Bug#830871: marked as done (release.debian.org: missing hints file 'freeze')
Your message dated Sun, 17 Jul 2016 06:12:00 + with message-id <077ecd96-5b27-5ec8-8824-2acf7b73d...@thykier.net> and subject line Re: release.debian.org: missing hints file 'freeze' has caused the Debian Bug report #830871, regarding release.debian.org: missing hints file 'freeze' 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.) -- 830871: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830871 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Hi, On https://release.debian.org/britney/hints/ there's a link to a 'freeze' file, but that link doesn't work (404 error). This breaks UDD's hints importer. Full IRC log from #debian-release: 13:31 < lucas> hi 13:31 < lucas> on https://release.debian.org/britney/hints/ there's a link to a "freeze" file 13:31 < lucas> that is missing 13:31 < lucas> could you create an empty file? alternatively, I could make UDD ignore the failure, or ignore that file, but both seem error-prone for the future 13:34 < pochu> that's a symlink, which explains the 404 14:12 < jcristau> what does udd use that for? 14:14 < lucas> jcristau: UDD fetches release team hints. they are displayed, for example, in https://udd.debian.org/bugs/?release=stretch_not_sid=ign=7=1=id=asc=1=1=1=1#results 14:16 < jcristau> would excuses.yaml be enough for that? 14:18 < lucas> I don't think so. the goal was to detect missing hints, for example. also, it worked until recently (and still works for other hints), so I'd prefer to restore the old behaviour 14:19 < adsb> it worked until release became a separate machine from ftp-master and as a side-effect now has the web content served from static.d.o rather than directly from the release host. so symlinks to stuff outside of www/ don't work - Lucas -- System Information: Debian Release: stretch/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'stable-updates'), (400, 'stable'), (300, 'unstable'), (150, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386, armhf Kernel: Linux 4.6.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:44:12 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org> wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > > Hi, > > On https://release.debian.org/britney/hints/ there's a link to a > 'freeze' file, but that link doesn't work (404 error). > > This breaks UDD's hints importer. > > Full IRC log from #debian-release: > [...] > > - Lucas > > [...] Thanks for reporting. This issue has now been fixed. :) Thanks, ~Niels--- End Message ---
Bug#830871: release.debian.org: missing hints file 'freeze'
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Hi, On https://release.debian.org/britney/hints/ there's a link to a 'freeze' file, but that link doesn't work (404 error). This breaks UDD's hints importer. Full IRC log from #debian-release: 13:31 < lucas> hi 13:31 < lucas> on https://release.debian.org/britney/hints/ there's a link to a "freeze" file 13:31 < lucas> that is missing 13:31 < lucas> could you create an empty file? alternatively, I could make UDD ignore the failure, or ignore that file, but both seem error-prone for the future 13:34 < pochu> that's a symlink, which explains the 404 14:12 < jcristau> what does udd use that for? 14:14 < lucas> jcristau: UDD fetches release team hints. they are displayed, for example, in https://udd.debian.org/bugs/?release=stretch_not_sid=ign=7=1=id=asc=1=1=1=1#results 14:16 < jcristau> would excuses.yaml be enough for that? 14:18 < lucas> I don't think so. the goal was to detect missing hints, for example. also, it worked until recently (and still works for other hints), so I'd prefer to restore the old behaviour 14:19 < adsb> it worked until release became a separate machine from ftp-master and as a side-effect now has the web content served from static.d.o rather than directly from the release host. so symlinks to stuff outside of www/ don't work - Lucas -- System Information: Debian Release: stretch/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'stable-updates'), (400, 'stable'), (300, 'unstable'), (150, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386, armhf Kernel: Linux 4.6.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
Bug#805825: Please add some hints for hdf5
On 08/12/15 17:12, Andreas Tille wrote: > it would be great if you could add the hints for hdf5 to enable > migration of netcdf and libsis-jhdf5-java to testing. The strict dependencies in hdf5 libs prevent smooth transitions: libhdf5-cpp-10 depends on libhdf5-10 (= 1.8.15-patch1+docs-5) libhdf5-cpp-11 depends on libhdf5-10 (= 1.8.16+docs-1) That means libhdf5-cpp-10 and libhdf5-cpp-11 can't coexist in testing, which means no smooth update. Now, I requested a decruft of the old libs from unstable, so the lot would migrate if all the rdeps migrated as well at the same time. However, blasr doesn't migrate because it has a new version which isn't built in a few arches. I have opened a bug about that, and will remove it from testing in a few days if there are no news, then hdf5 et al should go in. @Gilles: loosing the libhdf5-cpp-11 dependency on libhdf5-10 would be nice to avoid this in the future. Cheers, Emilio
Bug#805825: Please add some hints for hdf5
Hi, it would be great if you could add the hints for hdf5 to enable migration of netcdf and libsis-jhdf5-java to testing. Kind regards and thanks for your work as release team Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#656144: marked as done (hint: "clean" does not properly check arch-specific hints)
Your message dated Fri, 06 Nov 2015 12:27:24 + with message-id <1446812844.2080.8.ca...@adam-barratt.org.uk> and subject line Re: Bug#656144: hint: "clean" does not properly check arch-specific hints has caused the Debian Bug report #656144, regarding hint: "clean" does not properly check arch-specific hints 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.) -- 656144: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=656144 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: release.debian.org User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: tools hint's "clean" action only takes account of source versions when deciding whether a migration hint has been completed. For instance, if one has a hint for pushing armhf and s390x packages - e.g. "force-hint foo/armhf/1.2 foo/s390x/1.2" - then a subsequent "hint clean" invocation will move the hint below finished, because foo 1.2 is in testing. This is, at least imho, unhelpful, particularly if one doesn't notice that the cleaning has taken place before the britney run in which the hint was intended to take effect. Adam --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 21:09 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > hint's "clean" action only takes account of source versions when > deciding whether a migration hint has been completed. > > For instance, if one has a hint for pushing armhf and s390x packages - > e.g. "force-hint foo/armhf/1.2 foo/s390x/1.2" - then a subsequent "hint > clean" invocation will move the hint below finished, because foo 1.2 is > in testing. This is, at least imho, unhelpful, particularly if one > doesn't notice that the cleaning has taken place before the britney run > in which the hint was intended to take effect. I've fixed this. Regards, Adam--- End Message ---
Hints for d-i jessie RC4
Hi people, here's a single round of unblock/unblock-udeb/urgent hints for the upcoming d-i upload. It's what we would normally either call RC4 or final or something like this, but I don't think it makes sense to announce it separately. Announcing Jessie is way better. ;) For those on #debian-release, the plan is to have a manual britney run in a few minutes so that we don't wait some extra hours to have these packages in testing. # fix d-i on many arm* platforms (#783019): unblock oldsys-preseed/3.16 unblock-udeb oldsys-preseed/3.16 urgent oldsys-preseed/3.16 # l10n-only: unblock console-setup/1.123 unblock-udeb console-setup/1.123 urgent console-setup/1.123 # l10n-only: unblock grub-installer/1.117 unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.117 urgent grub-installer/1.117 Thanks for your time. Mraw, KiBi. -- 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/20150422115224.gb16...@mraw.org
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC4
On 2015-04-22 12:52, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hi people, here's a single round of unblock/unblock-udeb/urgent hints for the upcoming d-i upload. It's what we would normally either call RC4 or final or something like this, but I don't think it makes sense to announce it separately. Announcing Jessie is way better. ;) All added. For those on #debian-release, the plan is to have a manual britney run in a few minutes so that we don't wait some extra hours to have these packages in testing. That's done, and the three packages are now in testing (pending dinstall so that the mirrors being used by the buildds know that). Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/b5f68f3b96a763a0764042b8eebcb...@mowgli.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 5
On 2015-04-18 12:00, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org (2015-04-18): Cyril Brulebois, le Sat 18 Apr 2015 04:57:35 +0200, a écrit : All are in, including installation-guide; thanks everyone! Mmm, brltty didn't make it, it's waiting for 2 days. No it's not, there's a urgent hint for that. The missing armel build is an issue though. I've mentioned it on #debian-buildd, got no replies, and tried a give back, with no luck. Apr 18 10:53:13 brltty_5.2~20141018-5_armel.changes processed successfully (uploader buildd_armel-arn...@buildd.debian.org) Needed to delete the partial upload on the FTP server (FTP is so terrible) and reupload. Kind regards Philipp Kern -- 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/b5feda3692264a32e5f46ed3548bd...@hub.kern.lc
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 5
Cyril Brulebois, le Sat 18 Apr 2015 04:57:35 +0200, a écrit : All are in, including installation-guide; thanks everyone! Mmm, brltty didn't make it, it's waiting for 2 days. Samuel -- 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/20150418095042.gr3...@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 5
Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org (2015-04-18): Cyril Brulebois, le Sat 18 Apr 2015 04:57:35 +0200, a écrit : All are in, including installation-guide; thanks everyone! Mmm, brltty didn't make it, it's waiting for 2 days. No it's not, there's a urgent hint for that. The missing armel build is an issue though. I've mentioned it on #debian-buildd, got no replies, and tried a give back, with no luck. That, and the systemd thing, look like we're going to re-upload d-i just before 8.0… Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 5
Cyril Brulebois, le Sat 18 Apr 2015 12:00:32 +0200, a écrit : Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org (2015-04-18): Cyril Brulebois, le Sat 18 Apr 2015 04:57:35 +0200, a écrit : All are in, including installation-guide; thanks everyone! Mmm, brltty didn't make it, it's waiting for 2 days. No it's not, there's a urgent hint for that. Ah, ok, I hadn't properly understood Too young, but urgency pushed on the qa page. The missing armel build is an issue though. Right. Thanks, Samuel -- 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/20150418100900.gs3...@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 5
Ivo De Decker iv...@debian.org (2015-04-17): As noted on irc: when there are no new lines in dmesg, the timestamp is empty, and on the next run, the entire dmesg is used. This is probably still better than what was done before, so added the hints anyway. Good catch, thanks. Documented in a bug report before I got your reply. :) All added. Thanks! Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 5
Cyril Brulebois, le Fri 17 Apr 2015 19:52:07 +0200, a écrit : here's a fifth (and hopefully last) round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC3. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. I've added urgents this time, to meet the timeline I've proposed (https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2015/04/msg00264.html). Doesn't installation-guide need a hint too? Samuel -- 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/20150417183316.ga7...@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 5
Hi, On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 07:55:35PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2015-04-17): # improve firmware support, avoiding loops (#779546); just uploaded, # hopefully builds will be there on time: unblock hw-detect/1.108 unblock-udeb hw-detect/1.108 urgent hw-detect/1.108 As noted on irc: when there are no new lines in dmesg, the timestamp is empty, and on the next run, the entire dmesg is used. This is probably still better than what was done before, so added the hints anyway. # stop polluting /etc/fstab with USB things: unblock partman-target/96 unblock-udeb partman-target/96 urgent partman-target/96 # l10n-only: unblock console-setup/1.122 unblock-udeb console-setup/1.122 urgent console-setup/1.122 # l10n-only: unblock partman-crypto/81 unblock-udeb partman-crypto/81 urgent partman-crypto/81 # l10n-only unblock tasksel/3.31 urgent tasksel/3.31 And since there were people caring about it (thanks!), it wasn't on my todo-list and I forgot to mention it: # doc doc doc! unblock installation-guide/20150417 urgent installation-guide/20150417 All added. Cheers, Ivo -- 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/20150417182714.ga29...@ugent.be
Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 5
