads up: transition: xserver 1.16
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk (2014-07-10): On 2014-07-10 12:38, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 10/07/14 09:07, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: That package is not marked as auto-buildable, which means it doesn't build on the Debian buildds and thus it can't be binNMUed. So you'll have to upload it manually, or ask the wanna-build team to make it auto-buildable. Strange, I thought someone had previously requested this... the latest build is 1:2.1.20-2+b1 which looks like it was binNMUd once before? Not on the buildds: projectb= select distinct u.name from changes c inner join fingerprint fpr on c.fingerprint=fpr.fingerprint inner join uid u on u.id=fpr.uid where changesname like 'xserver-xorg-video-nv%' and version = '1:2.1.20-2+b1'; name --- Robert Millan (1 row) Mails for upload+accept are on this list, see e.g. https://lists.debian.org/e1wdybw-7l...@franck.debian.org https://lists.debian.org/e1wdyby-7x...@franck.debian.org Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#753781: Heads up: transition: xserver 1.16
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk (2014-07-10): Not on the buildds: projectb= select distinct u.name from changes c inner join fingerprint fpr on c.fingerprint=fpr.fingerprint inner join uid u on u.id=fpr.uid where changesname like 'xserver-xorg-video-nv%' and version = '1:2.1.20-2+b1'; name --- Robert Millan (1 row) On 10/07/14 13:13, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Mails for upload+accept are on this list, see e.g. https://lists.debian.org/e1wdybw-7l...@franck.debian.org https://lists.debian.org/e1wdyby-7x...@franck.debian.org Thank you both, I didn't know it had been handled that way. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: win32-loader_0.7.4.7+deb7u2_amd64.changes ACCEPT -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1x5dkh-0002yz...@franck.debian.org
Bug#743259: squeeze-pu: package ca-certificates/20090814+squeeze1
Control: tags -1 + confirmed Hi, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you about this. The mail never appears to have made it to debian-release, most likely due to the size of the diff. On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 22:10 -0500, Michael Shuler wrote: I would like to upload ca-certificates to oldstable to bring the Mozilla CA bundle up to date, include one important patch to fix duplicate CKA_LABEL certificates, and one minor additional fix in order to parse the new certdata.txt file correctly. I also updated Maintainer/Uploaders. The oldstable debdiff is attached. Please go ahead, bearing in mind that the window for getting the package in to the upcoming (and final) point release for squeeze closes over the coming weekend. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1405017004.8870.8.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Processed: Re: squeeze-pu: package ca-certificates/20090814+squeeze1
Processing control commands: tags -1 + confirmed Bug #743259 [release.debian.org] squeeze-pu: package ca-certificates/20090814+squeeze1 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 743259: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=743259 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: https://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b743259.140501701426434.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#753503: Bug#740909: Bug#753503: opu: zabbix/1:1.8.2-1squeeze6
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 08:47 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 20:13:46 Adam D. Barratt wrote: zabbix maintainers: ping? Sorry for delay. I completely support removal of Zabbix from Squeeze. Upstream was doing us a favour by providing some patches for old version of Zabbix. It will be a relief for them and for us to move on. I'm sure nobody wants to carry the burden of supporting Zabbix 1.8.2 longer than necessary. Please remove it from Squeeze. Thanks. Thanks for the very frank confirmation. :-) In that case, I'll close the update request with this mail and we'll proceed with the removal in a week's time. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1405017426.8870.11.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Debian/ppc64el feasiability to become an official architecture
Hi, I would like to share the ppc64el port's status with you, and check if it is feasible to consider it as an official port for the next Debian release, or, what it may be missing for that. We are eager to work on the missing parts. I would also strengthen that this architecture is a long term strategic move, and Debian is a target operating system. Machines: Machines for running ppc64el are now commercially available [1]. We moved forwards in the process of donating machines to DSA. One donation (only online access to the system while the legal is still in bureaucracy) should happen this week. The discussions have been happening for a while, and this week DSA should be able to start administering a machine (we will still be working the bureaucracy in parallel). Also, another donation should happen around September/August. (both donations are physical (whole machine), not