Bug#998338: transition: urdfdom
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:54:49AM +0100, Jose Luis Rivero wrote: > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 9:46 PM Sebastian Ramacher > wrote: >... > > CMake Error at /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/cmake/urdf/urdfConfig.cmake:171 > > (message): > > Project 'rviz' tried to find library > > '$<$>:-lurdfdom_sensor'. The library is neither ja > > target nor built/installed properly. Did you compile project 'urdf'? Did > > you find_package() it before the subdirectory containing its code is > > included? > > > > This looks like a bug in urdfcom to me … three <, but only two >. > > > > It is, indeed. Jochen sent the patch upstream > https://github.com/ros/urdfdom/pull/164 and I have uploaded 3.0.0+ds-5 > shipping it. Let's see if that fixes all the problems. Still fails: https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ros-collada-urdf=i386=1.12.13-6%2Bb1=1636504074=0 https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ros-kdl-parser=i386=1.14.1-6%2Bb1=1636504092=0 https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ros-rviz=i386=1.14.10%2Bdfsg-2%2Bb2=1636504088=0 The problem is that /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/cmake/urdf/urdfConfig.cmake in ros-urdf got miscompiled. A fresh binNMU of the packags in level 2 of the transition should fix that. gazebo will then also need another binNMU as part of level 3, since it might have silently dropped URDF support after the first binNMU. cu Adrian
Bug#998338: transition: urdfdom
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 9:46 PM Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > On 2021-11-08 23:03:51, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > Control: tags -1 = confirmed > > > > On 2021-11-08 22:41:02 +0100, Jose Luis Rivero wrote: > > > Hi Sebastian: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 5:39 PM Sebastian Ramacher < > sramac...@debian.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Why is liburdfom-tools being renamed? This packages does not > contain a > > > > shared library. > > > > > > > > > > > No reason. Good catch. I've uploaded 3.0.0+ds-3 that revert the > > > liburdfdom-tools name change. > > > > > > Run ratt again with this new version: > > > https://build.osrfoundation.org/job/debian-ratt-builder/126/ > > > > > > 2021/11/08 17:25:15 PASSED: ros-collada-urdf > > > 2021/11/08 17:25:15 PASSED: ros-kdl-parser > > > 2021/11/08 17:25:15 PASSED: ros-urdf > > They all failed with: > Holy moly, the ratt build is using the 3.0.0 version and did not fail. https://build.osrfoundation.org/job/debian-ratt-builder/126/artifact/logs/buildlogs/ros-urdf_1.13.2-7/*view*/ I don't know why, I need to look deeper into the problem. Sorry for that Sebastian. > CMake Error at /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/cmake/urdf/urdfConfig.cmake:171 > (message): > Project 'rviz' tried to find library > '$<$>:-lurdfdom_sensor'. The library is neither ja > target nor built/installed properly. Did you compile project 'urdf'? Did > you find_package() it before the subdirectory containing its code is > included? > > This looks like a bug in urdfcom to me … three <, but only two >. > It is, indeed. Jochen sent the patch upstream https://github.com/ros/urdfdom/pull/164 and I have uploaded 3.0.0+ds-5 shipping it. Let's see if that fixes all the problems. > > Cheers > > > > > > Please go ahead > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please proceed with the transition? > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sebastian Ramacher > > > > > > > > -- > > Sebastian Ramacher > > > > -- > Sebastian Ramacher >
Bug#998338: transition: urdfdom
On 2021-11-08 23:03:51, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > Control: tags -1 = confirmed > > On 2021-11-08 22:41:02 +0100, Jose Luis Rivero wrote: > > Hi Sebastian: > > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 5:39 PM Sebastian Ramacher > > wrote: > > > > > Why is liburdfom-tools being renamed? This packages does not contain a > > > shared library. > > > > > > > > No reason. Good catch. I've uploaded 3.0.0+ds-3 that revert the > > liburdfdom-tools name change. > > > > Run ratt again with this new version: > > https://build.osrfoundation.org/job/debian-ratt-builder/126/ > > > > 2021/11/08 17:25:15 PASSED: ros-collada-urdf > > 2021/11/08 17:25:15 PASSED: ros-kdl-parser > > 2021/11/08 17:25:15 PASSED: ros-urdf They all failed with: CMake Error at /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/cmake/urdf/urdfConfig.cmake:171 (message): Project 'rviz' tried to find library '$<$>:-lurdfdom_sensor'. The library is neither ja target nor built/installed properly. Did you compile project 'urdf'? Did you find_package() it before the subdirectory containing its code is included? This looks like a bug in urdfcom to me … three <, but only two >. Cheers > > Please go ahead > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please proceed with the transition? > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sebastian Ramacher > > > > > -- > Sebastian Ramacher -- Sebastian Ramacher