Hi people, here's a fifth (and hopefully last) round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC3. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. I've added urgents this time, to meet the timeline I've proposed (https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2015/04/msg00264.html). There's also the brltty unblock request dealt with in #782743. From a few follow-ups on debian-accessibility@, it looks like the situation isn't ideal yet, but I suppose not hanging is better than hanging, so keeping the hints Ivo has in place is probably OK; Cc-ing Samuel and his unblock bug report to make sure. I'm quite unhappy with my only having looked at the firmware thing today but live tests seem quite encouraging and I feel that giving this more user exposure before 8.0 is the right thing to do at this point. (I've uploaded most of these packages, you may want to make sure I didn't screw up my self-review.) # improve firmware support, avoiding loops (#779546); just uploaded, # hopefully builds will be there on time: unblock hw-detect/1.108 unblock-udeb hw-detect/1.108 urgent hw-detect/1.108 # stop polluting /etc/fstab with USB things: unblock partman-target/96 unblock-udeb partman-target/96 urgent partman-target/96 # l10n-only: unblock console-setup/1.122 unblock-udeb console-setup/1.122 urgent console-setup/1.122 # l10n-only: unblock partman-crypto/81 unblock-udeb partman-crypto/81 urgent partman-crypto/81 # l10n-only unblock tasksel/3.31 urgent tasksel/3.31 Thanks for your time. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 5
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2015-04-17): # improve firmware support, avoiding loops (#779546); just uploaded, # hopefully builds will be there on time: unblock hw-detect/1.108 unblock-udeb hw-detect/1.108 urgent hw-detect/1.108 # stop polluting /etc/fstab with USB things: unblock partman-target/96 unblock-udeb partman-target/96 urgent partman-target/96 # l10n-only: unblock console-setup/1.122 unblock-udeb console-setup/1.122 urgent console-setup/1.122 # l10n-only: unblock partman-crypto/81 unblock-udeb partman-crypto/81 urgent partman-crypto/81 # l10n-only unblock tasksel/3.31 urgent tasksel/3.31 And since there were people caring about it (thanks!), it wasn't on my todo-list and I forgot to mention it: # doc doc doc! unblock installation-guide/20150417 urgent installation-guide/20150417 Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 5
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2015-04-17): Hi people, here's a fifth (and hopefully last) round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC3. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. I've added urgents this time, to meet the timeline I've proposed (https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2015/04/msg00264.html). There's also the brltty unblock request dealt with in #782743. From a few follow-ups on debian-accessibility@, it looks like the situation isn't ideal yet, but I suppose not hanging is better than hanging, so keeping the hints Ivo has in place is probably OK; Cc-ing Samuel and his unblock bug report to make sure. I'm quite unhappy with my only having looked at the firmware thing today but live tests seem quite encouraging and I feel that giving this more user exposure before 8.0 is the right thing to do at this point. (I've uploaded most of these packages, you may want to make sure I didn't screw up my self-review.) # improve firmware support, avoiding loops (#779546); just uploaded, # hopefully builds will be there on time: unblock hw-detect/1.108 unblock-udeb hw-detect/1.108 urgent hw-detect/1.108 # stop polluting /etc/fstab with USB things: unblock partman-target/96 unblock-udeb partman-target/96 urgent partman-target/96 # l10n-only: unblock console-setup/1.122 unblock-udeb console-setup/1.122 urgent console-setup/1.122 # l10n-only: unblock partman-crypto/81 unblock-udeb partman-crypto/81 urgent partman-crypto/81 # l10n-only unblock tasksel/3.31 urgent tasksel/3.31 All are in, including installation-guide; thanks everyone! Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 3
Hi, On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 02:26:22AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: here's a third round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC3. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. I've added urgents this time, to meet the timeline I've proposed (https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2015/04/msg00264.html). All added. Cheers, Ivo -- 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/20150414161626.gc20...@ugent.be
Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 4
Hi people, here's a forth round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC3. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. I've added urgents this time, to meet the timeline I've proposed (https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2015/04/msg00264.html). (I've uploaded all of these packages, you may want to make sure I didn't screw up my self-review.) # stop enabling backports by default: unblock apt-setup/1:0.97 unblock-udeb apt-setup/1:0.97 urgent apt-setup/1:0.97 # update mirror list (including httpredir.d.o, yay): unblock choose-mirror/2.62 unblock-udeb choose-mirror/2.62 urgent choose-mirror/2.62 # l10n-only unblock partconf/1.47 unblock-udeb partconf/1.47 urgent partconf/1.47 # l10n-only unblock s390-netdevice/0.0.37 unblock-udeb s390-netdevice/0.0.37 urgent s390-netdevice/0.0.37 Thanks for your time. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 4
Ivo De Decker iv...@debian.org (2015-04-15): On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:47:40PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: here's a forth round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC3. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. I've added urgents this time, to meet the timeline I've proposed (https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2015/04/msg00264.html). (I've uploaded all of these packages, you may want to make sure I didn't screw up my self-review.) I didn't spot any issues, so added them all. Thank you very much (for this round and before). Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 4
Hi, On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:47:40PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: here's a forth round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC3. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. I've added urgents this time, to meet the timeline I've proposed (https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2015/04/msg00264.html). (I've uploaded all of these packages, you may want to make sure I didn't screw up my self-review.) I didn't spot any issues, so added them all. Cheers, Ivo -- 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/20150414220553.ga15...@ugent.be
Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 3
Hi people, here's a third round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC3. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. I've added urgents this time, to meet the timeline I've proposed (https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2015/04/msg00264.html). # l10n-only: unblock base-installer/1.154 unblock-udeb base-installer/1.154 urgent base-installer/1.154 # l10n-only: unblock console-setup/1.121 unblock-udeb console-setup/1.121 urgent console-setup/1.121 # usual lot of fixes with a new release. Checked on IRC, Ben is fine # with not waiting more (only one reported-but-not-a-showstopper # regression); mips build missing at the time of this writing: unblock linux/3.16.7-ckt9-2 unblock-udeb linux/3.16.7-ckt9-2 urgent linux/3.16.7-ckt9-2 # no objections because it's thpethial: unblock-udeb live-installer/49 # fix booting issues (#782279): unblock nobootloader/1.45 unblock-udeb nobootloader/1.45 urgent nobootloader/1.45 # l10n-only: unblock partitioner/0.55 unblock-udeb partitioner/0.55 urgent partitioner/0.55 # l10n-only: unblock partman-base/184 unblock-udeb partman-base/184 urgent partman-base/184 # just quicker than ivodd's age-days: urgent partman-basicfilesystems/113 # l10n-only: unblock user-setup/1.61 unblock-udeb user-setup/1.61 urgent user-setup/1.61 Thanks for your time. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 3
Quoting Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org): Hi people, here's a third round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC3. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. I've added urgents this time, to meet the timeline I've proposed (https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2015/04/msg00264.html). I alkso have Yet Another console-setup upload (1.122) that should come for Yet Another l10n update (Croatian, this time) for two strings Of course, I'm first waiting for 1.121 to enter testing before uploading and, if an unblock can happen, that's fineand if that's not possible, the world won't fall apart. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 2
Ivo De Decker wrote: On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:09:13PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: # no objections for d-i (kfreebsd-specific), but please check with BSD # guys (cc'd) before the matching unblock: unblock-udeb kfreebsd-10/10.1~svn274115-4 Added all of these. For kfreebsd, the unblock is still needed. Please feel free to unblock, it has security fixes only. Thanks, Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150412133415.ga92...@pyro.eu.org
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 2
Hi, On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 02:34:42PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: Added all of these. For kfreebsd, the unblock is still needed. Please feel free to unblock, it has security fixes only. Unblocked. Cheers, Ivo -- 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/20150412195935.gb15...@ugent.be
Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 2
Hi people, here's a second round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC3. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. Feel free to age packages if you wish. Also, I've seen the linux upload but I won't have time to play with until after the mini DebConf in Lyon. # l10n only: unblock apt-setup/1:0.96 unblock-udeb apt-setup/1:0.96 # fix for fsck: unblock clock-setup/0.123 unblock-udeb clock-setup/0.123 # l10n only: unblock grub-installer/1.116 unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.116 # no objections for d-i (kfreebsd-specific), but please check with BSD # guys (cc'd) before the matching unblock: unblock-udeb kfreebsd-10/10.1~svn274115-4 # l10n only: unblock partman-basicfilesystems/112 unblock-udeb partman-basicfilesystems/112 # l10n only: unblock partman-crypto/80 unblock-udeb partman-crypto/80 # l10n only: unblock partman-efi/67 unblock-udeb partman-efi/67 # l10n only: unblock partman-iscsi/36 unblock-udeb partman-iscsi/36 # l10n only, version bumped compared to adsb's hint file: unblock partman-lvm/107 unblock-udeb partman-lvm/107 # l10n only: unblock partman-zfs/45 unblock-udeb partman-zfs/45 # l10n only: unblock rescue/1.51 unblock-udeb rescue/1.51 # fix for powerpc: unblock rootskel/1.110 unblock-udeb rootskel/1.110 # l10n only: unblock tzsetup/1:0.66 unblock-udeb tzsetup/1:0.66 # needed to get more hardware support: # (Seen with Karsten Merker: the removed patch seems to be a stray file # left over from when the submitted patch got merged under a different # filename; Vagrant cc'd to make sure.) unblock u-boot/2014.10+dfsg1-5 Thanks for your time. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 1
Hi people, here's a first round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC3. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. Please note that some are just unblock (installation-guide) or just unblock-udeb (systemd) and that doesn't count as fishy (despite `date`). # l10n only: unblock apt-setup/1:0.95 unblock-udeb apt-setup/1:0.95 # l10n only: unblock console-setup/1.120 unblock-udeb console-setup/1.120 # l10n only: unblock grub-installer/1.114 unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.114 # UEFI quirks: unblock grub2/2.02~beta2-22 unblock-udeb grub2/2.02~beta2-22 # doc: unblock installation-guide/20150323 # not directly exposed through regular d-i, so no objections: unblock-udeb ltsp/5.5.4-4 # stateful IPv6 addressing: unblock netcfg/1.131 unblock-udeb netcfg/1.131 # l10n only: unblock partman-basicfilesystems/111 unblock-udeb partman-basicfilesystems/111 # l10n only: unblock partman-crypto/79 unblock-udeb partman-crypto/79 # l10n only: unblock partman-iscsi/35 unblock-udeb partman-iscsi/35 # l10n only: unblock partman-lvm/106 unblock-udeb partman-lvm/106 # l10n only: unblock partman-zfs/44 unblock-udeb partman-zfs/44 # l10n only: unblock rescue/1.50 unblock-udeb rescue/1.50 # not reviewed thoroughly, but I like what it says on the changebox: unblock-udeb systemd/215-14 # l10n only: unblock tzsetup/1:0.65 unblock-udeb tzsetup/1:0.65 Thanks for your time. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC3, part 1
On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 20:02 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: here's a first round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC3. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. Please note that some are just unblock (installation-guide) or just unblock-udeb (systemd) and that doesn't count as fishy (despite `date`). All added. I'll poke at the -udeb only packages. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1427915006.622.3.ca...@adam-barratt.org.uk
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 3
On 2015-03-19 03:09, Cyril Brulebois wrote: [...] Thank you. Could we get those added as well please? # fix for nasty bug #778773: unblock partman-base/183 unblock-udeb partman-base/183 # no objection from d-i PoV at first glance: unblock-udeb openssh/1:6.7p1-4 Ack, approved these as well. That one might be nice to get rid of for the time being, given the current status in [1,2]: unblock partman-target/94 [...] Mraw, KiBi. Ok, I have changed the unblock to a block it to make it clear that it has been reviewed. ~Niels -- 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/550a708f.7030...@thykier.net
Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 3
Hi, here's another list of stuff that would be nice to unblock. Feel free to urgent anything (from this list or from the previous ones), so that we don't get previous hints obsoleted. # update master list + l10n: unblock choose-mirror/2.61 unblock-udeb choose-mirror/2.61 # l10n: unblock clock-setup/0.122 unblock-udeb clock-setup/0.122 # l10n: unblock console-setup/1.119 unblock-udeb console-setup/1.119: # l10n: unblock grub-installer/1.113 unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.113 # small bugfix: unblock netcfg/1.130 unblock-udeb netcfg/1.130 # l10n: unblock partman-iscsi/34 unblock-udeb partman-iscsi/34 # l10n: unblock partman-partitioning/108 unblock-udeb partman-partitioning/108 # for kfreebsd: unblock partman-zfs/43 unblock-udeb partman-zfs/43 # l10n: unblock rescue/1.49 unblock-udeb rescue/1.49 Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 3
