Bug#839531: jessie-pu: package asused/3.72-11

2016-10-01 Thread Sebastien Badia 
On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 06:05:43PM (+0100), Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
> 
> On Sat, 2016-10-01 at 18:22 +0200, Sebastien Badia wrote:
> > Asused is a tool to check IPv4 allocations and assignments
> > as stored in the RIPE database.
> > 
> > The actual version of asused in Debian/stable (3.72-11) doesn't
> > works due to a upstream change on the RIPE database.
> > 
> > The issue was correctred in Debian/testing (3.72-12), see for references
> > the corresponding bug https://bugs.debian.org/799919 and the patch
> > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-
> > maint/asused.git/patch/id=472d9b76587005d808766e6f2818ad00bd5d05b6
> 
> That patch changes nothing to do with RIPE, it only updates some patch
> metadata.
> 
> > This jessie-p-u build fine in jessie, package is ready for an upload
> > here https://marcellin.sebian.fr/debian/
> > 
> > You see any issues to no accept asused_3.72-12+deb8u7 as a jessie-p-u?
> 
> I certainly see issues with that version number. Firstly, it's higher
> than the package version in unstable, and secondly I have no idea why
> you would use "deb8u7" for the first update in jessie - that would be
> 3.72-11+deb8u1. "3.72-12+deb8u7" would be the seventh update in jessie
> to the package 3.72-12 (which isn't even in jessie).
> 
> In any case, before we can agree an upload, we would need to see - as in
> attached to this bug log, not merely on an external resource - a source
> debdiff against the version of the package currently in jessie,
> built /and tested/ on jessie.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Adam

Hello Adam,

Pff really sorry for the waste time… I was too fast on this one…

Just fixed the version number, and re-builded/uploaded to mentors.d.n
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/asused/asused_3.72-11+deb8u1.dsc
(build and tested in a clean env on Debian jessie).

The debdiff against 3.72-11 version in jessie is now attached.

Thanks for your time and explanation, and sorry again… :)

Regards,

Seb
diff -Nru asused-3.72/debian/changelog asused-3.72/debian/changelog
--- asused-3.72/debian/changelog	2014-01-28 23:26:47.0 +0100
+++ asused-3.72/debian/changelog	2016-10-02 01:29:40.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+asused (3.72-11+deb8u1) stable-proposed-updates; urgency=medium
+
+  * Use created fields instead of changed (Closes: #799919)
+Thanks Matthias!
+
+ -- Sebastien Badia   Sun, 02 Oct 2016 01:28:19 +0200
+
 asused (3.72-11) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * New maintainer (closes: #612901)
diff -Nru asused-3.72/debian/patches/07_changed_fields_are_gone.patch asused-3.72/debian/patches/07_changed_fields_are_gone.patch
--- asused-3.72/debian/patches/07_changed_fields_are_gone.patch	1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ asused-3.72/debian/patches/07_changed_fields_are_gone.patch	2016-10-02 01:27:48.0 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+Description: asused stopped working because changed fields are missing in newer objects
+Author: Matthias Cramer 
+Origin: other, https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=799919;msg=5;filename=in.pm.patch;att=1
+Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/799919
+Forwarded: no
+Reviewed-By: Sebastien Badia 
+Last-Update: 2016-03-01
+
+--- asused-3.72.orig/Net/RIPEWhois/in/in.pm
 asused-3.72/Net/RIPEWhois/in/in.pm
+@@ -355,6 +355,10 @@ sub getIn {
+ 		# Changed
+ 		push(@{$in{'ch'}}, $value);
+ 		}
++		elsif($inetnum && $attr eq 'cr') {
++		# Created
++		push(@{$in{'cr'}}, $value);
++		}
+ 		elsif($inetnum && $attr eq 'so') {
+ 		# Source
+ 		$in{'so'} = $value;
+@@ -373,14 +377,14 @@ sub getIn {
+ # Get creation date for valid inetnum object
+ if($inetnum) {
+ # Validate date
+-my $date = $self->creationDate(@{$in{'ch'}});
++my $date = $self->creationDate(@{$in{'cr'}});
+ 	
+ if($date) {
+ $in{'created'} = $date;
+ }
+ else {
+ $self->error($INVALID_DATE, 
+- ("Invalid date in " . join('; ', @{$in{'ch'}})));
++ ("Invalid date in " . join('; ', @{$in{'cr'}})));
+ 
+ push(@{$in{'warning'}}, ($self->error())[1]);
+ }
+@@ -560,7 +564,7 @@ sub  creationDate {
+ my @dateList;
+ #don't trust the date from db
+ foreach my $dateStr (@ch) {
+-	if($dateStr =~ /(\d+)$/) {
++	if($dateStr =~ /([\d\-]+)(T.*)?$/) {
+ 	my $date = $1;
+ return  unless ($date = checkmmDD($date)) ; #look if it is valid date
+ push(@dateList, $date); #make list of valid dates
+@@ -583,6 +587,8 @@ sub checkmmDD {
+ my($yy, $mm, $dd, $utc, $yyActual, $mmActual, $ddActual, $date);
+ my($sec, $min, $hour, $wday, $yday, $isdst); # Temp vars
+ 	
++	$MMdd =~ s/\-//g;
++
+ #MMDD
+ if($MMdd =~ /^(\d{4})(\d{2})(\d{2})$/) {
+ $yy = $1 - 1900;
+@@ -655,6 +661,7

