Bug#760440: marked as done (transition: cfitsio)
Your message dated Tue, 16 Sep 2014 00:14:17 +0200 with message-id <20140915221417.gm2...@betterave.cristau.org> and subject line Re: Bug#760440: transition: cfitsio has caused the Debian Bug report #760440, regarding transition: cfitsio 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.) -- 760440: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=760440 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Hi, I would like to do a transition for the CFITSIO library. Upstream finally decided to support shared libraries and to ensure the soname will change if the ABI changes. This will makes the maintenance in Debian more easy and will avoid Debian specific changes to keep the ABI stable. I have uploaded a package with the new library to experimental 1.5 months ago, and my plan was to fill the transition bug once the package reaches experimental. Unfortunately the package still sits into NEW despite a ping a few days ago. I am therefore filling this bug before the deadline in the hope we can still do this transition for Jessie. The API hasn't changed beside new functions, so this transition should be quite easy to handle via binNMUs only. Thanks, Aurelien [1] https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/cfitsio_3.370-1.html Ben file: title = "cfitsio"; is_affected = .depends ~ "libcfitsio3" | .depends ~ "libcfitsio2"; is_good = .depends ~ "libcfitsio2"; is_bad = .depends ~ "libcfitsio3"; -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.14-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 21:18:01 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >> manual rebuilds. I guess cfitsio3 doesn't need anything and will just be > >> removed > >> after the transition is over. > > OK. > > > Yes, that's the plan, though we probably have to get the sid only > > packages to use the new library first. I have filled a RC bug to make > > sure it's not shipped with Jessie. Can you maybe add a removal hint when > > the transition is finished so it is at least removed from testing? > > Sure. > That's all done now. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature --- End Message ---
Processed: Re: Bug#761667: wheezy-pu: package flashplugin-nonfree/1:3.2+wheezy1
Processing control commands: > tag -1 confirmed Bug #761667 [release.debian.org] wheezy-pu: package flashplugin-nonfree/1:3.2+wheezy1 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 761667: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=761667 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.b761667.141081738826668.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Uploading linux (3.16.3-1)
Unfortunately there were several unfixed regressions in 3.16, including a data loss bug in reiserfs (which is clearly RC). Linux 3.16.3 is now under review and should address many of these. I intend to upload linux again once that's released (late on Wednesday in UTC). I don't believe an ABI bump will be needed, though I'm not sure yet. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Make three consecutive correct guesses and you will be considered an expert. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#761667: wheezy-pu: package flashplugin-nonfree/1:3.2+wheezy1