On 2015-03-18 16:25, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hi, here's another list of stuff that would be nice to unblock. Feel free to urgent anything (from this list or from the previous ones), so that we don't get previous hints obsoleted. [...] Mraw, KiBi. Unblocked, thanks. ~Niels -- 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/5509be0b.6070...@thykier.net
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 3
Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net (2015-03-18): On 2015-03-18 16:25, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hi, here's another list of stuff that would be nice to unblock. Feel free to urgent anything (from this list or from the previous ones), so that we don't get previous hints obsoleted. [...] Mraw, KiBi. Unblocked, thanks. Thank you. Could we get those added as well please? # fix for nasty bug #778773: unblock partman-base/183 unblock-udeb partman-base/183 # no objection from d-i PoV at first glance: unblock-udeb openssh/1:6.7p1-4 That one might be nice to get rid of for the time being, given the current status in [1,2]: unblock partman-target/94 1. https://bugs.debian.org/779075 2. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=761815#57 Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 2
### l10n + one compiler pacification: wrt l10n, I'm left with two packages now: - choose-mirror, which I have trouble compiling, no idea why. Notice that I tried to update its embarked Mirrors.masterlist, which is something we probably want for Jessie - console-setup that had some more translation updates since 1.118, but which I didn't upload yesterday in order to not break the existing unblock request. Once 1.118 enters testing, I might upload 1.119: if there's time enough, it would be good to have it in testingbut this is certainly not a blocker. Don't wait for it. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 2
Hi, Ivo De Decker iv...@debian.org (2015-03-10): On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 09:22:13PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: The rest is (almost) only about l10n. All unblocked. Most of them are urgency low, I can age them if you want. Thanks. No need to urgent them, I'll do so if/when they become a blocker for RC2, once other things are ready. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 2
Hi, here's another list of unblock and/or unblock-udeb for d-i. Please note that I'm only not-objecting to lvm2, I didn't extensively review it. Ben also mentioned initramfs-tools past week, which you might want to consider. I've added Ben to Cc so that he can comment on both as appropriate. The rest is (almost) only about l10n. ### RC bugfix, no objection on the d-i side: unblock-udeb lvm2/2.02.111-2.1 ### l10n + one compiler pacification: unblock netcfg/1.129 unblock-udeb netcfg/1.129 ### l10n only (if I got my copy-paste's right): unblock apt-setup/1:0.94 unblock-udeb apt-setup/1:0.94 unblock base-installer/1.153 unblock-udeb base-installer/1.153 unblock cdrom-detect/1.49 unblock-udeb cdrom-detect/1.49 unblock debian-installer-utils/1.110 unblock-udeb debian-installer-utils/1.110 unblock finish-install/2.56 unblock-udeb finish-install/2.56 unblock grub-installer/1.112 unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.112 unblock hw-detect/1.107 unblock-udeb hw-detect/1.107 unblock installation-report/2.58 unblock-udeb installation-report/2.58 unblock live-installer/48 unblock-udeb live-installer/48 unblock localechooser/2.64 unblock-udeb localechooser/2.64 unblock partman-auto/126 unblock-udeb partman-auto/126 unblock partman-basicfilesystems/110 unblock-udeb partman-basicfilesystems/110 unblock partman-efi/65 unblock-udeb partman-efi/65 unblock pkgsel/0.43 unblock-udeb pkgsel/0.43 unblock tzsetup/1:0.64 unblock-udeb tzsetup/1:0.64 unblock user-setup/1.60 unblock-udeb user-setup/1.60 Thanks for your time! Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 2
Hi, On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 09:22:13PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: here's another list of unblock and/or unblock-udeb for d-i. Please note that I'm only not-objecting to lvm2, I didn't extensively review it. I unblocked it. Ben, is there a specific reason you didn't include the fix for #778828? Ben also mentioned initramfs-tools past week, which you might want to consider. I've added Ben to Cc so that he can comment on both as appropriate. It looks like this version of initramfs-tools should fix all the pending issues, so I unblocked it. The rest is (almost) only about l10n. All unblocked. Most of them are urgency low, I can age them if you want. Cheers, Ivo -- 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/20150309231320.ga23...@ugent.be
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 2
On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 00:13 +0100, Ivo De Decker wrote: Hi, On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 09:22:13PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: here's another list of unblock and/or unblock-udeb for d-i. Please note that I'm only not-objecting to lvm2, I didn't extensively review it. I unblocked it. Ben, is there a specific reason you didn't include the fix for #778828? No, I just didn't think to look for other RC bugs. Ben also mentioned initramfs-tools past week, which you might want to consider. I've added Ben to Cc so that he can comment on both as appropriate. It looks like this version of initramfs-tools should fix all the pending issues, so I unblocked it. [...] Just to make sure you're clear about what's changing: most of the bugs fixed in 0.119 were regressions in 0.117 that do not currently affect testing. So, ignoring those, the key changes from 0.116 to 0.119 are: * Mount /usr if present in the /etc/fstab on the mounted rootfs (Closes: #652459) * init: Only mount /usr if the real init is systemd * Check filesystems prior to mounting (Closes: #708000) * local: Call local-block boot scripts to prepare additional block devices All the above changes should reduce the risk of regressions when switching to systemd and using a separate /usr. (Not that we don't have any problems with initscripts and a separate /usr, but I think systemd manages to be more aggressive in parallelising boot.) * local: Invoke local-block scripts from the loop in local_device_setup (Closes: #678696) Together with the lvm2 change and earlier changes to cryptsetup, this fixes a longstanding limitation in device discovery that made boot unreliable for configurations such as LVM or LUKS on USB storage. * hook-functions: Add modules for various important device types (Closes: #762042) This is needed for booting on some ARM platforms. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans. - John Lennon signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 1
Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org (2015-03-08): On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hi people, here's a first round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC2. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. Cyril, Would it be possible also to unblock ndisc6 in time for RC2? I saw no problems in my test installs (bug #778492), but I guess it could be good to get wider testing before the final jessie d-i. Your reply is still marked as flagged locally, but my first assessment was your patch was a no-op (same results with jessie and sid). IOW: I'm not sure the tests confirm the bug fix. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 1
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hi people, here's a first round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC2. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. Cyril, Would it be possible also to unblock ndisc6 in time for RC2? I saw no problems in my test installs (bug #778492), but I guess it could be good to get wider testing before the final jessie d-i. Best wishes, Mike -- 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/CANTw=mn3uasvke2kiz5bn65-+atgwxev1zp3u_nfrghromn...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 1
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 14:21 +0100, Karsten Merker wrote: I have just looked at the migration status for linux 3.16.7-ckt7-1 at https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/linux: * 5 days old (needed 5 days) * Not touching package due to block-udeb request by freeze (check https://release.debian.org/jessie/freeze_policy.html if update is needed) * Ignoring block request by freeze, due to unblock request by nthykier * Not considered This looks like an unblock has been set, but an unblock-udeb is missing. It's not missing, it's waiting for confirmation. See #779945. This is a common case for packages that produce udebs as there's a (variable) period between when the package is unblocked and when the d-i RM confirms they're happy for the unblock-udeb hint to be added. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1425736124.12031.10.ca...@adam-barratt.org.uk
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 1
Karsten Merker mer...@debian.org (2015-03-06): On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 07:07:27AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hi people, here's a first round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC2. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. Hello, could you please also include an unblock and an unblock-udeb for flash-kernel 3.33? The only difference to the version 3.32 in Jessie is an additional machine db entry; there are no code changes: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/d-i/flash-kernel.git/commit/?id=55968684c38421a812bf7f4579a48984aa655421 Certainly. I've just added those: # 2015-03-06 unblock console-setup/1.118 unblock-udeb console-setup/1.118 # 2015-03-06 unblock flash-kernel/3.33 unblock-udeb flash-kernel/3.33 urgent flash-kernel/3.33 Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 1
Cyril Brulebois, le Thu 05 Mar 2015 07:07:27 +0100, a écrit : here's a first round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC2. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. Can we also perhaps unblock tasksel/3.30? It removes old dependencies, fixes desktop preseeding and fixes accessibility of libreoffice. Samuel -- 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/20150305083102.gm2...@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 1
On 2015-03-05 12:16, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org (2015-03-05): Cyril Brulebois, le Thu 05 Mar 2015 07:07:27 +0100, a écrit : here's a first round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC2. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. Can we also perhaps unblock tasksel/3.30? It removes old dependencies, fixes desktop preseeding and fixes accessibility of libreoffice. Sure, no objections. Mraw, KiBi. Ok, added an unblock for tasksel/3.30 as well. ~Niels -- 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/54f86053.8040...@thykier.net
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 1
Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org (2015-03-05): Cyril Brulebois, le Thu 05 Mar 2015 07:07:27 +0100, a écrit : here's a first round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC2. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. Can we also perhaps unblock tasksel/3.30? It removes old dependencies, fixes desktop preseeding and fixes accessibility of libreoffice. Sure, no objections. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 1
# various keymap/options/etc. changes: unblock console-setup/1.117 unblock-udeb console-setup/1.117 Crap. I'm just seeing this 5 minutes after uploading 1.118 with 5 more translation updates. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 1
On 2015-03-05 07:07, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hi people, here's a first round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC2. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. Hi, Done all except: [...] # various keymap/options/etc. changes: unblock console-setup/1.117 unblock-udeb console-setup/1.117 [...] Due to the upload of 1.118 (as noted by Christian in a different mail). Thanks for your time. Mraw, KiBi. Thanks, ~Niels -- 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/54f7f70b.40...@thykier.net
Hints for d-i jessie RC2, part 1
Hi people, here's a first round of unblock/unblock-udeb hints for the upcoming d-i jessie RC2. Don't hesitate to ask questions if anything looks fishy. # mainly l10n, plus removal of stray generators/92volatile file unblock apt-setup/1:0.93 unblock-udeb apt-setup/1:0.93 # various keymap/options/etc. changes: unblock console-setup/1.117 unblock-udeb console-setup/1.117 # not strictly needed for the release architectures but shouldn't hurt: unblock debian-ports-archive-keyring/2015.01.28 unblock-udeb debian-ports-archive-keyring/2015.01.28 # fix bug with foreign archs + trivial reproducibility fix unblock debootstrap/1.0.67 unblock-udeb debootstrap/1.0.67 # make grub beep when speakup is used unblock finish-install/2.55 unblock-udeb finish-install/2.55 # support for mixed EFI systems l10n updates unblock grub-installer/1.111 unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.111 # no apparent changes for the udeb, unblocked by nthykier unblock hdparm/9.43-2 unblock-udeb hdparm/9.43-2 # simple bugfix, even if d's output is huge; 0.99 in the archive # matches what's in git, and what's expected for jessie: unblock libdebian-installer/0.99 unblock-udeb libdebian-installer/0.99 # l10n only: unblock media-retriever/1.36 unblock-udeb media-retriever/1.36 # fix serious multipath-udeb breakage (#779579): unblock multipath-tools/0.5.0-6 unblock-udeb multipath-tools/0.5.0-6 # add hardware support: unblock network-console/1.51 unblock-udeb network-console/1.51 # add hardware support: unblock oldsys-preseed/3.15 unblock-udeb oldsys-preseed/3.15 # fix regression due to symlink dance: unblock partman-auto/125 unblock-udeb partman-auto/125 # fix long standing bug with many devices: unblock partman-auto-raid/28 unblock-udeb partman-auto-raid/28 # fix for some EFI systems: unblock partman-efi/64 unblock-udeb partman-efi/64 # adjustment for small partitions: unblock partman-lvm/105 unblock-udeb partman-lvm/105 # ditto: unblock partman-md/74 unblock-udeb partman-md/74 # l10n only: unblock rescue/1.48 unblock-udeb rescue/1.48 # l10n only: unblock user-setup/1.59 unblock-udeb user-setup/1.59 # l10n only: unblock yaboot-installer/1.1.34 unblock-udeb yaboot-installer/1.1.34 Thanks for your time. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