Bug#838396: jessie-pu: package zookeeper/3.4.5+dfsg-2

2016-10-01 Thread Markus Koschany 
On 01.10.2016 19:27, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + confirmed
> 
> On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 21:45 +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> I would like to update zookeeper in Jessie which is currently affected
>> by CVE-2016-5017. The security team does not intend to release a DSA
>> for this issue.
> 
> Please go ahead.

Uploaded. Thanks.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#838396: jessie-pu: package zookeeper/3.4.5+dfsg-2

2016-10-01 Thread Adam D. Barratt 
Control: tags -1 + confirmed

On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 21:45 +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> I would like to update zookeeper in Jessie which is currently affected
> by CVE-2016-5017. The security team does not intend to release a DSA
> for this issue.

Please go ahead.

Regards,

Adam

Processed: Re: Bug#838396: jessie-pu: package zookeeper/3.4.5+dfsg-2

2016-10-01 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Processing control commands:

> tags -1 + confirmed
Bug #838396 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package zookeeper/3.4.5+dfsg-2
Added tag(s) confirmed.

-- 
838396: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=838396
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: Bug#838780: jessie-pu: package irssi/0.8.17-1+deb8u1

2016-10-01 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Processing control commands:

> tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed
Bug #838780 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package irssi/0.8.17-1+deb8u1
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
Bug #838780 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package irssi/0.8.17-1+deb8u1
Added tag(s) confirmed.

-- 
838780: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=838780
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#838780: jessie-pu: package irssi/0.8.17-1+deb8u1

2016-10-01 Thread Adam D. Barratt 
Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed

On Sun, 2016-09-25 at 11:44 +0200, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
>   Hi,
> 
> * Adam D. Barratt  [2016-09-24 21:24:18 CEST]:
> > On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 21:18 +0200, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
> > >  The patch that upstream provides is this:
> > > https://github.com/irssi/scripts.irssi.org/commit/f1b1eb154baa684fad5d65bf4dff79c8ded8b65a
> > > 
> > >  I uploaded it to unstable already and would like to push it to stable,
> > > too.
> > 
> > That looks okay, but please could we have a source debdiff for the
> > proposed upload, as built and hopefully tested on jessie.
> 
>  I commited it locally to my git, the attached diff is
> "git diff HEAD^.." which was the commit from the security update.

Thanks. That's not actually a debdiff though - the reason we ask for a
debdiff specifically is that the build process often ends up introducing
artefacts that aren't visible from a VCS diff or patch; additionally,
maintainers sometimes make "harmless" changes before building, which we
would have likely declined if they'd been included in the submitted
diff.

Assuming that the debdiff does match the git diff supplied, please go
ahead.

Regards,

Adam

Bug#838882: jessie-pu: package darktable/1.4.2-1+b3

2016-10-01 Thread Adam D. Barratt 
Control: tags -1 + confirmed

On Sun, 2016-09-25 at 22:01 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> This update would fix CVE-2015-3885 / #786792 in stable.  The CVE has
> previously been classified as not severe enough for a DSA.

+The fix is not tested.

is so inspiring.

Please go ahead, heeding lintian's advice.

Regards,

Adam

Processed: Re: Bug#838882: jessie-pu: package darktable/1.4.2-1+b3

2016-10-01 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Processing control commands:

> tags -1 + confirmed
Bug #838882 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package darktable/1.4.2-1+b3
Added tag(s) confirmed.