Control: tag -1 confirmed Hi, On 2014-09-15 16:19, Bart Martens wrote: Is the attached patch OK for an update in stable ? It's a security fix, but the security team doesn't do security updates for section contrib. See #752277 for all details. Looks fine to me, but please close #752277 in the changelog (or at least the .changes) so that BTS version tracking stays accurate. Upload when you're ready. Given that this is a security fix*, and the next point release isn't soon, we should consider pushing this through stable-updates. I'd like a second opinion on from a release manager first though. *yes, normally this would rule it out from stable-updates, but this is a contrib package and therefore bends our rules somewhat Thanks, -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from 8->10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits layered on top of bonghits -- 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/1105f83b82c0bf297ba1420f0702f...@hogwarts.powdarrmonkey.net
Processed: Re: Depend on libmagickcore-6.q16-2-extra instead of libmagickcore-extra
Processing control commands: > block #740495 by -1 Bug #740495 [release.debian.org] transition: imagemagick 740495 was blocked by: 758001 701655 746228 758459 758443 747857 758435 747907 761725 747908 761104 740495 was blocking: 758492 Added blocking bug(s) of 740495: 761726 -- 740495: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=740495 761726: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=761726 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.b.141081315729299.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Processed: Depend on libmagickcore-6.q16-2-extra instead of libmagickcore-extra
Processing control commands: > block #740495 by -1 Bug #740495 [release.debian.org] transition: imagemagick 740495 was blocked by: 758001 758459 746228 701655 758443 747857 758435 747907 747908 761104 740495 was blocking: 758492 Added blocking bug(s) of 740495: 761725 -- 740495: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=740495 761725: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=761725 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.b.141081295027738.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#761667: wheezy-pu: package flashplugin-nonfree/1:3.2+wheezy1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: wheezy User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu Is the attached patch OK for an update in stable ? It's a security fix, but the security team doesn't do security updates for section contrib. See #752277 for all details. Regards, Bart Martens diff -ruN orig/flashplugin-nonfree-3.2/debian/changelog flashplugin-nonfree-3.2+wheezy1/debian/changelog --- orig/flashplugin-nonfree-3.2/debian/changelog 2012-12-13 22:07:41.0 +0100 +++ flashplugin-nonfree-3.2+wheezy1/debian/changelog 2014-06-22 19:53:42.