Bug#998344: buster-pu: package llvm-toolchain-11/1:11.0.1-2~deb10u1
Hi Adam, On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 02:20:35PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Tue, 2021-11-02 at 13:28 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > In order to support the update of rustc in buster, which in turn is > > needed to support the updates of firefox-esr and thunderbird, I am > > proposing an update of llvm-toolchain-11 in buster. The attached > > diff represents the change from the current package in the buster- > > backports repository. > > That diff appears to be between the git branches, rather than the > generated packages. Would it be possible to have a source debdiff > between your base and the package you're planning to upload? > I rebased my changes on 11.0.1-2 from buster. The debdiff attached to this email represents the updated packge I am proposing for upload. Note that I also updated the version of the proposed package to 11.0.1-2+deb10u1. > Part of the reason that we request a debdiff rather than a VCS diff is > that they can often reveal unexpected differences, for instance due to > build system differences. In this case, the diff between the source > package in bullseye and that uploaded to buster-backports includes 128 > generated files under debian/, which shouldn't really be in the source > package. > > > As a result of mips build failures with the backport package, I am > > running a test build on a mips porter box to verify that the mips > > changes result in a successfully built package. > > How did that go? > It failed at the very end, but the failure seems to be spurious. That is, I did a full build (dpkg-buildpackage with no options) rather than an arch:any build. Some components are not built for mips (and other architectures) and trying to build arch:all packages on those architectures would actually fail because the components end up not being built. I started a new build with the --build=any option to dpkg-builpackage. If you would like to wait for the result of that build, I am happy to wait on uploading. However, I am confident that the changes I have in the attached debdiff are completely ready for upload. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez diff -Nru llvm-toolchain-11-11.0.1/debian/changelog llvm-toolchain-11-11.0.1/debian/changelog --- llvm-toolchain-11-11.0.1/debian/changelog 2021-01-06 14:16:26.0 -0500 +++ llvm-toolchain-11-11.0.1/debian/changelog 2021-10-30 13:14:49.0 -0400 @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +llvm-toolchain-11 (1:11.0.1-2+deb10u1) buster; urgency=medium + + * Backport to buster. +- Disable tests on (big endian) mips due to timeout (i.e., test runtime + exceeds 10h). + + -- Roberto C. Sánchez Sat, 30 Oct 2021 13:14:49 -0400 + llvm-toolchain-11 (1:11.0.1-2) unstable; urgency=medium * Fix the changelog diff -Nru llvm-toolchain-11-11.0.1/debian/clang-tools-X.Y.install.in llvm-toolchain-11-11.0.1/debian/clang-tools-X.Y.install.in --- llvm-toolchain-11-11.0.1/debian/clang-tools-X.Y.install.in 2020-11-01 04:19:28.0 -0500 +++ llvm-toolchain-11-11.0.1/debian/clang-tools-X.Y.install.in 2021-10-30 13:14:49.0 -0400 @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ usr/lib/llvm-@LLVM_VERSION@/bin/clang-move usr/lib/llvm-@LLVM_VERSION@/bin/clang-offload-wrapper -[!armel !armhf !ppc64el !hurd-any !s390x !powerpc !ppc64 !mipsel !mips64el !sparc64 !riscv64] usr/lib/llvm-@LLVM_VERSION@/lib/clang/@LLVM_VERSION_FULL@/bin/hwasan_symbolize +[!armel !armhf !ppc64el !hurd-any !s390x !powerpc !ppc64 !mips !mipsel !mips64el !sparc64 !riscv64] usr/lib/llvm-@LLVM_VERSION@/lib/clang/@LLVM_VERSION_FULL@/bin/hwasan_symbolize clang/tools/scan-build-@LLVM_VERSION@ usr/share/clang/ clang/tools/scan-build-py-@LLVM_VERSION@ usr/share/clang/ diff -Nru llvm-toolchain-11-11.0.1/debian/rules llvm-toolchain-11-11.0.1/debian/rules --- llvm-toolchain-11-11.0.1/debian/rules 2021-01-06 03:25:29.0 -0500 +++ llvm-toolchain-11-11.0.1/debian/rules 2021-10-30 13:14:49.0 -0400 @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ endif # llvm tests timeout, disable it on mipsel -ifeq (mipsel,$(DEB_HOST_ARCH)) +ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_HOST_ARCH), mips mipsel)) RUN_TEST=no endif
Bug#998169: transition: unixodbc