From aa57d3cc600de9d9ff3e318dc4beed33cfcfd9f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:29:36 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Document the jessie branching. --- debian/changelog | 8 +++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog index e78827c..7c18a73 100644 --- a/debian/changelog +++ b/debian/changelog @@ -1,7 +1,13 @@ -busybox (1:1.22.0-10) UNRELEASED; urgency=low +busybox (1:1.22.0-14+deb8u1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low + [ Michael Tokarev ] * lzop-add-overflow-check-CVE-2014-4607.patch (Closes: #768945) + [ Cyril Brulebois ] + * Branch jessie from master to only include the security fix; other changes +between 1:1.22.0-9 and 1:1.22.0-14 are invasive and not needed for jessie. +Cheat a bit with the revision number to avoid bumping the epoch. So you're continuing to ruin my (hard in this case) work, spreading lies (invasive) and confirming you're against others working on debian. That's fine with me too. I can continue maintain local copy of busybox the same way as I did before I took over its maintenance, because in debian it was in *awful* state and mostly unusable. (For the record: all the recent changes I made in busybox is needed for jessie, I especially and carefully selected the minimal set. We had it in broken state for too long.) Thanks, /mjt -- 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/54c71d86.8000...@msgid.tls.msk.ru
Re: Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
(CC'ed in case you guys subscribed to -release. I am subscribed so please no CC) Quoting Michael Tokarev (m...@tls.msk.ru): So you're continuing to ruin my (hard in this case) work, spreading lies (invasive) and confirming you're against others working on debian. Given that Cyril is THE person that currently makes Debian Installer to happen, I would kindly ask you to refrain on such claims, please. You may have disagreements (which I don't share) but please keep the tone low and polite. We have a good release manager for D-I and, believe me, this is hard to find and you probably don't imagine the hard work he has for every release. For people who follow Debian closely, they probably noticed that Cyril obviously went through hard times recently and I felt some kind of demotivation in his mails, sometimes. I would prefer that nobody pushes harder in that direction. So, well, your work on busybox is very highly appreciated and valued. Yes, it was in a bad state and you definitely revived it. We're all deeply thankful for that. That's fine with me too. I can continue maintain local copy of busybox the same way as I did before I took over its maintenance, because in debian it was in *awful* state and mostly unusable. (For the record: all the recent changes I made in busybox is needed for jessie, I especially and carefully selected the minimal set. We had it in broken state for too long.) If these changes are needed for jessie, please follow the Debian release managers guidelines : point which release critical bugs are fixed by these fixes, and aruge with the Release Team about unblocks by providing patches (or just copy/pasting them from git) so that one release manager can make his|her own decision, with the help of Cyril. If that doesn't happen, then you can't hardly complain. Yes that may be a PITA work to do because this is indeed really a mandatory step. This indeed explains why important changes are better done *before* freezes than during freezes. And, yes, sometimes, the timing is not so good, given that all upstreams have their own schedule that doesn't fit Debian's. But we have to live with that. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
27.01.2015 08:59, Christian PERRIER пишет: (CC'ed in case you guys subscribed to -release. I am subscribed so please no CC) Quoting Michael Tokarev (m...@tls.msk.ru): So you're continuing to ruin my (hard in this case) work, spreading lies (invasive) and confirming you're against others working on debian. Given that Cyril is THE person that currently makes Debian Installer to happen, I would kindly ask you to refrain on such claims, please. Yes, I understand full well Cyril's role in the D-I, and I apprecate it and I'm grateful for that. Really. However in this very case, I told exactly what I think and feel. And I stand on my words, because I think it is true and I'm not quite ready to lie yet. Maybe the same can be expressed differently and worded better. Also, the changes in question has nothing to do with the D-I itself, these are minor changes in packaging and build process which result in the same binary as used by d-i previously. So judjing here with D-I hat on is not exactly wise, because the changes don't affect D-I. You may have disagreements (which I don't share) but please keep the tone low and polite. We have a good release manager for D-I and, believe me, this is hard to find and you probably don't imagine the hard work he has for every release. For people who follow Debian closely, they probably noticed that Cyril obviously went through hard times recently and I felt some kind of demotivation in his mails, sometimes. I would prefer that nobody pushes harder in that direction. Agreed 100%. So, well, your work on busybox is very highly appreciated and valued. Yes, it was in a bad state and you definitely revived it. We're all deeply thankful for that. That's fine with me too. I can continue maintain local copy of busybox the same way as I did before I took over its maintenance, because in debian it was in *awful* state and mostly unusable. (For the record: all the recent changes I made in busybox is needed for jessie, I especially and carefully selected the minimal set. We had it in broken state for too long.) If these changes are needed for jessie, please follow the Debian release managers guidelines : point which release critical bugs are fixed by these fixes, and aruge with the Release Team about unblocks by providing patches (or just copy/pasting them from git) so that one release manager can make his|her own decision, with the help of Cyril. That's the exact procedure I followed, after missing the deadline by a few days because I was ill myself, and after a long delay dealing with the static link issue in glibc (#769190). The RC bug has been filed exactly due to that issue with static linking (#768876), so, being ill myself, I rushed to fix it to ensure we wont have the same problem again somewhere else during jessie lifecycle, thinking it is really essential to fix it for jessie. Yes, #768876 is tagged jessie-ignore, but that was just because Aurelien didn't want to add a hard (as it turned out) bug before freeze. And yes it took me several iterations to finally fix it for real. Now, the only questionable difference between testing and what I think must be in testing is this adding of Built-Using field for busybox-static (which does not affect d-i in any way as I mentioned before), and minor changes to the build procedure to stop building arch-all package when only arch-specific build is requested - again, does not affect d-i. While the build changes (arch-all vs arch-specific) aren't exactly essential (it was trivial to fix, I was just tired stumbling upon dpkg warning when rebuilding the package while trying to fix #768876), #768876 itself is essential, well-tested finally, and simple. Yet these (packaging-only) changes are being rejected, and I yet to see a reason for that. And while doing that, maintainer (me) is being pissed off and discoraged from even thinking to work on this package again, *and* much more work is being done to cherry-pick the really-really-necessary changes to fix stupid bugs which are unimportant (because busybox isn't used in debian in environments where these bugs can be triggered). This is unfair and even stupid thing to do, because it is a way to have more work to undo the _necessary_ things and to redo them again in favour of things which actually aren't important. Why do more when we already have enough and the work is already done?? If that doesn't happen, then you can't hardly complain. Yes that may be a PITA work to do because this is indeed really a mandatory step. This indeed explains why important changes are better done *before* freezes than during freezes. And, yes, sometimes, the timing is not so good, given that all upstreams have their own schedule that doesn't fit Debian's. But we have to live with that. Thanks, /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Hi Kibi, On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 01:04:53AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Also, is anything planned for busybox? Or do you want an NMU with just the CVE fix? I had a look a while ago, which resulted in the following local patch (attached); if you can suggest a suitable version number, and if the “let's branch from an older version” looks good to you, I can probably deal with the upload. Thanks. The version number you suggest is fine with me. Shouldn't be a blocker for the release though I guess you mean the d-i release (not the jessie release). (even if I understand that having security fixes in jessie sooner is better than later). Sure, that's exactly my concern. This can obviously happen after the d-i release you're planning today. Cheers, Ivo -- 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/20150106090747.gc27...@ugent.be
Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Hi Steven, On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 12:09:46AM +, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 06/01/15 00:04, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Ivo De Decker iv...@debian.org (2015-01-06): First of all: would you be ok with an unblock-udeb for kfreebsd-10? Provided Steven/BSD people are fine with it (possibly with urgenting), I'm very OK with having it in testing before d-i gets uploaded. I almost asked but decided to try and skip some more back and forth. Let's do that now anyway, then. :) Yes I'm fine with this, thanks. I added the unblock and the unblock-udeb. They should migrate in an hour. Cheers, Ivo -- 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/20150106090856.gd27...@ugent.be
Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2015-01-05): Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-12-29): here's another round I've just compiled, so versions should match this time. A few of them have (outdated) hints currently but hopefully those should go away automatically when caught by hint clean once newer versions have migrated? Last round, would be perfect if in place before the 1000Z run (sorry for the short notice). The 2200Z would have been a nice idea if I didn't forget about uploading choose-mirror, which is on its way… # Usual-yet-easily-forgotten-about: unblock choose-mirror/2.60 unblock-udeb choose-mirror/2.60 urgent choose-mirror/2.60 # Not immensely needed but I lost track of it in the past few weeks: unblock netcfg/1.127 unblock-udeb netcfg/1.127 urgent netcfg/1.127 # Preseedability++: unblock grub-installer/1.103 unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.103 urgent grub-installer/1.103 Can we please pretend I didn't forget to mention this? ;) # Doc doc doc! unblock installation-guide/20141230 Thanks, and sorry for the noise. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Hi, On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 10:32:11PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Can we please pretend I didn't forget to mention this? ;) We can try, but I can't promise anything. # Doc doc doc! unblock installation-guide/20141230 That one was easier :) Unblocked. Cheers, Ivo -- 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/20150105230705.gc25...@ugent.be
Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Hi Kibi, On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 10:25:34PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-12-29): here's another round I've just compiled, so versions should match this time. A few of them have (outdated) hints currently but hopefully those should go away automatically when caught by hint clean once newer versions have migrated? Last round, would be perfect if in place before the 1000Z run (sorry for the short notice). The 2200Z would have been a nice idea if I didn't forget about uploading choose-mirror, which is on its way… First of all: would you be ok with an unblock-udeb for kfreebsd-10? Also, is anything planned for busybox? Or do you want an NMU with just the CVE fix? # Usual-yet-easily-forgotten-about: unblock choose-mirror/2.60 unblock-udeb choose-mirror/2.60 urgent choose-mirror/2.60 OK. # Not immensely needed but I lost track of it in the past few weeks: unblock netcfg/1.127 unblock-udeb netcfg/1.127 urgent netcfg/1.127 OK. # Preseedability++: unblock grub-installer/1.103 unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.103 urgent grub-installer/1.103 OK. Cheers, Ivo -- 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/20150105230531.gb25...@ugent.be
Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Hi Ivo, Ivo De Decker iv...@debian.org (2015-01-06): On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 10:25:34PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-12-29): here's another round I've just compiled, so versions should match this time. A few of them have (outdated) hints currently but hopefully those should go away automatically when caught by hint clean once newer versions have migrated? Last round, would be perfect if in place before the 1000Z run (sorry for the short notice). The 2200Z would have been a nice idea if I didn't forget about uploading choose-mirror, which is on its way… First of all: would you be ok with an unblock-udeb for kfreebsd-10? Provided Steven/BSD people are fine with it (possibly with urgenting), I'm very OK with having it in testing before d-i gets uploaded. I almost asked but decided to try and skip some more back and forth. Let's do that now anyway, then. :) Also, is anything planned for busybox? Or do you want an NMU with just the CVE fix? I had a look a while ago, which resulted in the following local patch (attached); if you can suggest a suitable version number, and if the “let's branch from an older version” looks good to you, I can probably deal with the upload. Shouldn't be a blocker for the release though (even if I understand that having security fixes in jessie sooner is better than later). # Usual-yet-easily-forgotten-about: unblock choose-mirror/2.60 unblock-udeb choose-mirror/2.60 urgent choose-mirror/2.60 OK. # Not immensely needed but I lost track of it in the past few weeks: unblock netcfg/1.127 unblock-udeb netcfg/1.127 urgent netcfg/1.127 OK. # Preseedability++: unblock grub-installer/1.103 unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.103 urgent grub-installer/1.103 OK. # Doc doc doc! unblock installation-guide/20141230 That one was easier :) Unblocked. Many thanks! Mraw, KiBi. From aa57d3cc600de9d9ff3e318dc4beed33cfcfd9f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:29:36 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Document the jessie branching. --- debian/changelog | 8 +++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog index e78827c..7c18a73 100644 --- a/debian/changelog +++ b/debian/changelog @@ -1,7 +1,13 @@ -busybox (1:1.22.0-10) UNRELEASED; urgency=low +busybox (1:1.22.0-14+deb8u1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low + [ Michael Tokarev ] * lzop-add-overflow-check-CVE-2014-4607.patch (Closes: #768945) + [ Cyril Brulebois ] + * Branch jessie from master to only include the security fix; other changes +between 1:1.22.0-9 and 1:1.22.0-14 are invasive and not needed for jessie. +Cheat a bit with the revision number to avoid bumping the epoch. + -- Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:59:25 +0300 busybox (1:1.22.0-9) unstable; urgency=medium -- 2.1.3 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Hi! On 06/01/15 00:04, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Ivo De Decker iv...@debian.org (2015-01-06): First of all: would you be ok with an unblock-udeb for kfreebsd-10? Provided Steven/BSD people are fine with it (possibly with urgenting), I'm very OK with having it in testing before d-i gets uploaded. I almost asked but decided to try and skip some more back and forth. Let's do that now anyway, then. :) Yes I'm fine with this, thanks. (There's a reason I didn't ask for unblocks sooner but that's a long story and unrelated to d-i). Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-12-29): here's another round I've just compiled, so versions should match this time. A few of them have (outdated) hints currently but hopefully those should go away automatically when caught by hint clean once newer versions have migrated? Last round, would be perfect if in place before the 1000Z run (sorry for the short notice). The 2200Z would have been a nice idea if I didn't forget about uploading choose-mirror, which is on its way… # Usual-yet-easily-forgotten-about: unblock choose-mirror/2.60 unblock-udeb choose-mirror/2.60 urgent choose-mirror/2.60 # Not immensely needed but I lost track of it in the past few weeks: unblock netcfg/1.127 unblock-udeb netcfg/1.127 urgent netcfg/1.127 # Preseedability++: unblock grub-installer/1.103 unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.103 urgent grub-installer/1.103 I've tested the latter in the three default configurations (whole disk, LVM, encrypted LVM) as well as with things like RAID1, with no bad surprises, so let's restore possibilities for automation. I'll try and give btrfs things a shot a few hours from now, so that I can decide what to do with the pending request about lzo2. That was handled and lzo2's hit testing in the meanwhile. If I'm not hitting any major blocker during some testing over the next few days, we might be looking at a release during the first days of 2015. The upload should happen somewhen in the European afternoon after the 1000Z changes in testing are mirror-visible. Thanks! Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
New hints for d-i, release in a few days hopefully
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-12-08): I didn't manage to find time to send this earlier, and some packages were likely updated in the meanwhile, but here's a list of things I've prepared a while ago. Hi, here's another round I've just compiled, so versions should match this time. A few of them have (outdated) hints currently but hopefully those should go away automatically when caught by hint clean once newer versions have migrated? I'll try and give btrfs things a shot a few hours from now, so that I can decide what to do with the pending request about lzo2. If I'm not hitting any major blocker during some testing over the next few days, we might be looking at a release during the first days of 2015. # Fix a few symbols in 1.115, clean(er) source package in 1.116: unblock console-setup/1.116 unblock-udeb console-setup/1.116 # l10n updates: unblock partman-basicfilesystems/109 unblock-udeb partman-basicfilesystems/109 # l10n updates: unblock partman-crypto/78 unblock-udeb partman-crypto/78 # New upload, ivodd's hint needs updating: unblock partman-efi/60 unblock-udeb partman-efi/60 # l10n updates: unblock partman-iscsi/33 unblock-udeb partman-iscsi/33 # l10n updates: unblock partman-jfs/45 unblock-udeb partman-jfs/45 # l10n updates, the post-base-installer.d/64partman-lvm removal is intentional: unblock partman-lvm/103 unblock-udeb partman-lvm/103 # l10n updates: unblock partman-md/72 unblock-udeb partman-md/72 # l10n updates: unblock partman-xfs/55 unblock-udeb partman-xfs/55 # l10n updates, the init.d/kernelmodules_zfs removal is intentional: unblock partman-zfs/42 unblock-udeb partman-zfs/42 # Artwork update, with many thanks to Didier Raboud... unblock rootskel-gtk/1.31 unblock-udeb rootskel-gtk/1.31 # l10n updates: unblock tzsetup/1:0.63 unblock-udeb tzsetup/1:0.63 Thanks for your time. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: New hints for d-i, release in a few days hopefully
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 05:45:38PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2014-12-08): I didn't manage to find time to send this earlier, and some packages were likely updated in the meanwhile, but here's a list of things I've prepared a while ago. Hi, here's another round I've just compiled, so versions should match this time. A few of them have (outdated) hints currently but hopefully those should go away automatically when caught by hint clean once newer versions have migrated? I'll try and give btrfs things a shot a few hours from now, so that I can decide what to do with the pending request about lzo2. If I'm not hitting any major blocker during some testing over the next few days, we might be looking at a release during the first days of 2015. # Fix a few symbols in 1.115, clean(er) source package in 1.116: unblock console-setup/1.116 unblock-udeb console-setup/1.116 # l10n updates: unblock partman-basicfilesystems/109 unblock-udeb partman-basicfilesystems/109 # l10n updates: unblock partman-crypto/78 unblock-udeb partman-crypto/78 # New upload, ivodd's hint needs updating: unblock partman-efi/60 unblock-udeb partman-efi/60 # l10n updates: unblock partman-iscsi/33 unblock-udeb partman-iscsi/33 # l10n updates: unblock partman-jfs/45 unblock-udeb partman-jfs/45 # l10n updates, the post-base-installer.d/64partman-lvm removal is intentional: unblock partman-lvm/103 unblock-udeb partman-lvm/103 # l10n updates: unblock partman-md/72 unblock-udeb partman-md/72 # l10n updates: unblock partman-xfs/55 unblock-udeb partman-xfs/55 # l10n updates, the init.d/kernelmodules_zfs removal is intentional: unblock partman-zfs/42 unblock-udeb partman-zfs/42 # Artwork update, with many thanks to Didier Raboud... unblock rootskel-gtk/1.31 unblock-udeb rootskel-gtk/1.31 # l10n updates: unblock tzsetup/1:0.63 unblock-udeb tzsetup/1:0.63 All fine; unblocked. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i
Hi Ivo, Ivo De Decker iv...@debian.org (2014-12-09): I added most of those. thanks! On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:46:35AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: # TODO: Check with Colin unblock iprutils/2.4.5-1 unblock-udeb iprutils/2.4.5-1 Not added, based on the TODO. ACK. # TODO: Check with debian-bsd@ unblock kfreebsd-10/10.1~svn273874-1 unblock-udeb kfreebsd-10/10.1~svn273874-1 Added, based on https://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2014/12/msg3.html Yes, thanks. unblock netcfg/1.125 unblock-udeb netcfg/1.125 I added these hints for 1.126, as this adds another translation (I guess that's fine, but if it isn't, let me know). Perfect (for all occurrences). # TODO: pango1.0 isn't unblocked but: unblock-udeb pango1.0/1.36.8-3 Added and unblocked. Ta. # TODO: KiBi uploaded that one: unblock partman-base/180 unblock-udeb partman-base/180 There must be something different in the way bubulle and you generate the source package from the git repo, because the previous upload contains debian/*.dirs files, and the new one doesn't. I compared the contents of the resulting udebs, and it seems fine, so I added these as well. Yes, kind of “known”, see e.g. https://lists.debian.org/20141125103513.gk19...@mraw.org https://lists.debian.org/20141125105646.gl19...@mraw.org https://lists.debian.org/20140928200350.ge10...@mraw.org unblock partman-lvm/100 unblock-udeb partman-lvm/100 I didn't add this one, as 101 was uploaded, which contains the undocumented removal of post-base-installer.d/64partman-lvm This is possibly the same story as above, except a checkout clean-up happened between the 100 upload and the 101 one. Commit in master is: | commit fc552ae118ae629501e8d6fe2d0174171e93e114 | Author: Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrijs.ledk...@canonical.com | Date: Thu May 23 13:47:00 2013 +0100 | | Move apt-install call from post-base-installer.d to finish.d, in case post-base-installer is not run at all (as is the case in ubiquity) or otherwise failed to run. which includes: finish.d/aptinstall_lvm | 11 +++ post-base-installer.d/64partman-lvm | 11 --- Not touching it for now seems OK. Many thanks again. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Hints for d-i
Hi, I didn't manage to find time to send this earlier, and some packages were likely updated in the meanwhile, but here's a list of things I've prepared a while ago. --8--8--8--8-- unblock base-installer/1.152 unblock-udeb base-installer/1.152 unblock debootstrap/1.0.66 unblock-udeb debootstrap/1.0.66 # TODO: Check with Colin unblock iprutils/2.4.5-1 unblock-udeb iprutils/2.4.5-1 # TODO: Check with debian-bsd@ unblock kfreebsd-10/10.1~svn273874-1 unblock-udeb kfreebsd-10/10.1~svn273874-1 unblock netcfg/1.125 unblock-udeb netcfg/1.125 # TODO: pango1.0 isn't unblocked but: unblock-udeb pango1.0/1.36.8-3 # TODO: KiBi uploaded that one: unblock partman-base/180 unblock-udeb partman-base/180 unblock partman-basicfilesystems/107 unblock-udeb partman-basicfilesystems/107 unblock partman-btrfs/17 unblock-udeb partman-btrfs/17 unblock partman-ext3/84 unblock-udeb partman-ext3/84 unblock partman-iscsi/30 unblock-udeb partman-iscsi/30 unblock partman-jfs/44 unblock-udeb partman-jfs/44 unblock partman-lvm/100 unblock-udeb partman-lvm/100 unblock partman-xfs/54 unblock-udeb partman-xfs/54 unblock tzsetup/1:0.61 unblock-udeb tzsetup/1:0.61 --8--8--8--8-- You may want to add that to a hints file of yours, or I'll do so when I have more time, possibly reviewing recent updates of packages uploaded in the meanwhile. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hints for d-i
Hi Kibi, I added most of those. On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:46:35AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: unblock base-installer/1.152 unblock-udeb base-installer/1.152 Added. unblock debootstrap/1.0.66 unblock-udeb debootstrap/1.0.66 Added. # TODO: Check with Colin unblock iprutils/2.4.5-1 unblock-udeb iprutils/2.4.5-1 Not added, based on the TODO. # TODO: Check with debian-bsd@ unblock kfreebsd-10/10.1~svn273874-1 unblock-udeb kfreebsd-10/10.1~svn273874-1 Added, based on https://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2014/12/msg3.html unblock netcfg/1.125 unblock-udeb netcfg/1.125 I added these hints for 1.126, as this adds another translation (I guess that's fine, but if it isn't, let me know). # TODO: pango1.0 isn't unblocked but: unblock-udeb pango1.0/1.36.8-3 Added and unblocked. # TODO: KiBi uploaded that one: unblock partman-base/180 unblock-udeb partman-base/180 There must be something different in the way bubulle and you generate the source package from the git repo, because the previous upload contains debian/*.dirs files, and the new one doesn't. I compared the contents of the resulting udebs, and it seems fine, so I added these as well. unblock partman-basicfilesystems/107 unblock-udeb partman-basicfilesystems/107 Added hints for 108 (see above). unblock partman-btrfs/17 unblock-udeb partman-btrfs/17 Added. unblock partman-ext3/84 unblock-udeb partman-ext3/84 Added. unblock partman-iscsi/30 unblock-udeb partman-iscsi/30 Added hints for 31 (see above). unblock partman-jfs/44 unblock-udeb partman-jfs/44 Added. unblock partman-lvm/100 unblock-udeb partman-lvm/100 I didn't add this one, as 101 was uploaded, which contains the undocumented removal of post-base-installer.d/64partman-lvm unblock partman-xfs/54 unblock-udeb partman-xfs/54 Added. unblock tzsetup/1:0.61 unblock-udeb tzsetup/1:0.61 Added hints for 1:0.62 (see above). --8--8--8--8-- You may want to add that to a hints file of yours, or I'll do so when I have more time, possibly reviewing recent updates of packages uploaded in the meanwhile. Cheers, Ivo -- 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/20141208231633.ga...@ugent.be
Re: [Patch] britney.py: Fix a regression in nuninst counting for hints
On 2014-08-17 09:59, Niels Thykier wrote: Hi, Find attached patch that fixes a minor regression introduced in commit a46dd88 by yours truly. I intend to merge into master in a couple of days if no one beats me to it. I have added a new test case (regression-a46dd88) for the particular patch. [...] ~Niels Merged into master. ~Niels -- 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/53f4d203.2040...@thykier.net
[Patch] britney.py: Fix a regression in nuninst counting for hints
Hi,
Find attached patch that fixes a minor regression introduced in commit
a46dd88 by yours truly. I intend to merge into master in a couple of
days if no one beats me to it. I have added a new test case
(regression-a46dd88) for the particular patch.