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@ +flashplugin-nonfree (1:3.2+wheezy1) stable; urgency=high + + * Fixes the security bug reported by Jakub Wilk on 22 Jun 2014 09:16:18 +0200 +on #752277 : ++ pubkey.asc: Replaced with the public key of a new keypair. ++ update-flashplugin-nonfree: Download files signed with new key. + + -- Bart Martens Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:35:06 +0200 + flashplugin-nonfree (1:3.2) unstable; urgency=low * update-flashplugin-nonfree: Added use of "gpg --verify" to notice files diff -ruN orig/flashplugin-nonfree-3.2/pubkey.asc flashplugin-nonfree-3.2+wheezy1/pubkey.asc --- orig/flashplugin-nonfree-3.2/pubkey.asc 2009-09-09 19:21:28.0 +0200 +++ flashplugin-nonfree-3.2+wheezy1/pubkey.asc 2014-06-22 19:52:35.0 +0200 @@ -1,64 +1,30 @@ -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- -Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) +Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) -mQINBEo15F8BEADBmwCZvYr2DQf8/azmolFw0jW0l2LjXcmIbHIWd9AFDhPmcy5c -Kk5zKQtXDtQVJVtqAo52vklqidp4jr75ss/Ns1UTqbtY4mjaKATHShedvijDBoj3 -9QYry6L/rMMZvXi8L86GpBepXNmRiTyE/Jl6K0hQpj7MBEAjLLhgpSOaNWrLm9Tb -5dNifX0MlCqnfe1YdbYA3GkY+OfAJpUPZhs76kHXb3ufqhVpNw9E6vaoxkyyChza -Nfwfu1plnNuobcImEBWf3xSErfFV6Nr5cxYE/+HvZ4er/v2zMjFpPXGWECx3ZD1W -Zd2pIJwu7Rl2EVVmR13qrEgBwfmly2LgGfTWFNTd8dmeVIfk1kJJYnCnYf8UIwYp -fVrMco91DxUflUs+N8uSjkWN4de6TI8OxCmZdyqyghgxBxziVuqTU/m2g0Y751n5 -hnJMrGAown0AimTkIYR2S8vBfteQHCHuxktKKfw1ax/cs6nSWfsLvxVSYS8D4z44 -R1dSt00XZRPt5DYCw0jr64iFcpIY2R4qqFOwCYxqBRxnDlRj6PfIQJEgm2zCg0D2 -lYYdXzeh1ho7Zx9k7eY2XJlZlO4OW+16ua2rF6IaFfeHQcLwWnTOeTc6uWLH2Z8u -WQyQjtnB0Nfhn43HsOHxPFry++iR2UVa/d5iGchd7u/3/2D62RhPATSC7wARAQAB -tB1CYXJ0IE1hcnRlbnMgPGJhcnRtQGtuYXJzLmJlPokCOgQTAQgAJAIbAwULCQgH -AwUVCgkICwUWAgMBAAIeAQIXgAUCSjXlsQIZAQAKCRAzVfTWO1ghzFe4EACHrCve -I2dOPEnuNpUufH6n294TWItc7yBdInh5uKLuV9OnLZMh5S4DhZhTH/MEmhYFaJ2p -mBDUUYj9Qn2K5meC0TVlgr3ikQPQNgkVOSrGdC5DYVr/LgRd1h20peniwr/8Cmmw -+oVA4oQ7UdviiJZaUbtZe1ntFbZqWJz9pVuVIAAusMkCUCg4YY+9BrftCS+k8Zb8 -k+loMWSiWF7ALkNn6dlPk36JSwSboHijkmS3080/zyV6PS9VYxlyMR5Sw1z8czxm -75Qs52CQErCIlQB+4pgVPWOE6IufbOCDfv2CQ8IqYeHK30cah1ws1TuDm7QxERwv -NoDgaJEXbMpSVQzU8qCucnLz2IAJEz6KCeMW+Cv2NSe7c6ayoh8XX1wvWGaT7gnQ -nA3ALotdyg64rWUUmrp81TyYWvGNTxlNuN9Am46MO0n2f4KdtaLw6cpdSwbcA4AP -wT/k2Ob37MSZcaI2Cz5caSnsvqoiSYLTWYXf+fmCwgi60cS6WRDxCzgpBLh1Q0Ay -zfA+Lt7MioAY2JkzTalSvFG7FzckqQ/I+4PCdE3tkljMsh98q8C2Lwa7SFkk9s9L -nAjrIGqdKoqE006JJ65/WcLOtaPKFqoqWrwCQREpUGuOT/wAtntq7U0yu9DFKWYm -n0WXmlI8oSBgPxu7KMOM+5lRjEB0UgKrzm3KCLQfQmFydCBNYXJ0ZW5zIDxiYXJ0 -bUBkZWJpYW4ub3JnPokCNwQTAQgAIQIbAwULCQgHAwUVCgkICwUWAgMBAAIeAQIX -gAUCSjXlrQAKCRAzVfTWO1ghzCGqD/9ReABDWD/GU9wr1t66cAHzNPGErdm0Ml9j -NK1x0jDJduNAOVYnW9dSf5tfQMLCNB8CtveYMgTJAoi3lQR8VMf9rd9vBxQwe2/N -vo+1lg35CD3kneZvnlI3ZFFh5XAYikk3p9fQNdDAOZsDiLkCHdG9643ELqst5BVh -O8mUaPuPJoHwKcM540saeAsSiQXvicw9O96JUUlbDB9SEP7HGGWKpuWlIYxWE4qY -2RimVUkTcH73Gn+yN+9HSPuHn2SG1racsuqOgyPPac9KOcGA6pYUYqr7ZV/Qurd8 -DZ29tWTWp6rAYm9gqDwqa3UxIm4lqtbmnbLdKksyAbXd6jZNYI0kiZTWbYazotFu -FmK8Jj2dY36qeTJYdTnxLqS9/OFzY8Co8xdKnw9xwG7F9G8atvEn3FlElREZceiG -zyZ77Oh932mvLuETBTibABTTZZMP1mxYqIx2TcIj2Lple9RnCPVerY4wgIWWPyl5 -5LZWYJ93+Q7L7L0AcV6yrOftONPCePYCHPRj+ebSEX7Se0p3yWamuanPuNkTEGnt -VSk1FoyNqw2BJjpMDMpvHTmKupioG5i6rUM9+R/gFyn68wJcxzNM2YPXmQIulnJM -hx0oydAuiQk6/ONvFhfMfXsjZixuryhXg69Pm/VjdBSQwz6kSmh56le8NrtelStM -tUOEPA10BrkCDQRKNeZBARAA25Vs4gdy6qwnzjywxQaYjUZMAGXrV0TU69CpB3m1 -rgXy+REUd8wTWPZ6wX/OGVN4I0+pAxeEeocCXdqE9vfLQUwI5d1OrseA72tDme56 -SHigsfSQfYkQ8pDFmkHOjbtzaEAp7HsyqRnPb6iX3BZC23AecNxOFguCHld32Nfi -4UImma4ZAqzn7pq3hjzrsc5A2s3F2YZj+eJ1Gbcb+phs4jm0RTnS5nJpf+UW/60S -jt0nx9ZjzrYCiJyDjZCjW8Mb7Tyc4Qhbz2acH9URk/6KnUE7cdFXaDTIEXdhCGkT -sFV2XoOyIKkqIOdiaVhBF8YJ5kvJsYN1abW1IZaAiGOH0HFhI1OGpbhvWPmqq9+b -yOJNHpDtfdgoG2x+CFwxoys0JvgtdrZAgdS+Zdmaqrx3sJbY7iHfNSMbkjKV5a3M -1ZY/83dyH/J2d0q5Fc/bpuBFmJO1P++gXryY3Q+dGCoc4Y0A3/8jeuTeECscoNpK -o55+LQSH/qXrBUrQhKInOyxt8zYr43tLthNcESLgjkyUtD3mYHgiK39isvj3a1Lj -o6QHUq1kA5esE3XI9v/8PyVcbaUGNoqSAN8NjtvktNOnj4ZY9efJxlVjcr0sPRqy -WyEXP1P/gKUsJ9e8XgMOZhx1x+z7f09CPCWOgGpjaQoHrHUcb6kJpLDFdeFKdKPO -SNUAEQEAAYkCHwQYAQgACQUCSjXmQQIbDAAKCRAzVfTWO1ghzEZOEACgQo6Ao4N5 -wmchQplYItp6vKl0+4YvDohtsLvaFvnoFuQGAe06f62ZPi2VN2Xg9EaDWv2nyjN7 -F4+yVeowW0c2+mpjvkZdZOTtaImUIHKScTu/JzzeNLTm64LhcgSdOCVnqxuB8bq8 -m5GONyFX1YV5tl9BJ8x2kPnx5lA32Dx/An2ct630R2+/TEHcwncDtx2LtpHHvcQk -i9ChF69cHeRRQz0se/5yGLnrcNZaH5z0cBBP91jCwlwFjxZoTqp6Ps8nUkpYH2zL -fNRguq2UomtCCOPG0Ab1mw5hV1IxJlazxg0H7UYf58x0mbaO51tv01H/M6ePDQMw -PxIg5O6f61eDSIC4aTMv2
Bug#761662: wheezy-pu: package dictionaries-common/1.12.11+deb7u1
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: wheezy
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Hi,
For some time dictionaries-comon package has been complaining loudly with an
installation error when a debconf database corruption affecting it is found,
together with some relevant info to repair that.
This was initially done in purpose to help debconf maintainer gather
information about the problem. Also, some recovery process for simple
corruptions was added. Usual reason for this was fixed in debconf some time
ago.
Recently, seems that some other yet unknown cause for big corruption
sometimes appears, and I has also been pointed out that accidental removal
of stuff under /var/cache/debconf has the same effect, triggering the
above mentioned installation error (http://bugs.debian.org/751367).
Some code has been added in sid to handle this better, using info provided
by packages to get a list of possible values, and using a debconf question
to warn sysadmin about the problem instead of a failure error message,
together with some other improvements like using always no-await triggers.
I have been sugested in http://bugs.debian.org/751367 to put some of this
code in a wheezy point release, and I would like to know your opinion here,
I am attaching a diff with the minimal changes I suggest to put in that
point upload. It consists of two things,
a) Select a temporary default from a list of known to be available values.
This was formerly extracted from debconf, but it becomes unavailable if
corruption is large.
b) Use a debconf question to warn about the problem and give advice.
Thanks very much for your time,
--
Agustin
diff -Nru dictionaries-common-1.12.11/debian/changelog dictionaries-common-1.12.11+deb7u1/debian/changelog
--- dictionaries-common-1.12.11/debian/changelog 2013-01-22 14:51:12.0 +0100
+++ dictionaries-common-1.12.11+deb7u1/debian/changelog 2014-07-25 16:49:17.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+dictionaries-common (1.12.11+deb7u1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Improve behavior on debconf database corruption (Closes: #751367):
+- update-default.in: Use /var/lib/dictionaries-common info as last
+ resource to try getting a default in case of debconf database
+ corruption. This should work better around installation error.