On 2021-11-03 21:23:20, Hugh McMaster wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 at 10:24, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > > > Why do the binary packages have Breaks + Replaces on binary packages > > with the old SONAME? > > Some files are split from existing packages: > * unixodbc-common takes over some files from odbcinst and odbcinst1debian2. > * libodbcinst2 takes over the (old) library from odbcinst1debian2 > * libodbccr2 takes over the (old) library, which is split from libodbc1 > * libodbc2 takes over the library from libodbc1 > > Note that libodbc1 and odbcinst1debian2 (currently in Sid) contain > symlinks for library version 1 to library version 2, but the existing > packages are named for the old soversion. What? Why? How did that happen? Are libodbc1 and libodbc2 actually ABI compatible? Cheers > > Breaks+Replaces ensures a smooth transition. > > On a separate note, the asterisk source package now builds and will > migrate to testing on Wednesday evening (UTC). It just needs a rebuild > during the unixodbc migration. > -- Sebastian Ramacher
Bug#998192: release.debian.org: Transition for gsl-2.7 / libgsl26
On 8 November 2021 at 22:14, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: | Control: tags -1 moreinfo | Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-gsl.html | | On 2021-10-31 14:29:40 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > | > Package: release.debian.org | > Severity: normal | > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org | > Usertags: transition | > | > GNU GSL 2.7 was release a few months ago, and we now realised (in the | > discussion of #993324 which also included upstream) that the upstream libtool | > instruction were in error by _not_ leading to a new sonumber. This was | > corrected in (source package) gsl upload 2.7-3 to experimental, which built | > well. | | What's the status of the fix upstream? Was there any progress? Otherwise | we're gonna repeat that with the next upstream release. Those are two distinct issues. Upstream, I think we all agreed in the thread also recorded in the BTS, made an omission in this release where a new soname was needed, but wasn't given. This happens. So now we need a new soname __because the ABI/API changed__. That has happened before, and that is why we had transitions in the past. But not all previous releases had soname changes. I have maintained GSL here for about 20 years and I think this is about the third transition. I would call that defensible. The release team does of course have a broader view, and I am always keen to hear your thoughts. Cheers, Dirk | Cheers | | > | > I would like to ask for a formal transition. As we saw with failing tests in | > dependent packages, binNMUs will not work for all package (but possibly | > "most"). | > | > Tentative ben file below. | > | > - | > title = "gsl 2.7 transition"; | > is_affected = .depends ~ /libgsl-dev/; | > is_good = .depends ~ "libgsl26"; | > is_bad = .depends ~ "libgsl25"; | > - | > | > Let me know if I can help otherwise. | > | > Cheers, Dirk | > | > | > -- | > https://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | > | | -- | Sebastian Ramacher | x[DELETED ATTACHMENT signature.asc, application/pgp-signature] -- https://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
Processed: transition: gdal
Processing control commands: > forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-gdal.html Bug #998887 [release.debian.org] transition: gdal Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 'https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-gdal.html'. > block -1 by 998833 998827 984398 984401 984283 984284 Bug #998887 [release.debian.org] transition: gdal 998887 was not blocked by any bugs. 998887 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 998887: 984401, 984284, 998827, 984283, 998833, and 984398 -- 998887: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=998887 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#998887: transition: gdal
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition X-Debbugs-Cc: pkg-grass-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-gdal.html Control: block -1 by 998833 998827 984398 984401 984283 984284 For the Debian GIS team I'd like to transition to GDAL 3.4.0. Most reverse dependencies rebuilt successfully with GDAL 3.4.0 from experimental as summarized below. libgdal-grass doesn't need a binNMU as the 3.4.0 version will be uploaded to unstable instead. mysql-workbench (8.0.26+dfsg-1) FTBFS due to GCC 11 (#998833), patch available. openorienteering-mapper (0.9.5-2) FTBFS due to test failures (#998827). vtk6 (6.3.0+dfsg2-8.1) FTBFS due to GCC 11 (#984398). vtk7 (7.1.1+dfsg2-10) FTBFS due to GCC 11 (#984401). paraview (5.9.0-2) FTBFS due to GCC 11 (#984283). otb (7.2.0+dfsg-1) FTBFS due to insighttoolkit4/GCC 11 (#984284). Transition: gdal libgdal29 (3.3.3+dfsg-1) -> libgdal30 (3.4.0+dfsg-1~exp1) The status of the most recent rebuilds is as follows. fiona (1.8.20-2) OK gazebo (11.8.0+dfsg-1) OK gmt (6.2.0+dfsg-1) OK libcitygml (2.0.9-3) OK libosmium (2.17.1-1) OK mapcache(1.10.0-2) OK mapnik (3.1.0+ds-1)OK mapproxy(1.13.2-1) OK mapserver (7.6.4-1) OK merkaartor (0.19.0+ds-2) OK mysql-workbench (8.0.26+dfsg-1) FTBFS (#998833) ncl (6.6.2-10) OK octave-mapping (1.4.1-2) OK openorienteering-mapper (0.9.5-2) FTBFS (#998827) openscenegraph (3.6.5+dfsg1-7) OK pdal(2.3.0+ds-2)OK pgsql-ogr-fdw (1.1.1-3) OK pktools (2.6.7.6+ds-3) OK postgis (3.1.4+dfsg-3) OK python-django (2:3.2.9-1) OK qmapshack (1.16.0-2) OK r-cran-rgdal(1.5-27+dfsg-1) OK r-cran-sf (1.0-3+dfsg-1) OK r-cran-terra(1.4-11-2) OK rasterio(1.2.10-1) OK saga(7.3.0+dfsg-6) OK vtk6(6.3.0+dfsg2-8.1) FTBFS (#984398) vtk7(7.1.1+dfsg2-10)FTBFS (#984401) vtk9(9.0.3+dfsg1-3) OK cloudcompare(2.11.3-2) OK grass (7.8.6-1) OK opencv (4.5.4+dfsg-1) OK osmcoastline(2.3.1-1) OK paraview(5.9.0-2) FTBFS (#984283) sumo(1.8.0+dfsg2-5) OK libgdal-grass (3.3.3-1 / 3.4.0-1) FTBFS / OK otb (7.2.0+dfsg-1) FTBFS (#984284) qgis(3.16.12+dfsg-1)OK Kind Regards, Bas