virtual machines.) It is important to say that a porterbox, called pastel, has been available and listed in the Debian Machines page for a while. Packages coverage: -- Since we were unable to participate in debian-ports buildd due to the lack of hardware, we created our own buildd. It was able to build (BFS) more than 80% of the architecture-dependent packages in 'unstable/sid'. It is still missing around 660 packages, but many of them already have patches submitted in BTS, and more are in the works. The rest of packages (around 1k8) is still depending on the these 660 packages. There is the current list of packages built from source (BFS): http://ftp.unicamp.br/pub/ppc64el/debian/buildd-upstream/build_logs/Uploaded.html It is important to say that debootstrap (buildd variant) on ppc64el is almost done (waiting on 2 BTS bugs with patches submitted). Also, we have Debian installer working internally and all the patches were already submitted to d-i and the components. I would like to say that Ubuntu supports ppc64el on the 14.04 LTS release and has most of these packages working. [1] - http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/hardware/s812l-s822l/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53bef2b2.1060...@br.ibm.com
Re: Debian/ppc64el feasiability to become an official architecture
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 17:08 -0300, Breno Leitao wrote: I would like to share the ppc64el port's status with you, and check if it is feasible to consider it as an official port for the next Debian release, or, what it may be missing for that. We are eager to work on the missing parts. Apologies if I've missed previous answers, but have you talked to ftp-master? Before an architecture can be even considered for inclusion in a stable release, it needs to be in unstable and cleanly built there Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1405024100.22399.3.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Debian/ppc64el feasiability to become an official architecture
Hi Adam, On 07/10/2014 05:28 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 17:08 -0300, Breno Leitao wrote: I would like to share the ppc64el port's status with you, and check if it is feasible to consider it as an official port for the next Debian release, or, what it may be missing for that. We are eager to work on the missing parts. Apologies if I've missed previous answers, but have you talked to ftp-master? Before an architecture can be even considered for inclusion in a stable release, it needs to be in unstable and cleanly built there Sorry, but my plan is to talk to both team (Debian-release and FTP master) and I started with the debian-release. So, let me hurry and talk to them. Thank you. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53bef9c7.1080...@br.ibm.com
Processed: Re: Bug#753686: Re: Bug#753686: squeeze-pu: package mobile-broadband-provider-info/20140317-1~deb6u1
Processing control commands: tags -1 + pending Bug #753686 [release.debian.org] squeeze-pu: package mobile-broadband-provider-info/20140317-1~deb6u1 Added tag(s) pending. -- 753686: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=753686 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: https://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b753686.140502682025333.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#753686: Re: Bug#753686: squeeze-pu: package mobile-broadband-provider-info/20140317-1~deb6u1
Control: tags -1 + pending On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 22:38 +0200, Raphael Geissert wrote: On Wednesday 09 July 2014 20:10:10 Adam D. Barratt wrote: Please go ahead, bearing in mind that the window for acceptance closes over the coming weekend. Thanks, uploaded. Flagged for acceptance; thanks. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1405026810.22399.4.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
NEW changes in oldstable-new
Processing changes file: mobile-broadband-provider-info_20140317-1~deb6u1_i386.changes ACCEPT -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1x5lxr-0006yg...@franck.debian.org
Re: Debian/ppc64el feasiability to become an official architecture
On 10/07/14 22:38, Breno Leitao wrote: Hi Adam, On 07/10/2014 05:28 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 17:08 -0300, Breno Leitao wrote: I would like to share the ppc64el port's status with you, and check if it is feasible to consider it as an official port for the next Debian release, or, what it may be missing for that. We are eager to work on the missing parts. Apologies if I've missed previous answers, but have you talked to ftp-master? Before an architecture can be even considered for inclusion in a stable release, it needs to be in unstable and cleanly built there Sorry, but my plan is to talk to both team (Debian-release and FTP master) and I started with the debian-release. So, let me hurry and talk to them. Also see https://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_policy.html for a potential checklist for inclusion in a stable release. But as Adam said, getting your architecture in ftp.debian.org is a prerequisite. Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53bf0bac.6070...@debian.org