The regression causes certain (unlikely) hints (easy or hint-hints) to
fail, where Britney2 prior to commit a46dd88 would have accepted them.
I consider these to be unlikely because:
* They must involve an uninstallability trade[1] during the init run
(i.e. the non-recurse run)
- The recurse run is unaffected by this bug.
* They must be removing uninstallable packages and use said removal to
complete the uninstallability trade.
- Only removals of uninstallable packages could cause this.
- *NB*: The binary had to disappear from testing. If it was simply
upgraded, it would not trigger the bug.
The regression was caused by Britney failing to remove packages from
nuninst, when they were removed from testing. For hints removing an
uninstallable package without using uninstallability trading, Britney
simply presents a slightly inflated nuninst counter until the end of the
run.
~Niels
[1] uninstallability trade being trading one uninstallability package
for another.
From 97fcba644c250e84e6a0ea2164a0e886d946ada9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 23:15:39 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] britney.py: Fix a regression in nuninst counting for hints
In the rare case that a hint removed an uninstallable binary, the
binary could still be included in the nuninst counter.
Regression introduced in a46dd88.
Signed-off-by: Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net
---
britney.py | 13 +++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/britney.py b/britney.py
index da0f158..6c0a26d 100755
--- a/britney.py
+++ b/britney.py
@@ -2147,8 +2147,7 @@ class Britney(object):
nobreakall_arches = self.options.nobreakall_arches.split()
binaries_t = self.binaries['testing']
check_packages = partial(self._check_packages, binaries_t)
-# Deep copy nuninst (in case the hint is undone)
-nuninst = {k:v.copy() for k,v in self.nuninst_orig.iteritems()}
+nuninst = {}
for item in hinted_packages:
@@ -2165,6 +2164,16 @@ class Britney(object):
if lundo is not None:
lundo.append((undo,item))
+# deep copy nuninst (in case the hint is undone)
+# NB: We do this *after* updating testing and we have to filter out
+# removed binaries. Otherwise, uninstallable binaries that were
+# removed by the hint would still be counted.
+for arch in self.options.architectures:
+nuninst_arch = self.nuninst_orig[arch]
+nuninst_arch_all = self.nuninst_orig[arch + '+all']
+nuninst[arch] = set(x for x in nuninst_arch if x in binaries_t[arch])
+nuninst[arch + '+all'] = set(x for x in nuninst_arch_all if x in binaries_t[arch])
+
for arch in self.options.architectures:
if arch not in nobreakall_arches:
skip_archall = True
--
2.1.0.rc1
Bug#709619: release.debian.org: [tools] migration.pl could show details of attempted hints
Package: release.debian.org Severity: wishlist User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: tools In addition to displaying the result of attempting to migrate a particular package on its own, it would be helpful if migration.pl could display the results of any hints (manual or automagic) involving the package. Adam -- 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/a7050b8c1d4a7d4a5972762099122...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
unblock-udeb hints
Dear Release Team, Will the unblock-udeb hints be removed soon, or is it still necessary to open unblock requests? Currently this blocks a src:kfreebsd-9 security update from entering testing, because some udebs are built from it. src:linux also had an update recently which is blocked too. Thanks, Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51894689.10...@pyro.eu.org
Re: unblock-udeb hints
Hi Steven, (cc-ing -boot@ or me would be nice when it comes to udeb things, even if the release team can forward requests; or if I happen to spot it on -release@.) Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org (07/05/2013): Will the unblock-udeb hints be removed soon, or is it still necessary to open unblock requests? Currently this blocks a src:kfreebsd-9 security update from entering testing, because some udebs are built from it. src:linux also had an update recently which is blocked too. Currently debating whether all unblock-udebs should disappear at once. Should have an answer to that in 1-2 days at most. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: unblock-udeb hints
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 19:23 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: Will the unblock-udeb hints be removed soon, or is it still necessary to open unblock requests? I realise Cyril already replied, but for the record that's not our decision. The block-udeb hints are maintained by the release team because they form part of a britney hint file, but the ultimate decision as to what's blocked using them at any given point lies with the d-i team, particularly the d-i RM(s). Regards, Adam -- 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/1367952176.26753.8.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Britney hints for octave transition
Hi, As part of the octave transition, the following hints should be added to allow testing migration of a bunch of Octave-related packages: easy octave-communications/1.1.0-2 octave-control/2.3.50-1 octave-data-smoothing/1.3.0-2 octave-econometrics/1:1.0.8-6 octave-financial/0.3.2-3 octave-ga/0.9.8-3 octave-miscellaneous/1.1.0-1 octave-optim/1.0.17-2 octave-signal/1.1.2-1 octave-statistics/1.1.0-1 octave-struct/1.0.9-2 octave-time/1.0.9-4 octave-vrml/1.0.11-2 easy octave-ocs/0.1.3-1 octave-odepkg/0.8.0-1 (since my understanding of britney hints is limited, feel free to replace easy by hint if more appropriate). Thanks, -- Sébastien Villemot Researcher in Economics Debian Maintainer http://www.dynare.org/sebastien Phone: +33-1-40-77-84-04 - GPG Key: 4096R/381A7594 pgpSf4OJpKpm1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#667863: Britney hints for octave transition
Mehdi Dogguy mehdi.dog...@ens.fr writes: [ Dropped CC to -release and replaced it by 667...@bugs.debian.org ] On 16/04/12 11:26, Sébastien Villemot wrote: Hi, As part of the octave transition, the following hints should be added to allow testing migration of a bunch of Octave-related packages: easy octave-communications/1.1.0-2 octave-control/2.3.50-1 octave-data-smoothing/1.3.0-2 octave-econometrics/1:1.0.8-6 octave-financial/0.3.2-3 octave-ga/0.9.8-3 octave-miscellaneous/1.1.0-1 octave-optim/1.0.17-2 octave-signal/1.1.2-1 octave-statistics/1.1.0-1 octave-struct/1.0.9-2 octave-time/1.0.9-4 octave-vrml/1.0.11-2 easy octave-ocs/0.1.3-1 octave-odepkg/0.8.0-1 octave-ocs and octave-odepkg need to migrate at the same time as the other packages. So they should be part of the big easy hint. I don't think so, they are not in the same dependency loop. But having everything in the same hint doesn't hurt anyways. I've added the easy hint and will be processed shortly. (So we will see if it did work) but I still see red packages on the transition tracker [1]. So the transition is now completely finished yet (as I understand it). Am I wrong? Is anyone working on getting those red packages fixed? We are going to request the removal of octave-parallel and semidef-oct. The other packages are not maintained by the Debian Octave Group, so we cannot act directly. We have filed bugs against libgdf (#666894) and pfstools (#666959). A bug still needs to be filed against libsml, we’ll do it shortly. Best, -- Sébastien Villemot Researcher in Economics Debian Maintainer http://www.dynare.org/sebastien Phone: +33-1-40-77-84-04 - GPG Key: 4096R/381A7594 pgpYSHqwzzpsr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#667863: Britney hints for octave transition
Sébastien Villemot sebastien.ville...@ens.fr writes: A bug still needs to be filed against libsml, we’ll do it shortly. Sorry, double mistake here: first, it is libsBml; second, no need to file an Octave-related bug, the problem is an FTBFS on s390x. Thanks, -- Sébastien Villemot Researcher in Economics Debian Maintainer http://www.dynare.org/sebastien Phone: +33-1-40-77-84-04 - GPG Key: 4096R/381A7594 pgpgtpciYvCvE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#667863: Britney hints for octave transition
Hi, Am Montag, den 16.04.2012, 15:02 +0200 schrieb Sébastien Villemot: Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org writes: Am Montag, den 16.04.2012, 11:51 +0200 schrieb Mehdi Dogguy: [ Dropped CC to -release and replaced it by 667...@bugs.debian.org ] On 16/04/12 11:26, Sébastien Villemot wrote: Hi, As part of the octave transition, the following hints should be added to allow testing migration of a bunch of Octave-related packages: easy octave-communications/1.1.0-2 octave-control/2.3.50-1 octave-data-smoothing/1.3.0-2 octave-econometrics/1:1.0.8-6 octave-financial/0.3.2-3 octave-ga/0.9.8-3 octave-miscellaneous/1.1.0-1 octave-optim/1.0.17-2 octave-signal/1.1.2-1 octave-statistics/1.1.0-1 octave-struct/1.0.9-2 octave-time/1.0.9-4 octave-vrml/1.0.11-2 easy octave-ocs/0.1.3-1 octave-odepkg/0.8.0-1 octave-ocs and octave-odepkg need to migrate at the same time as the other packages. So they should be part of the big easy hint. Are you sure? SAT-Britney also thinks that they can migrate separately. I've added the easy hint and will be processed shortly. (So we will see if it did work) It worked: http://release.debian.org/britney/update_output.txt But actually, no manual work should have been necessary; SAT-Britney did come up with exactly the hints that Sébastien submitted. Sorry then for having requested useless manual intervention. I was not aware of SAT-Britney, it seems to work well :) no need to be sorry, it is new and not well-known. That’s why I’m advertising it, hoping to save you some work next time :-) Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#667863: Britney hints for octave transition
Hi, Am Montag, den 16.04.2012, 11:51 +0200 schrieb Mehdi Dogguy: [ Dropped CC to -release and replaced it by 667...@bugs.debian.org ] On 16/04/12 11:26, Sébastien Villemot wrote: Hi, As part of the octave transition, the following hints should be added to allow testing migration of a bunch of Octave-related packages: easy octave-communications/1.1.0-2 octave-control/2.3.50-1 octave-data-smoothing/1.3.0-2 octave-econometrics/1:1.0.8-6 octave-financial/0.3.2-3 octave-ga/0.9.8-3 octave-miscellaneous/1.1.0-1 octave-optim/1.0.17-2 octave-signal/1.1.2-1 octave-statistics/1.1.0-1 octave-struct/1.0.9-2 octave-time/1.0.9-4 octave-vrml/1.0.11-2 easy octave-ocs/0.1.3-1 octave-odepkg/0.8.0-1 octave-ocs and octave-odepkg need to migrate at the same time as the other packages. So they should be part of the big easy hint. Are you sure? SAT-Britney also thinks that they can migrate separately. I've added the easy hint and will be processed shortly. (So we will see if it did work) It worked: http://release.debian.org/britney/update_output.txt But actually, no manual work should have been necessary; SAT-Britney did come up with exactly the hints that Sébastien submitted. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: SAT-Britney hints now processed regularly
Hi, nice, today the first correct hint was generated: Trying easy from satbritney: libgpiv/0.6.1-4 pygpiv/2.0.0-4 leading: libgpiv,pygpiv start: 39+113: i-3:a-0:a-0:i-1:k-15:k-15:m-0:m-1:p-0:s-2:s-2:a-40:s-73 orig: 39+113: i-3:a-0:a-0:i-1:k-15:k-15:m-0:m-1:p-0:s-2:s-2:a-40:s-73 easy: 39+112: i-3:a-0:a-0:i-1:k-15:k-15:m-0:m-1:p-0:s-2:s-2:a-39:s-73 final: libgpiv,pygpiv start: 39+113: i-3:a-0:a-0:i-1:k-15:k-15:m-0:m-1:p-0:s-2:s-2:a-40:s-73 orig: 39+113: i-3:a-0:a-0:i-1:k-15:k-15:m-0:m-1:p-0:s-2:s-2:a-40:s-73 end: 39+112: i-3:a-0:a-0:i-1:k-15:k-15:m-0:m-1:p-0:s-2:s-2:a-39:s-73 SUCCESS (762/0) Now it seems that Julien also manually created the identical hint after britney’s last run: Trying easy from jcristau: libgpiv/0.6.1-4 pygpiv/2.0.0-4 leading: libgpiv,pygpiv failed: libgpiv I’m not sure how much work it was to do so, but – and I hope this is good news to you – in the future you can stop worrying about this manual work and let the two britney’s care about that. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: SAT-Britney hints now processed regularly
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 09:21:42 +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: I’m not sure how much work it was to do so, but – and I hope this is Just about 0 (it's part of the things I need to handle anyway). Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
SAT-Britney hints now processed regularly