-- 
838882: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=838882
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: Bug#839531: jessie-pu: package asused/3.72-11

2016-10-01 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Processing control commands:

> tags -1 + moreinfo
Bug #839531 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package asused/3.72-11
Added tag(s) moreinfo.

-- 
839531: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839531
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1

2016-10-01 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Processing control commands:

> tags -1 + moreinfo
Bug #839242 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1
Added tag(s) moreinfo.

-- 
839242: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839242
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#839531: jessie-pu: package asused/3.72-11

2016-10-01 Thread Adam D. Barratt 
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo

On Sat, 2016-10-01 at 18:22 +0200, Sebastien Badia wrote:
> Asused is a tool to check IPv4 allocations and assignments
> as stored in the RIPE database.
> 
> The actual version of asused in Debian/stable (3.72-11) doesn't
> works due to a upstream change on the RIPE database.
> 
> The issue was correctred in Debian/testing (3.72-12), see for references
> the corresponding bug https://bugs.debian.org/799919 and the patch
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-
> maint/asused.git/patch/id=472d9b76587005d808766e6f2818ad00bd5d05b6

That patch changes nothing to do with RIPE, it only updates some patch
metadata.

> This jessie-p-u build fine in jessie, package is ready for an upload
> here https://marcellin.sebian.fr/debian/
> 
> You see any issues to no accept asused_3.72-12+deb8u7 as a jessie-p-u?

I certainly see issues with that version number. Firstly, it's higher
than the package version in unstable, and secondly I have no idea why
you would use "deb8u7" for the first update in jessie - that would be
3.72-11+deb8u1. "3.72-12+deb8u7" would be the seventh update in jessie
to the package 3.72-12 (which isn't even in jessie).

In any case, before we can agree an upload, we would need to see - as in
attached to this bug log, not merely on an external resource - a source
debdiff against the version of the package currently in jessie,
built /and tested/ on jessie.

Regards,

Adam

Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1

2016-10-01 Thread Adam D. Barratt 
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo

On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 11:38 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> Attached is a debdiff between the -1 and -1.1 version.

Apparently not.

> I suggest
> uploading the -1.1 version straight to stable since newer releases
> were done in stable. I am concerned by a subsequent QA upload that
> fixed a related issue, however:
> 
> https://packages.qa.debian.org/l/linkchecker/news/20160723T130426Z.html
> 
> I am not sure this bugfix applies to jessie, however, as I am using
> -1.1 here in jessie without problems.

Confirming one way or the other would be appreciated.

Regards,

Adam

Bug#839531: jessie-pu: package asused/3.72-11

2016-10-01 Thread Sebastien Badia 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: jessie
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu

Hello release manager,

Asused is a tool to check IPv4 allocations and assignments
as stored in the RIPE database.

The actual version of asused in Debian/stable (3.72-11) doesn't
works due to a upstream change on the RIPE database.

The issue was correctred in Debian/testing (3.72-12), see for references
the corresponding bug https://bugs.debian.org/799919 and the patch
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-
maint/asused.git/patch/id=472d9b76587005d808766e6f2818ad00bd5d05b6

This jessie-p-u build fine in jessie, package is ready for an upload
here https://marcellin.sebian.fr/debian/

You see any issues to no accept asused_3.72-12+deb8u7 as a jessie-p-u?

Cheers,

Thanks in advance.

Seb

-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable'), (100, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.7.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)

Bug#836996: transition: evolution-data-server 3.21.x

2016-10-01 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort 
On 30/09/16 14:30, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 29.09.2016 um 23:40 schrieb Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
>> On 08/09/16 00:03, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 
>>> Please let us know when we can start with the transition.
>>
>> Let's do this!
>>
> 
> Woohoo, thanks a lot.
> I've uploaded evolution-data-server, evolution and evolution-ews in the
> mean time.
> 
> evolution-rss and mail-notification should get a dep-wait on
> evolution-dev (>= 3.22.0) and evolution-data-server-dev (>= 3.22.0),
> the rest a dep-wait on evolution-data-server-dev (>= 3.22.0) when
> scheduling the binNMUs

Scheduled.