+- Use a debconf question to warn about debconf database corruption.
+
+ -- Agustin Martin Domingo Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:48:41 +0200
+
dictionaries-common (1.12.11) unstable; urgency=low
* debian/control: Add Breaks against ancient myspell-cs-cz,
diff -Nru dictionaries-common-1.12.11/debian/dictionaries-common.templates dictionaries-common-1.12.11+deb7u1/debian/dictionaries-common.templates
--- dictionaries-common-1.12.11/debian/dictionaries-common.templates 2011-04-27 17:54:16.0 +0200
+++ dictionaries-common-1.12.11+deb7u1/debian/dictionaries-common.templates 2014-07-25 13:04:48.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,19 @@
+Template: dictionaries-common/debconf_database_corruption
+Type: note
+Description: Possible debconf database corruption
+ The setting for "${question}" is missing, but packages providing
+ candidates are installed.
+ .
+ This may be due to corruption in the debconf database. See
+ "/usr/share/doc/dictionaries-common/README.problems" on "Debconf
+ database corruption".
+ .
+ In this case, running "/usr/share/debconf/fix_db.pl" can help to put
+ the debconf database in a consistent state.
+ .
+ Some questions are likely to be asked after this message in order to
+ leave the dictionaries system in a (provisionally) working state.
+
Template: dictionaries-common/invalid_debconf_value
Type: note
_Description: An invalid debconf value [${value}] has been found
@@ -108,4 +124,3 @@
will not set the default ispell dictionary.
.
Use instead 'select-default-ispell' or 'select-default-wordlist' scripts.
-
diff -Nru dictionaries-common-1.12.11/scripts/system/update-default.in dictionaries-common-1.12.11+deb7u1/scripts/system/update-default.in
--- dictionaries-common-1.12.11/scripts/system/update-default.in 2011-06-01 19:40:31.0 +0200
+++ dictionaries-common-1.12.11+deb7u1/scripts/system/update-default.in 2014-07-25 13:04:48.0 +0200
@@ -74,17 +74,13 @@
$manual++;
} else {
# Question is empty, but $class elements are installed. Two possibilities.
- if ( -x "/usr/bin/apt-extracttemplates" ){
-# apt-utils is installed. Other possibility is debconf database corruption.
-my $shared_question = "shared/packages-$class";
-print STDERR "$program: Question empty but elements installed for class \"$class\"\n";
-print STDERR " $question: return code: \"$ret\", value: \"$value\"\n";
-print STDERR " Choices: " . metaget ($question, "choices") . "\n";
-my ($shared_ret,$shared_owners) = metaget ($shared_question, "owners");
-print STDERR " $shared_question: return code: \"$shared_ret\" owners/error: \"$shared_owners\"\n";
-print STDERR " Installed elements:
Re: Pulseaudio version in Jessie
Hi Niels, Release Team, On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Niels Thykier wrote: > On 2014-09-05 06:32, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> Dear release team, >> >> I'm writing in order to discuss the status of Pulseaudio for Jessie. >> Pulseaudio currently sits at (upstream) version 5 for jessie. >> >> [...] >> So, the question is will we be able to ship pulseaudio 6? It is fairly >> clear that the final release will not be on time for the freeze. >> However, the release candidate may be introduced in time. The upstream >> policy after a release candidate is only bug fixes and doc/translation >> updates[3]. So I was thinking maybe an exception for the final release >> could be made if the release candidate arrives early enough. We have >> never managed a freeze I believe there are 2 main questions: >> > > > Hi Felipe / Pulseaudio maintainers, > > I apologise for the tardiness on our part. Thanks for bringing this > problem to our attention. > > If I understand you correctly then the consequence of the regression is > Debian loses support for the following bluethooth devices: > > 1. "Health" devices > - I do not quite a clear view of what these are. If you have an > example it would be nice. > > 2. Hands-free devices in Cars > > I presume that the lost support in question is "only" audio (which for > the 2. part would still be very bad). I'm not sure what Health devices are. But HSP support also means most headphone+mic headsets. > > >> 1. Is such a plan (uploading the RC pre-freeze and the final release >> post-freeze) acceptable? > > > For me, such a plan /could/ be acceptable provided that: > > * The new major version of pulseaudio is both API and ABI backwards >compatible! > >- A transition would be a deal-breaker for me at this point. AFAICT, the