Hi, after having stopped working on SAT-Britney for about half a year, I recently got a motivating mail and finally sat down and fixed a few of the remaining annoyances to bring it into a usable form. It runs now twice a day on ries and, thanks to Phil, the resulting hints are copied to franck and executed by britney: http://release.debian.org/britney/hints/satbritney It only generates easy hints, and britney is configured to only allow easy hints from it, so this should be pretty safe. As pointed out by Julien, britney2 does not accept the currently generated hints. This is due to a remaining difference in what SAT-Britney and britney2 thinks is a valid transition: SAT-Britney will allow the so-called “smooth upgrades” with every package, while britney will only consider packages from libs and oldlibs. Another possible cause for diverging behavior might involve package removals, we’ll see if it becomes relevant in practice. I hope you can bear the occasional false hint. Another reason for strange hints could be the delay: SAT-Britney uses the result of one britney run to generate the hints from, but these hints are then processed with the next britney run, when some packages have will have changed in unstable. Besides that, SAT-Britney should be able to reliably find the largest admissible transition, no matter how many packages need to migrate together. My motivating example for that would be the next Haskell migration with 400 source packages – once everything is built and working in unstable, SAT-Britney should without further manual interaction provide us with one huge and correct hint. It passes most of the test cases in the britney test suite, including some that britney2 fails (tree-circle-dependencies-huge-graph-new-young, tree-circle-dependencies-huge-graph-no-hint, tree-dependencies-no-hint-binnmu), the remainig cases involve force hints (which SAT-Britney ignores), package renames and the generated Source file (which is irrelevant for generating hints), see http://git.nomeata.de/?p=sat-britney.git;a=blob;f=README.txt;hb=refs/heads/full-dependencies for an up-to-date list of the failing test cases. If there are any questions or suggests about SAT-Britney (besides „stop it we don’t want it“, if possible), I’m happy to answer them. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: SAT-Britney hints now processed regularly
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote: after having stopped working on SAT-Britney for about half a year, I recently got a motivating mail and finally sat down and fixed a few of the remaining annoyances to bring it into a usable form. It runs now twice a day on ries and, thanks to Phil, the resulting hints are copied to franck and executed by britney: http://release.debian.org/britney/hints/satbritney It only generates easy hints, and britney is configured to only allow easy hints from it, so this should be pretty safe. I think this would be quite interesting to the wider Debian community outside -release, please mention it in the next bits or in DeveloperNews. It might be also interesting to some parts of the DPN audience. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/caktje6gjjdcksxtsirauaf6fjubrjlqgi-8+jysu3ui0t41...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#656144: hint: clean does not properly check arch-specific hints
Package: release.debian.org User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: tools hint's clean action only takes account of source versions when deciding whether a migration hint has been completed. For instance, if one has a hint for pushing armhf and s390x packages - e.g. force-hint foo/armhf/1.2 foo/s390x/1.2 - then a subsequent hint clean invocation will move the hint below finished, because foo 1.2 is in testing. This is, at least imho, unhelpful, particularly if one doesn't notice that the cleaning has taken place before the britney run in which the hint was intended to take effect. Adam -- 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/1326748141.816.14.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Hints für Haskell
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:34:03PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: unless I am mistaken, a large number of Haskell packages can now migrate, please try the attached easy hints file. It worked, thanks. :) Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Hints für Haskell
Dear Release team, unless I am mistaken, a large number of Haskell packages can now migrate, please try the attached easy hints file. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata easy agda/2.3.0-1 agda-stdlib/0.6~darcs2029t1640-1 alex/3.0.1-1 ghc/7.0.4-8 gitit/0.8.1-1 haskell-platform/2011.4.0.0 haskell-hledger/0.16.1-2 haskell-aeson/0.3.2.11-1 haskell-asn1-data/0.6.1.1-1 haskell-attoparsec/0.10.0.3-1 haskell-attoparsec-enumerator/0.3-1 haskell-attoparsec-text/0.8.5.1-2 haskell-authenticate/0.10.3.1-1 haskell-base64-bytestring/0.1.0.3-1 haskell-blaze-html/0.4.2.0-1 haskell-blaze-textual/0.2.0.4-1 haskell-case-insensitive/0.3.0.1-1 haskell-cereal/0.3.4.0-1 haskell-certificate/0.9.5-1 haskell-cgi/3001.1.8.2-1 haskell-chart/0.14-2 haskell-citeproc-hs/0.3.3-1 haskell-clientsession/0.7.3.1-1 haskell-convertible-text/0.3.0.10-1 haskell-criterion/0.5.0.10-2 haskell-crypto-api/0.6.4-1 haskell-cryptocipher/0.2.14-1 haskell-cryptohash/0.7.3-1 haskell-css-text/0.1.1-1 haskell-data-accessor/0.2.2-1 haskell-data-accessor-template/0.2.1.8-1 haskell-data-default/0.3.0-1 haskell-data-object/0.3.1.7-1 haskell-data-object-yaml/0.3.3.5-3 haskell-email-validate/0.2.7-1 haskell-enumerator/0.4.14-1 haskell-fgl/5.4.2.4-1 haskell-filestore/0.4.0.4-1 haskell-hamlet/0.10.3-1 haskell-hashable/1.1.2.1-1 haskell-hashtables/1.0.0.0-1 haskell-haskeline/0.6.4.3-1 haskell-hledger-lib/0.16.1-1 haskell-hs-bibutils/4.12-4 haskell-hsemail/1.7.1-1 haskell-http/1:4000.1.2-1 haskell-http-enumerator/0.7.1.8-1 haskell-http-types/0.6.5.1-1 haskell-hunit/1.2.4.2-1 haskell-hxt/9.1.5-1 haskell-hxt-regex-xmlschema/9.0.1-1 haskell-largeword/1.0.1-1 haskell-maccatcher/2.1.4-1 haskell-monadcatchio-mtl/0.3.0.4-1 haskell-mwc-random/0.10.0.1-1 haskell-network/2.3.0.6-1 pandoc/1.8.2.1-2 haskell-pandoc-types/1.8.2-1 haskell-persistent/0.6.3-1 haskell-persistent-template/0.6.3-1 haskell-primitive/0.4.0.1-1 haskell-pwstore-fast/2.2-1 haskell-ranges/0.2.4-1 haskell-regex-compat/0.95.1-1 haskell-regex-posix/0.95.1-1 haskell-semigroups/0.8-1 haskell-shakespeare-css/0.10.2-1 haskell-shakespeare/0.10.1.1-2 haskell-shakespeare-js/0.10.2-1 haskell-shakespeare-text/0.10.2-1 haskell-skein/0.1-1 haskell-smtpclient/1.0.4-2 haskell-split/0.1.4.1-1 haskell-statistics/0.9.0.0-1 haskell-syb/0.3.3-1 haskell-tagged/0.2.3.1-1 haskell-tagsoup/0.12.3-1 haskell-terminfo/0.3.2.2-1 haskell-text/0.11.1.5-1 haskell-tls/0.8.1-1 haskell-tls-extra/0.4.0-1 haskell-unordered-containers/0.1.4.3-1 haskell-vector-algorithms/0.5.3-1 haskell-vector/0.9-2 haskell-vty/4.7.0.4-1 haskell-wai/0.4.2-1 haskell-wai-extra/0.4.3-1 haskell-warp/0.4.5-1 haskell-web-routes/0.25.3-1 haskell-web-routes-quasi/0.7.1-1 haskell-xhtml/3000.2.0.4-1 haskell-xml/1.3.10-1 haskell-xml-enumerator/0.4.4-1 haskell-xml-types/0.3-2 xmonad-contrib/0.10-2 xmonad/0.10-2 haskell-xss-sanitize/0.3.0.1-1 haskell-yaml/0.4.1.1-2 haskell-yesod-auth/0.7.7-1 haskell-yesod-core/0.9.3.4-1 haskell-yesod/0.9.3.4-1 haskell-yesod-form/0.3.4-1 haskell-yesod-json/0.2.2.1-1 haskell-yesod-persistent/0.2.2-1 haskell-zlib-bindings/0.0.1-1 haskell-happstack/amd64/6.0.0-1 haskell-happstack/i386/6.0.0-1 haskell-happstack/kfreebsd-amd64/6.0.0-1 haskell-happstack/kfreebsd-i386/6.0.0-1 haskell-debian/amd64/3.55-2 haskell-debian/i386/3.55-2 haskell-debian/kfreebsd-amd64/3.55-2 haskell-debian/kfreebsd-i386/3.55-2 haskell-debian/powerpc/3.55-2 haskell-leksah-server/amd64/0.10.0.4-2 haskell-leksah-server/armel/0.10.0.4-2 haskell-leksah-server/i386/0.10.0.4-2 haskell-leksah-server/kfreebsd-amd64/0.10.0.4-2 haskell-leksah-server/kfreebsd-i386/0.10.0.4-2 haskell-leksah-server/mips/0.10.0.4-2 haskell-leksah-server/mipsel/0.10.0.4-2 haskell-leksah-server/powerpc/0.10.0.4-2 haskell-leksah-server/s390/0.10.0.4-2 haskell-leksah-server/sparc/0.10.0.4-2 haskell-blaze-builder/amd64/0.2.1.4-1 haskell-blaze-builder/armel/0.2.1.4-1 haskell-blaze-builder/i386/0.2.1.4-1 haskell-blaze-builder/kfreebsd-amd64/0.2.1.4-1 haskell-blaze-builder/kfreebsd-i386/0.2.1.4-1 haskell-blaze-builder/mips/0.2.1.4-1 haskell-blaze-builder/mipsel/0.2.1.4-1 haskell-blaze-builder/powerpc/0.2.1.4-1 haskell-blaze-builder/s390/0.2.1.4-1 haskell-blaze-builder/sparc/0.2.1.4-1 haskell-blaze-builder-enumerator/amd64/0.2.0.2-1 haskell-blaze-builder-enumerator/armel/0.2.0.2-1 haskell-blaze-builder-enumerator/i386/0.2.0.2-1 haskell-blaze-builder-enumerator/kfreebsd-amd64/0.2.0.2-1 haskell-blaze-builder-enumerator/kfreebsd-i386/0.2.0.2-1 haskell-blaze-builder-enumerator/mips/0.2.0.2-1 haskell-blaze-builder-enumerator/mipsel/0.2.0.2-1 haskell-blaze-builder-enumerator/powerpc/0.2.0.2-1 haskell-blaze-builder-enumerator/s390/0.2.0.2-1 haskell-blaze-builder-enumerator/sparc/0.2.0.2-1 haskell-configfile/amd64/1.0.6-3 haskell-configfile/armel/1.0.6-3 haskell-configfile/i386/1.0.6-3
Re: hints for kdebindings and replacements
Alle venerdì 14 ottobre 2011, Adam D. Barratt ha scritto: On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:15:09 +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: we (debian-qt-kde) recently replaced kdebindings with a serie of split sources for it, and got kdebindings removed from unstable (#645074). However, there are two dependencies (plasma-scriptengine-ruby and omaque) that depend on binaries previously in kdebindings and now in korundum; would be possible to help the migration of smokeqt, smokekde, qtruby and korundum and the removal of kdebindings from testing? It's already being attempted by the auto-hinter. Unfortunately it's failing because the new sources don't entirely take over kdebindings and the binaries which are left (i.e. the kimono / qyoto packages built from kdebindings) get broken in the process. I thought so, even if I thought it could be fine for it to remove binarie with no rdepends. I've added an explicit hint which also includes removing kdebindings at the same time; let's see how that works out. It looks like the four sources migrated successfully and kdebindings is out of testing -- many thanks! -- Pino Toscano signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
hints for kdebindings and replacements
Hi, we (debian-qt-kde) recently replaced kdebindings with a serie of split sources for it, and got kdebindings removed from unstable (#645074). However, there are two dependencies (plasma-scriptengine-ruby and omaque) that depend on binaries previously in kdebindings and now in korundum; would be possible to help the migration of smokeqt, smokekde, qtruby and korundum and the removal of kdebindings from testing? Thanks, -- Pino Toscano signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: hints for kdebindings and replacements
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:15:09 +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: we (debian-qt-kde) recently replaced kdebindings with a serie of split sources for it, and got kdebindings removed from unstable (#645074). However, there are two dependencies (plasma-scriptengine-ruby and omaque) that depend on binaries previously in kdebindings and now in korundum; would be possible to help the migration of smokeqt, smokekde, qtruby and korundum and the removal of kdebindings from testing? It's already being attempted by the auto-hinter. Unfortunately it's failing because the new sources don't entirely take over kdebindings and the binaries which are left (i.e. the kimono / qyoto packages built from kdebindings) get broken in the process. I've added an explicit hint which also includes removing kdebindings at the same time; let's see how that works out. Regards, Adam -- 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/b94ecb13c66969d9c41dc6e600b0b...@adsl.funky-badger.org
Please add testing migration hints for eog/eog-plugins and gnome-utils/gtranslator
Hi, please consider adding the following migration hints: easy eog/3.0.2-2 eog-plugins/3.0.0-2 easy gnome-utils/3.0.1-5 gtranslator/2.90.5-2 Best regards Alexander Kurtz signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Please add testing migration hints for eog/eog-plugins and gnome-utils/gtranslator
On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:15:54 +, Alexander Kurtz wrote: please consider adding the following migration hints: easy eog/3.0.2-2 eog-plugins/3.0.0-2 Added; thanks. easy gnome-utils/3.0.1-5 gtranslator/2.90.5-2 This, otoh, I've not added. gtranslator is RC-buggy and so unable to migrate - see #636215. Regards, Adam -- 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/8c950679a328feed30718a3b1e9f6...@adsl.funky-badger.org
Re: Hints for ghc needed?
Hi, Am Dienstag, den 05.07.2011, 18:45 +0100 schrieb Adam D. Barratt: On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 18:31 +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: may I kindly ping about this issue? To my knowledge, all the packages mentioned here http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=ghc have been binNMUed to be able to transition together with ghc-7.0.3-2. I've added a hint for tonight's britney run; let's see. thanks, that did the trick. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Hints for ghc needed?
Hi, Am Samstag, den 02.07.2011, 20:56 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: if I read http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=ghc correctly then ghc could migrate to testing if some of the binNMUed packages mentioned there would migrate at the same time. I just scheduled the the remaining binNMUs on armel (which was late to build ghc), and they are through. Is manual interaction needed at this point? (It is a minor ghc update that only affected very few haskell packages that are tied very closely to the internal ghc API.) may I kindly ping about this issue? To my knowledge, all the packages mentioned here http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=ghc have been binNMUed to be able to transition together with ghc-7.0.3-2. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Hints for ghc needed?
On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 18:31 +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: may I kindly ping about this issue? To my knowledge, all the packages mentioned here http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=ghc have been binNMUed to be able to transition together with ghc-7.0.3-2. I've added a hint for tonight's britney run; let's see. Regards, Adam -- 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/1309887956.1918.2.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Hints for ghc needed?
Hi, if I read http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=ghc correctly then ghc could migrate to testing if some of the binNMUed packages mentioned there would migrate at the same time. I just scheduled the the remaining binNMUs on armel (which was late to build ghc), and they are through. Is manual interaction needed at this point? (It is a minor ghc update that only affected very few haskell packages that are tied very closely to the internal ghc API.) Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Removal hints
Hi, would you consider adding removal hints for the following packages? * libfreenect (needs removed glut, #616525) * bitlbee-skype (needs removed skype4py, #622739) Thanks -- .''`. : :' : Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org `. `' `- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Removal hints
On 05/29/2011 01:02 PM, Luca Falavigna wrote: Hi, would you consider adding removal hints for the following packages? * libfreenect (needs removed glut, #616525) * bitlbee-skype (needs removed skype4py, #622739) Removal hints added. Cheers, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/ -- 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/4de275fb.6080...@dogguy.org
Re: [britney] RFC: Behaviour change for approve hints
* Julien Cristau (jcris...@debian.org) [100919 01:39]: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 01:04:59 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Adam D. Barratt (a...@adam-barratt.org.uk) [100919 00:33]: [ Short version for the impatient - I'd like to make britney require all architectures to be built in t-p-u before paying any attention to an approve hint ] cool. can we please as well get an force-approve? ;=) Couldn't that just be separate force and approve? if that works, why not? Andi -- 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/20100919061423.gb2...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: [britney] RFC: Behaviour change for approve hints
On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 08:14 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Julien Cristau (jcris...@debian.org) [100919 01:39]: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 01:04:59 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Adam D. Barratt (a...@adam-barratt.org.uk) [100919 00:33]: [ Short version for the impatient - I'd like to make britney require all architectures to be built in t-p-u before paying any attention to an approve hint ] cool. can we please as well get an force-approve? ;=) Couldn't that just be separate force and approve? if that works, why not? It should work anywhere that just approving would work now; the approve checks would set updatecand to 0 and force would just set it back to 1 again. Regards, Adam -- 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/1284887819.12215.7975.ca...@kaa.jungle.aubergine.my-net-space.net
Re: [britney] RFC: Behaviour change for approve hints
On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 07:50 +0200, Luk Claes wrote: On 09/19/2010 12:33 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: As a consequence of all of the above, I'd like to propose modifying the semantics of approve so that the hint can be added straight away and the t-p-u package only becomes a valid candidate once it's available on all the architectures on which it exists in testing; the attached patch does so. Finally that missing feature will be implemented! :-) One thing that's worth mentioning is that the output is slightly different from the existing out-of-date checks for unstable: - the excuse says not yet built on $arch - the check purely says has the tpu package produced any binaries on $arch rather than has the tpu package produced all the binaries on $arch which the testing package produced If people would particularly like it changed so that each of the missing binaries relative to the testing package are listed then I'll look at adding that. Cheers, Adam -- 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/1284895605.12215.8901.ca...@kaa.jungle.aubergine.my-net-space.net
[britney] RFC: Behaviour change for approve hints
[ Short version for the impatient - I'd like to make britney require all
architectures to be built in t-p-u before paying any attention to an
approve hint ]
Hi,
For as long as I can remember, the advice for adding approve hints to
migrate packages from t-p-u to testing has been make sure the t-p-u
package has built on all architectures first, otherwise the remaining
architectures won't get built. This was predicated on the assumption
that the source version would be removed from t-p-u either automatically
or semi-automatically once it had migrated to testing; so far as I can
see, this is not currently the case and I'm told that with the current
buildd trigger code the missing architectures should continue to be
built so long as the source remains in t-p-u.
However, adding an approve hint before all the architectures are
available still seems to have some issues. As a test, I took a set of
britney data from a couple of days ago, before gnucash/tpu migrated, and
added the new source to the testing Sources file; a britney run using
that data failed to migrate any of the binary packages, claiming that
they would all become uninstallable (for reasons I haven't spent too
long investigating, possibly related to gnucash's dependency on arch:all
gnucash-common).
As a consequence of all of the above, I'd like to propose modifying the
semantics of approve so that the hint can be added straight away and
the t-p-u package only becomes a valid candidate once it's available on
all the architectures on which it exists in testing; the attached patch
does so.
Regards,
Adam
--- /srv/release.debian.org/britney/code/b1/update_out/update_out.py 2010-09-15 14:00:07.0 +
+++ update_out/update_out.py 2010-09-18 17:37:25.0 +
@@ -544,6 +544,30 @@
else:
updatecand = 0
+ if suite:
+ # o-o-d checks for t-p-u
+ for arch in arches:
+ # If the package isn't in testing or the testing
+ # package produces no packages on this architecture,
+ # then it can't be out-of-date. We assume that if
+ # the t-p-u package has produced any binaries for
+ # this architecture then it is ok
+
+ if not orig.is_present(src) or \
+ (len(orig.binaries(src, arch)) == 0) or \
+ (len(new.binaries(src, arch)) 0):
+continue
+
+ text = Not yet built on a href=\http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=%spkg=%sver=%ssuite=testing\; target=\_blank\%s/a % (urllib.quote(arch), urllib.quote(src), urllib.quote(srcv), arch)
+
+ if arch in fuckedarches:
+text = text + (but %s isn't keeping up, % \
+ (arch) + so never mind)
+ else:
+updatecand = 0
+
+ exc.addhtml(text)
+
pkgs = { src: [source] }
anybins = 0
for arch in arches:
Re: [britney] RFC: Behaviour change for approve hints
* Adam D. Barratt (a...@adam-barratt.org.uk) [100919 00:33]: [ Short version for the impatient - I'd like to make britney require all architectures to be built in t-p-u before paying any attention to an approve hint ] cool. can we please as well get an force-approve? ;=) Andi -- 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/20100918230459.go15...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: [britney] RFC: Behaviour change for approve hints
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 01:04:59 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Adam D. Barratt (a...@adam-barratt.org.uk) [100919 00:33]: [ Short version for the impatient - I'd like to make britney require all architectures to be built in t-p-u before paying any attention to an approve hint ] cool. can we please as well get an force-approve? ;=) Couldn't that just be separate force and approve? Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [britney] RFC: Behaviour change for approve hints
On 09/19/2010 12:33 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: As a consequence of all of the above, I'd like to propose modifying the semantics of approve so that the hint can be added straight away and the t-p-u package only becomes a valid candidate once it's available on all the architectures on which it exists in testing; the attached patch does so. Finally that missing feature will be implemented! :-) Cheers Luk -- 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/4c95a4ae.1090...@debian.org
Hints for libconfig-mvp-perl and related packages
Hi, allowing libdist-zilla-perl, libconfig-mvp-perl and libconfig-mvp-reader-ini-perl to migrate to testing probably needs some manual intervention: Migrating libconfig-mvp-perl will make libconfig-ini-mvp-perl uninstallable, but libconfig-ini-mvp-perl has been replaced by libconfig-mvp-reader-ini-perl. I will probably request removal from unstable soon (it has been packaged as a dependency of libdist-zilla-perl and there are no other rdeps). Also the packages need to be hinted as migrating them one by one is not possible as libconfig-mvp-perl breaks libdist-zilla-perl (and others) which again depend on libconfig-mvp-perl. hint libconfig-mvp-reader-ini-perl_2.101460-1 libconfig-mvp-perl_2.101540-1 libdist-zilla-perl_3.101520-1 libpod-weaver-perl_3.101460-1 remove libconfig-ini-mvp-perl_0.024-1 Maybe force-hint is required as libconfig-ini-mvp-perl is made uninstallable? I do not understand entirely what the hints README says about this. Regards, Ansgar -- 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/874oh66una@marvin.43-1.org