Cheers,
Emilio

Bug#837630: transition: xapian-core

2016-10-01 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort 
On 30/09/16 06:53, Olly Betts wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:28:27PM +0100, Olly Betts wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 06:55:56PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> On 13/09/16 06:50, Olly Betts wrote:
 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-xapian-core.html
>>>
>>> Go ahead!
>>
>> Great, thanks.  I have just uploaded xapian-core 1.4.0-2 to unstable.
> 
> Done, and has now successfully built and installed on all release
> architectures:
> 
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=xapian-core=sid
>  
>> Assuming that looks good, I'll make sourceful uploads of xapian-bindings,
>> xapian-omega and libsearch-xapian-perl.
> 
> All now uploaded and accepted.
> 
>> I'll also retest pinot in case the symbol mangling was due to a mix of
>> code compiled with GCC5 and GCC6 - IIRC the ABI has changed in some
>> obscure cases, so maybe this is due to one of those.
> 
> I solved this issue - the pinot sources hard code a mangled symbol
> string.  It doesn't matter for this transition, but I've NMUed pinot
> with this and the FTBFS with GCC6 fixed.
> 
>> The rest of the pacakges in the tracker should just need a binNMU.
> 
> For clarity, the following will need binNMUs:
> 
> akonadi-search
> aptitude
> baloo
> khelpcenter
> libept
> libqapt
> maildir-utils
> notmuch
> recoll
> zeitgeist
> 
> And then:
> 
> goplay
> packagesearch
> synaptic
> 
> I'm in #debian-release - feel free to ping me about anything.

binNMUs scheduled.

Emilio

Bug#830200: transition: perl

2016-10-01 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort 
On 30/09/16 03:08, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> nmu pcp_3.11.5 . amd64 . unstable . -m "Rebuild against perl 5.24."
> 
> maintainer upload built against 5.22 during the transition ...

Scheduled.

Emilio

Processed: Re: Bug#839243: transition: bullet

2016-10-01 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Processing control commands:

> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #839243 [release.debian.org] transition: bullet
Added tag(s) confirmed.

-- 
839243: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839243
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#839243: transition: bullet

2016-10-01 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort 
Control: tags -1 confirmed

On 30/09/16 17:40, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I would like to request a transition slot for the new upstream release
> of Bullet 2.83.7. The new binary packages are currently awaiting
> approval in the NEW queue.
> 
> The reverse-dependencies are:
> 
> kido
> hkl
> gazebo
> cyphesis-cpp
> openmw
> critterding (experimental)
> ros-geometry
> ros-geometry-experimental
> 
> I have rebuilt all of them successfully except for critterding which
> FTBFS due to an unrelated Boost error.

Assuming bullet builds fine: go ahead.

Cheers,
Emilio

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

2016-10-01 Thread Ben Hutchings 
On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 22:34 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 09/30/2016 09:04 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > 
> > As for "porter qualification"
> > =
> > 
> > We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the
> > roll call for sparc and we kept sparc as a release architecture for
> > Jessie.  However, we ended up with a completely broken and unbootable
> > sparc kernel.
> 
> To be fair, this happened because the upstream kernel development for
> SPARC came to an almost complete stop. There was basically only David
> Miller working on the port which turned out not to be enough.
> 
> This isn't the case for PowerPC32 where upstream development is still very
> active because it's part of the PowerPC kernel which is maintained by
> IBM.

This is not at all true.  My experience is that IBM doesn't even build-
test 32-bit configurations, as evidenced by several stable updates
causing FTBFS in Debian.

> PowerPC32 is also still quite popular which is why it still sees
> quite some testing in the wild. There are still new PowerPC32 designs
> based on embedded CPUs (FreeScale and the like).

Which are very different from the Power Macs and similar platforms that
most Debian powerpc users care about.

> As for SPARC, Oracle is actually now heavily investing in Linux SPARC
> support, so even SPARC is getting back into shape which is why I hope
> we can add sparc64 as an official port soon.
[...]

Oracle cares about Solaris on SPARC, not Linux on SPARC.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Klipstein's 4th Law of Prototyping and Production:
A fail-safe circuit will destroy
others.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#834855: marked as done (transition: glibc 2.24)

2016-10-01 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Sat, 1 Oct 2016 12:30:22 +0200
with message-id <17ea95b4-384f-3752-fcbb-4d5849b51...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#834855: transition: glibc 2.24
has caused the Debian Bug report #834855,
regarding transition: glibc 2.24
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.)


-- 
834855: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=834855
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

Dear release team,

We would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.24. It is currently
available in experimental and has been built successfully on all
official architectures. For the debian-ports architectures the
situation also looks good except for hppa with multiple regressions in
the testsuite due to the use of gcc-6 instead of gcc-5. This is being
worked on, and I don't think we should not block the transition on that.

