Bug#929318: [pcp] Bug#929318: unblock: papi/5.7.0+dfsg-1
Hi Paul, Andreas, Apologies for the slow response - I'm in meetings all week this week and I'm a bit behind as a result. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:17 AM Andreas Beckmann wrote: > > On 18/06/2019 23.05, Paul Gevers wrote: > > pcp was completely off my radar since it has (silently) dropped all papi > dependencies in unstable. The PAPI metrics in PCP have been transitioned to using perfevent - one of the several reasons for this was to help resolve this Debian bug. The best outcome for Debian PCP user base here would be to use the bugfix PCP update that has been in unstable for several weeks now - this provides a clean upgrade path for pmdapapi users, and removes the PCP dependency on PAPI completely. > I'll do a 0-day NMU of pcp on Thursday (36 hours from now) unless we > heard from Nathan till then. If we cannot use the tested, stable, upstream bugfix update provided earlier due to the release constraints, please go ahead and NMU as needed Andreas - thanks. > Just thinking ... lazy removal of libpapi5 from testing does not work, > since libpapi5.7 breaks it, and pcp-dev probably depends transitively on FWIW, the PCP development packages do not depend on any PAPI (and never have) - it is only older versions of the 'pcp' package itself, which contain the pmdapapi binary - now retired to help resolve this issue. cheers. -- Nathan
Re: [pcp] pcp is marked for autoremoval from testing
Hi folks, The issues below no longer affect pcp-4.3.2, which has been in unstable for some time. According to https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pcp this version is blocked ... "Not touching package due to block request by freeze (please contact debian-release if update is needed)" Please consider unblocking pcp-4.3.2 to resolve this. thanks! -- Nathan On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 2:49 PM Debian testing autoremoval watch wrote: > > pcp 4.3.1-1 is marked for autoremoval from testing on 2019-06-19 > > It (build-)depends on packages with these RC bugs: > 928367: papi: libpapi5: SOVERSION is too wide for the runtime check in > PAPI_library_init() > 928959: papi: DFSG-unfree file in source > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > > View/Reply Online (#20981): https://groups.io/g/pcp/message/20981 > Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31858950/174104 > -=-=- > pcp mailing list > p...@groups.io > https://groups.io/g/pcp/messages > -=-=- > Group Owner: pcp+ow...@groups.io > Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/pcp/leave/354222/526236543/xyzzy > [nath...@redhat.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >
Bug#851664: nmu: pcp_3.11.7
Hi guys, - Original Message - > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 04:41:59PM -0500, Nathan Scott wrote: > > > > This is happening again and again (see bugs 776440 and 847149). The fix > > > here is to get rid of the package until the maintainer catches up, not > > > to work around him time and time again, IMO. > > > > I'm planning to start source-only uploads from the next pcp upload, so > > this class of problem should go away. > > Please consider fixing Bug #805955 as well (FTBFS with dpkg-buildpackage -A), > otherwise the package will not be released with stretch. > > (The package migrated to testing on 2016-12-29, but that was really > an accident). > Understood, and yep, I would love to see that fixed (patches welcome), but its not reached the front of my queue yet. cheers. -- Nathan
Bug#851664: nmu: pcp_3.11.7
Hi there, - Original Message - > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:42:05 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > > Usertags: binnmu > > > > nmu pcp_3.11.7 . amd64 . unstable . -m "Rebuild in sid." > > > > Maintainer uploaded package was built in stable. Sorry about this guys, this is the first I became aware of these two issues. I'm building on an infrequently-updated unstable, not stable. I guess somehow the perl packages must not be getting dpkg updated on this box. > This is happening again and again (see bugs 776440 and 847149). The fix > here is to get rid of the package until the maintainer catches up, not > to work around him time and time again, IMO. I'm planning to start source-only uploads from the next pcp upload, so this class of problem should go away. cheers. -- Nathan
Bug#686868: unblock: pcp/3.6.5
Hi guys! - Original Message - Control: tag -1 moreinfo On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 22:05:41 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Hi, please unblock pcp 3.6.5. It fixes several security issues. BTW, there was a comment earlier saying that 3.6.5 only fixes security issues - that's a misunderstanding, I believe. This was a regular PCP minor release, and included those security fixes (just happened to be the next bug-fix point release). I did backport the fixes to squeeze, although I can't offer to do that again (its time consuming, and I don't have spare time atm). Others might prefer that approach, and could take on a similar backport. I wouldn't recommend that approach however, as alot of testing is required ( has been done on 3.6.5). The shlibs information for libpcp-pmda3 needs to be updated for the new pmdaEventNewActiveQueue function. Strictly speaking that is certainly correct, and should be fixed in a future PCP update. However, this NewActiveQueue function is for a special/experimental use-case. From the changelog: - ... - Added an interface to allow PMDAs to register event queues with existing clients (pmdaEventNewActiveQueue). - Initial version of the (experimental) bash tracing PMDA. This bash tracing PMDA is the only code using that interface, and it is a new, experimental PMDA (only optional to use). So, if you're looking for a maintainer opinion, my preference is to go with 3.6.5 as is. A separate bug should be opened for the new symbol shlibs issue (a patch would be lovely too ;) Thanks for following up on this Moritz, it'd completely fallen off my radar. cheers. -- Nathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2123337810.10709895.1349995973811.javamail.r...@redhat.com
Re: Freeze exception request for xfsprogs-3.1.3
- Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: Testing currently has 3.1.2-1. Why does the 3.1.3 upload revert all the changes made in that version? There are no changes, everything is merged in the released source tarball. cheers. -- Nathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1652257004.1469571285826332922.javamail.r...@mail-au.aconex.com
Re: Freeze exception request for xfsprogs-3.1.3
- Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 15:58 +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: - Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: The corresponding changes to debian/control, debian/source/*, debian/compat and debian/rules have all been reverted. The changes that were correct and agreed to *have been merged*, as I said - one or two were incorrect, not reviewed and (Anibal will agree I'm sure) shouldn't have been patched in. Do you have any actual functional regression you see here, or are we just arguing for the sake of it at this point? There's plenty of other sheds in need of painting... cheers. -- Nathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1230029080.1474081285830629476.javamail.r...@mail-au.aconex.com
Re: Freeze exception request for xfsprogs-3.1.3
- Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote: The readline dependency has also been reverted. Re-opening the affected bug. OK, great - more time wasted - can you close that now please? (and add this comment below, if you really to want to help? ... thanks) Upstream have explicitly requested not to link with that as xfsprogs is gplv2 only, and not gplv3. It should never have been changed, as Anibal now knows (didn't at the time) - you can search the xfs mailing list for references discussion. thanks. -- Nathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/943693270.1475831285832037934.javamail.r...@mail-au.aconex.com
Re: Freeze exception request for xfsprogs-3.1.3
Hey all, - Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: On Thu, September 30, 2010 08:10, Nathan Scott wrote: The changes that were correct and agreed to *have been merged*, as I said - one or two were incorrect, not reviewed and (Anibal will agree I'm sure) shouldn't have been patched in. You said there were no changes, not that there were no changes other than those which had previously been agreed to somewhere we weren't privy to; it wasn't at all obvious from your original mail or reviewing the diff that the reversion was intentional. Apologies there, I should have been more clear in truth, it was many weeks back that 3.1.3 was uploaded and some of these changes I'd forgotten about (but all remain valid were made with the best of intentions). I like to think we're all on the same side here ... as the guy who's being maintaining this package for 7/8 years now, I still would like to push, on behalf of the users who've contacted me requesting it, for xfsprogs-3.1.3 to be let through into this release. In any case, I do have a query on one of the source changes: That'd be part of a bug fix - x...@oss.sgi.com is the right place to discuss that if you have concerns there, thanks! Thanks for the input, all round. I appreciate that some of us have different opinions on some things discussed here, I think we'll have to continue to be in disagreement on a few of these things. cheers. -- Nathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1219244933.1480261285882202201.javamail.r...@mail-au.aconex.com
Freeze exception request for xfsprogs-3.1.3
Hi all, I've had some user requests for this - would it be possible to allow the xfsprogs-3.1.3 from unstable (for awhile now), which fixes #593320, to replace the xfsprogs-3.1.2 currently in testing? cheers. -- Nathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2005622152.1447421285802748568.javamail.r...@mail-au.aconex.com
Re: Freeze exception request for xfsprogs-3.1.3
- Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org wrote: Quoting Nathan Scott (nath...@debian.org): While at it, may you consider #144876? Its not relevent here, where we're discussing fixing actual bugs, and should definately not change at this stage (if at all, and I remain unconvinced). cheers. -- Nathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/876117475.1465081285820365220.javamail.r...@mail-au.aconex.com
Re: Upcoming freeze-exceptions: acl sane-backends
- Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org wrote: On 23/08/2010 19:52, Julien BLACHE wrote: Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote: Hi, Ping? #590240 is still open, I thought that was a prerequisite... Yes, indeed, it is. So a new version of acl would be OK for the release team? Nathan, what's the status on your end? Any news? I left it in Anibals capable hands, incl. patch to fix it. Not sure whats happened, appears to have fallen though the cracks... Anibal? cheers. -- Nathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1053136819.1162771285019449267.javamail.r...@mail-au.aconex.com
Re: overriding freeze to get xfsprogs 2.9.7-1 into testing?
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 09:56 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: Please hold them until Beta1 is out... ... It's being held since it builds udebs and we're finishing the d-i Beta1 release right now. The urgent problem being fixed by this upload is in mkfs.xfs, which is in the .udeb, and it directly affects the installer; so it would be really good to get this into that d-i beta1 release if at all possible. thanks! -- Nathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: overriding freeze to get xfsprogs 2.9.7-1 into testing?
Hi Jay, I hadn't asked - thanks for prodding me. If this is possible at this stage, I would wholeheartedly support it (I did not actually realise xfsprogs had been held up - apologies!). cheers. On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 21:12 -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: Nathan, I was wondering whether you had asked debian-release about overriding the freeze on xfsprogs to get 2.9.7-1 into lenny. I noticed today that, on my lenny system with a 2.6.22 kernel, I couldn't mount newly created xfs file systems. I read through bug 465737 and found the workaround (-l lazy-count=0) which solves my immediate problem, and I also see that you uploaded 2.9.7-1 to sid with urgency high on 2/29. However, it has not transitioned to testing: * 15 days old (needed 2 days) * Not touching package, as requested by freeze (contact debian-release if update is needed) * Updating xfsprogs fixes old bugs: #465737 * Not considered Have you contacted debian-release to request an override of the freeze? Right now, the package is unusable in lenny, and this seems like a good enough reason to force the new version to transition. A quick search of the debian-release archive didn't turn anything up, but sorry if I overlooked it. You'll notice I've cc'ed debian-release on this email, but I don't want to ask myself since it's someone else's package. Thanks! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