Bug#998874: marked as done (nmu: xmlrpc-light_0.6.1-5+b5)
Your message dated Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:13:02 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#998874: nmu: xmlrpc-light_0.6.1-5+b5 has caused the Debian Bug report #998874, regarding nmu: xmlrpc-light_0.6.1-5+b5 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.) -- 998874: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=998874 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: binnmu nmu xmlrpc-light_0.6.1-5+b5 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet 4.1.8-2+b1" Binary packages generated from this source package have broken dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Thanks -Ralf. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On 2021-11-09 09:04:15 +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: binnmu > > nmu xmlrpc-light_0.6.1-5+b5 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet > 4.1.8-2+b1" > > Binary packages generated from this source package have broken > dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the > transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Scheduled Cheers (one bug for all of these would have been fine as well) > > Thanks -Ralf. > -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Bug#998873: marked as done (nmu: pxp_1.2.9-2+b4)
Your message dated Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:07:51 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#998873: nmu: pxp_1.2.9-2+b4 has caused the Debian Bug report #998873, regarding nmu: pxp_1.2.9-2+b4 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.) -- 998873: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=998873 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: binnmu nmu pxp_1.2.9-2+b4 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet 4.1.8-2+b1" Binary packages generated from this source package have broken dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Thanks -Ralf. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On 2021-11-09 09:02:54 +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: binnmu > > nmu pxp_1.2.9-2+b4 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet 4.1.8-2+b1" > > Binary packages generated from this source package have broken > dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the > transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Scheduled Cheers > > Thanks -Ralf. > -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Bug#998872: marked as done (nmu: ocamlrss_2.2.2-1+b1)
Your message dated Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:07:35 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#998872: nmu: ocamlrss_2.2.2-1+b1 has caused the Debian Bug report #998872, regarding nmu: ocamlrss_2.2.2-1+b1 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.) -- 998872: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=998872 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: binnmu nmu ocamlrss_2.2.2-1+b1 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet 4.1.8-2+b1" Binary packages generated from this source package have broken dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Thanks -Ralf. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On 2021-11-09 09:01:20 +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: binnmu > > nmu ocamlrss_2.2.2-1+b1 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet > 4.1.8-2+b1" > > Binary packages generated from this source package have broken > dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the > transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Scheduled Cheers > > Thanks -Ralf. > -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Bug#998871: marked as done (nmu: ocamldap_2.4.2-1)
Your message dated Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:07:22 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#998871: nmu: ocamldap_2.4.2-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #998871, regarding nmu: ocamldap_2.4.2-1 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.) -- 998871: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=998871 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: binnmu nmu ocamldap_2.4.2-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet 4.1.8-2+b1" Binary packages generated from this source package have broken dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Thanks -Ralf. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On 2021-11-09 09:00:23 +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: binnmu > > nmu ocamldap_2.4.2-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet > 4.1.8-2+b1" > > Binary packages generated from this source package have broken > dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the > transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Scheduled Cheers > > Thanks -Ralf. > -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Bug#998870: marked as done (nmu: ocaml-lastfm_0.3.2-1+b5)
Your message dated Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:07:10 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#998870: nmu: ocaml-lastfm_0.3.2-1+b5 has caused the Debian Bug report #998870, regarding nmu: ocaml-lastfm_0.3.2-1+b5 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.) -- 998870: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=998870 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: binnmu nmu ocaml-lastfm_0.3.2-1+b5 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet 4.1.8-2+b1" Binary packages generated from this source package have broken dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Thanks -Ralf. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On 2021-11-09 08:58:40 +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: binnmu > > nmu ocaml-lastfm_0.3.2-1+b5 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet > 4.1.8-2+b1" > > Binary packages generated from this source package have broken > dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the > transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Scheduled Cheers > > Thanks -Ralf. > -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Bug#998869: marked as done (nmu: ocaml-http_0.1.6-1+b1)
Your message dated Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:06:57 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#998869: nmu: ocaml-http_0.1.6-1+b1 has caused the Debian Bug report #998869, regarding nmu: ocaml-http_0.1.6-1+b1 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.) -- 998869: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=998869 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: binnmu nmu ocaml-http_0.1.6-1+b1 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet 4.1.8-2+b1" Binary packages generated from this source package have broken dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Thanks -Ralf. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On 2021-11-09 08:57:13 +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: binnmu > > nmu ocaml-http_0.1.6-1+b1 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet > 4.1.8-2+b1" > > Binary packages generated from this source package have broken > dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the > transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Scheduled Cheers > > Thanks -Ralf. > -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Bug#998874: nmu: xmlrpc-light_0.6.1-5+b5
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu xmlrpc-light_0.6.1-5+b5 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet 4.1.8-2+b1" Binary packages generated from this source package have broken dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Thanks -Ralf.
Bug#998870: nmu: ocaml-lastfm_0.3.2-1+b5
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu ocaml-lastfm_0.3.2-1+b5 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet 4.1.8-2+b1" Binary packages generated from this source package have broken dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Thanks -Ralf.
Bug#998873: nmu: pxp_1.2.9-2+b4
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu pxp_1.2.9-2+b4 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet 4.1.8-2+b1" Binary packages generated from this source package have broken dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Thanks -Ralf.
Bug#998872: nmu: ocamlrss_2.2.2-1+b1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu ocamlrss_2.2.2-1+b1 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet 4.1.8-2+b1" Binary packages generated from this source package have broken dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Thanks -Ralf.
Bug#998871: nmu: ocamldap_2.4.2-1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu ocamldap_2.4.2-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet 4.1.8-2+b1" Binary packages generated from this source package have broken dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Thanks -Ralf.
Bug#998869: nmu: ocaml-http_0.1.6-1+b1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu ocaml-http_0.1.6-1+b1 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against ocamlnet 4.1.8-2+b1" Binary packages generated from this source package have broken dependencies since the rebuild of ocamlnet, and block the transition of ocamlnet and other packages. Thanks -Ralf.