ABI is maintained. I will check a bit more thoroughly and report back, but I think this requirement is met. > > * The current issues in the release candidates are not (new) RC bugs. > >- Keep in mind that we may need to have pulseaudio reverted to the > old version should such issues turn out to be worse than > anticipated. Of course. But we will not know the current issues in the release candidate until we have it. > > * You are aware that the Debian RT view of "necessary bug fixes" do >not always coincide with upstreams view of "necessary bug fixes". > >- During the freeze we will reviewing all changes and we reserve the > right to question/reject any (part) of them. How should I propose such changes? In order to make your work easier, what should I send to the release list each time I upload a package? > > - Keep in mind that we get more defensive as the freeze > progresses! > >- You may have/want to cherry-pick changes frequently during the > freeze (at a much faster pace than upstream makes releases). This sounds reasonable. >- You may have to support a "bastard" version for Jessie that > consists of the release candidate plus only (some) of upstreams > patches. I would be fine with that. Not sure about the rest of the team. > >> 2. If so, when would be "early enough"? That is, until what date could >> the RC be uploaded to Debian? >> >> [...] > > The sooner the better, although you may want to start with experimental > to ensure it still builds on all architectures. > > *If* we go down this path (and I am *not* saying the release team is > ready to commit to it), then I would highly prefer that we adopt the > noblest of traditions in Open Source: > > /Release early, release often./ > > Smaller changes are (often) easier to review and has a higher chance of > being accepted. OK. As soon as the upstream release candidate is released I will upload it to experimental. At that moment I will ping you again in order to check you are still OK with following the above plan. Thanks and keep up the good work -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/CAAfdZj_AMXrY9PMzHPWiLKZncibdGYvSRnZi=suncqnwdwo...@mail.gmail.com
Processed: Re: Bug#760343: transition: protobuf 2.6.0
Processing control commands: > tags -1 + pending Bug #760343 [release.debian.org] transition: protobuf 2.6.0 Added tag(s) pending. -- 760343: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=760343 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.b760343.141076990211848.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#746388: marked as done (transition: packagekit 0.9)
Your message dated Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:29:09 +0200 with message-id <5416a355.9030...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#746388: transition: packagekit 0.9 has caused the Debian Bug report #746388, regarding transition: packagekit 0.9 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.) -- 746388: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746388 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition I want to upload a new version of PackageKit very soon, which has some API/ABI breaks. Most of the affected packages are maintained by me and need bigger adjustments, the others should be fine with a binNMU. I will add more details as soon as I prepared the packages for testing. Cheers, Matthias Ben file: title = "packagekit 0.9"; is_affected = .build-depends ~ /libpackagekit/; is_good = .depends ~ "libpackagekit-glib2-18" | .depends ~ "libpackagekit- qt2-6"; is_bad = .depends ~ "libpackagekit-glib2-14" | .depends ~ "libpackagekit- qt2-2"; --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On 07/09/14 15:10, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > Hi! > Sorry for the delay on the PK transition, that thing became a bit > complex, since some dependencies of it were not yet ready upstream, > and I was writing a thesis, which took priority. > Anyway, I just wanted to give a quick heads up, since I am going to > upload PK 0.9.x to unstable - depending on the state of its reverse > dependencies and the time I have - this week or next week (likely date > could be the 16.09, but maybe the dependencies get ready faster) > Cheers and thanks for the patience! This is now over. Closing. Emilio--- End Message ---
Bug#752999: marked as done (transition: libass)
Your message dated Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:29:31 +0200 with message-id <5416a36b.8090...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#752999: transition: libass has caused the Debian Bug report #752999, regarding transition: libass 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.) -- 752999: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=752999 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Hi, I'd like to migrate libass 0.10.2 from experimental to unstable. And yes, it will bring a new SONAME into Jessie. A number of packages will be affected, the ben file and a comprehensive list generated from coccia.d.o's dak version follow: # Broken Depends: aegisub: aegisub bino: bino gst-plugins-bad0.10: gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad gst-plugins-bad1.0: gstreamer1.0-plugins-bad handbrake: handbrake [amd64 i386 powerpc] handbrake-cli [amd64 i386 powerpc] mplayer2: mplayer2 [amd64 armel armhf i386 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390x sparc] mpv: libmpv1 [amd64 armel armhf i386 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390x sparc] mpv [amd64 armel armhf i386 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390x sparc] vlc: vlc-nox [amd64 armel armhf i386 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390x sparc] # Broken Build-Depends: aegisub: libass-dev bino: libass-dev (>= 0.10.0-2) gst-plugins-bad0.10: libass-dev (>= 0.9.4) gst-plugins-bad1.0: libass-dev (>= 0.9.4) handbrake: libass-dev mplayer2: libass-dev mpv: libass-dev vlc: libass-dev (>= 0.9.8) xbmc: libass-dev (>= 0.9.8) Ben file: title = "libass"; is_affected = .depends ~ "libass4" | .depends ~ "libass5"; is_good = .depends ~ "libass5"; is_bad = .depends ~ "libass4"; Thanks in advance for considering. Cheers. -- Alessio Treglia | www.alessiotreglia.com Debian Developer | ales...@debian.org Ubuntu Core Developer| quadris...@ubuntu.com 0416 0004 A827 6E40 BB98 90FB E8A4 8AE5 311D 765A --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On 15/09/14 10:27, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 02/07/14 20:07, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> Control: block -1 by 739385 >> Control: tags -1 pending >> >> On 02/07/14 12:46, Alessio Treglia wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort >>> wrote: Great. xbmc build-depends on libass but doesn't depend on it, so it won't need any binnmus / is not really affected. Please go ahead with this. >> >> Things are looking good except for aegisub, which failed on armel, see >> #739385 >> and #727621. (It also failed on mipsel with an ICE, but I hope that was a >> temporary glitch. Let's see if it fails again or not). > > The aegisub/armel binaries got removed and it finally migrated, so this is now > finished. Closing. Really closing this time.--- End Message ---
Bug#752999: transition: libass
On 02/07/14 20:07, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Control: block -1 by 739385 > Control: tags -1 pending > > On 02/07/14 12:46, Alessio Treglia wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort >> wrote: >>> Great. xbmc build-depends on libass but doesn't depend on it, so it won't >>> need >>> any binnmus / is not really affected. Please go ahead with this. > > Things are looking good except for aegisub, which failed on armel, see #739385 > and #727621. (It also failed on mipsel with an ICE, but I hope that was a > temporary glitch. Let's see if it fails again or not). The aegisub/armel binaries got removed and it finally migrated, so this is now finished. Closing. 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/5416a30f.5050...@debian.org
Bug#760343: transition: protobuf 2.6.0
Control: tags -1 + pending On 14/09/14 00:26, Robert Edmonds wrote: > I see a build failure on mips in the 'shogun' package: > > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=shogun&arch=mips&ver=3.2.0-7.2%2Bb1&stamp=1410641206 > > This is actually an architecture+compiler specific build failure. > (Funnily enough, shogun uses "clang++" on some architectures but "c++" > on others as the compiler.) The problem is that the 'generic' atomic > implementation fallback is only used when the compiler is actually > gcc/g++, rather than clang/clang++. > > The fix is relatively simple (basically we just need to also detect > clang as well as gcc >= 4.7), but it has to be done in the protobuf > headers, which will mean another protobuf upload. OK, let us know when that happens and we'll give shogun back. 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/5416a3db.2030...@debian.org