The glibc 2.24 is built using gcc-6 instead of gcc-5, the transition is
therefore important for the gcc-5 removal. This will be the version
shipped with Stretch, so this is the last major change before the
release. Of course we plan to improve things by fixing additional bugs,
mostly by tracking the upstream 2.24 stable branch as long as possible.

As the glibc is using symbol versioning, there is no soname change. That
said a few packages are using libc internal symbols and have to be
rebuilt for this transition:
 - apitrace
 - bro
 - dante
 - libnih
 - libnss-db
 - unscd

Here is the corresponding ben file:
  title = "glibc";
  is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 31/08/16 17:56, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2016-08-31 10:55, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Control: forwarded -1 
>> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.24.html
>> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>>
>> On 19/08/16 23:47, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>> Package: release.debian.org
>>> Severity: normal
>>> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
>>> Usertags: transition
>>>
>>> Dear release team,
>>>
>>> We would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.24. It is currently
>>> available in experimental and has been built successfully on all
>>> official architectures. For the debian-ports architectures the
>>> situation also looks good except for hppa with multiple regressions in
>>> the testsuite due to the use of gcc-6 instead of gcc-5. This is being
>>> worked on, and I don't think we should not block the transition on that.
>>>
>>> The glibc 2.24 is built using gcc-6 instead of gcc-5, the transition is
>>> therefore important for the gcc-5 removal. This will be the version
>>> shipped with Stretch, so this is the last major change before the
>>> release. Of course we plan to improve things by fixing additional bugs,
>>> mostly by tracking the upstream 2.24 stable branch as long as possible.
>>>
>>> As the glibc is using symbol versioning, there is no soname change. That
>>> said a few packages are using libc internal symbols and have to be
>>> rebuilt for this transition:
>>>  - apitrace
>>>  - bro
>>>  - dante
>>>  - libnih
>>>  - libnss-db
>>>  - unscd
>>>
>>> Here is the corresponding ben file:
>>>   title = "glibc";
>>>   is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<>>   is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.25\)/;
>>>   is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.24\)/;
>>>
>>> This version will also make a few packages to fail to build from source
>>> due to the removal of deprecated part of the API. The existing binaries
>>> still work (the ABI hasn't changed), so there this doesn't cause any
>>> issue for upgrades. Bugs have been reported against these packages:
>>>   #833727 - emacs24: FTBFS with glibc 2.24
>>>   #833965 - tcsh: uses deprecated BSD union wait type
>>>   #833968 - csh: uses deprecated BSD union wait type
>>>   #833970 - netkit-rsh: uses deprecated BSD union wait type
>>>   #833971 - xautolock: uses deprecated BSD union wait type
>>>   #833972 - socks4-server: uses deprecated BSD union wait type
>>>   #833995 - gridengine: embedded tcsh copy uses deprecated BSD union wait 
>>> type
>>> While it has been done relatively recently they all contain a patch, so
>>> I don't think we should consider them as blockers for the transition.
>>>
>>> In addition a few new symbols have been added that might prevent a few
>>> other packages to transition to testing if they pick up the new symbols.
>>> They are quick_exit for libc.so and nextdown*/nextup* for libm.so.
>>
>> Sorry for the delay, I was away.
> 
> Don't worry

Processed: mpqc3: FTBFS (Libint library is too old: a recent beta of 2.1.0 is required)

2016-10-01 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> reassign 839361 src:libint2
Bug #839361 [src:mpqc3] mpqc3: FTBFS: Libint library is too old: a recent beta 
of 2.1.0 is required
Bug reassigned from package 'src:mpqc3' to 'src:libint2'.
No longer marked as found in versions mpqc3/0.0~git20160216-3.
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #839361 to the same values 
previously set
> forcemerge 837532 839361
Bug #837532 [src:libint2] mpqc3: FTBFS (Libint library is too old: a recent 
beta of 2.1.0 is required)
Bug #837532 [src:libint2] mpqc3: FTBFS (Libint library is too old: a recent 
beta of 2.1.0 is required)
Added tag(s) sid and stretch.
Bug #839361 [src:libint2] mpqc3: FTBFS: Libint library is too old: a recent 
beta of 2.1.0 is required
836917 was blocked by: 837059 811651 830440 837062 815348 825934 811907 837914 
837911 837530 837532 838299 837058 835680 837109 822021 837055 837012 817690 
837061 837030 812036 837915 831164
836917 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 836917: 839361
Added indication that 839361 affects src:mpqc3
Marked as found in versions libint2/2.1.0~beta2-2.
Merged 837532 839361
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
836917: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=836917
837532: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837532
839361: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839361
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems