Re: Uncoordinated rpm transition
On 09.06.2012 19:39, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sat, 2012-06-09 at 18:02 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Everything looks good and the old libraries were decrufted (increasing fossology's brokenness). The original upload would be over 10 days old now, so I'm looking at aging things for tonight's britney run to get this off the to-do list. Thanks to Pino for the cluebat, that won't work right now due to libextractor tying it to poppler. rpm | 4.10.0-2 | testing | source, amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc So far as I can see, this transition is now finished (the above will be visible on mirrors after the next dinstall). 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/d2f03ea2f1db849861ae5cc906a70...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Re: Uncoordinated rpm transition
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 21:04 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 00:46:56 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Michal Čihař ni...@debian.org (04/06/2012): All of them build just fine against new RPM with exception of fossology which did already FTBFS [1]. There is no need to binNMU rpm2html as I've already uploaded new version with few other fixes. Thanks. Scheduled level 1: dose2 + dose3. ceve + pkglab will follow tomorrow(-ish). ceve and pkglab scheduled now. Everything looks good and the old libraries were decrufted (increasing fossology's brokenness). The original upload would be over 10 days old now, so I'm looking at aging things for tonight's britney run to get this off the to-do list. 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/1339261372.16263.36.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Uncoordinated rpm transition
On Sat, 2012-06-09 at 18:02 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Everything looks good and the old libraries were decrufted (increasing fossology's brokenness). The original upload would be over 10 days old now, so I'm looking at aging things for tonight's britney run to get this off the to-do list. Thanks to Pino for the cluebat, that won't work right now due to libextractor tying it to poppler. 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/1339267166.16263.43.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Uncoordinated rpm transition
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 00:46:56 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Michal Čihař ni...@debian.org (04/06/2012): All of them build just fine against new RPM with exception of fossology which did already FTBFS [1]. There is no need to binNMU rpm2html as I've already uploaded new version with few other fixes. Thanks. Scheduled level 1: dose2 + dose3. ceve + pkglab will follow tomorrow(-ish). ceve and pkglab scheduled now. Cheers, Julien -- 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/20120607190421.gp31...@radis.cristau.org
Re: Uncoordinated rpm transition
Hi Dne Mon, 4 Jun 2012 01:00:32 +0200 Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org napsal(a): here's an extract of Artur's mail, telling us about the uncoordinated rpm transition you started: Artur Rona ari-tc...@tlen.pl (02/06/2012): I've noticed that new revision of rpm source package has been uploaded this week and introduced new binary packages names. However, maintainer of rpm didn't let us know about that fact. The list of changed SONAME: librpm2 - librpm3 librpmio2 - librpmio3 librpmbuild2 - librpmbuild3 librpmsign0 - librpmsign1 Mehdi has set a tracker for those: http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/rpm.html This is very unfortunate to have (yet another) uncoordinated transition, *this late* in the release cycle… Especially since there was a libextractor transition, which (thankfully) just finished, but that was a really near miss… and since that package is also involved in the poppler transition… Next time, please coordinate with us, we have been trying to get the message across during the past few years through messages to dda@, and we have documentation on the process: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions Sorry about that, my original plan was to upload it to experimental (and ask for transition later, but still preferably before freeze), but I messed it up (and did not notice till now). In case you would still prefer to avoid this transition, I can upload back older version. -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Uncoordinated rpm transition
Hello Michal. Michal Čihař ni...@debian.org (04/06/2012): Sorry about that, my original plan was to upload it to experimental (and ask for transition later, but still preferably before freeze) (Ideally, you would have asked at least 2 weeks ago…) but I messed it up (and did not notice till now). In case you would still prefer to avoid this transition, I can upload back older version. There aren't too many reverse dependencies. Please have a look at them, and file serious bugs if they FTBFS or aren't functional with those new rpm libraries. If it doesn't look too bad, I think we can still make this transition happen. I'll just hold back on the binNMUs until you write a little revdeps summary. ;) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Uncoordinated rpm transition
Hi Dne Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:42:26 +0200 Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org napsal(a): There aren't too many reverse dependencies. Please have a look at them, and file serious bugs if they FTBFS or aren't functional with those new rpm libraries. If it doesn't look too bad, I think we can still make this transition happen. I'll just hold back on the binNMUs until you write a little revdeps summary. ;) All of them build just fine against new RPM with exception of fossology which did already FTBFS [1]. There is no need to binNMU rpm2html as I've already uploaded new version with few other fixes. [1]:http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=674381 -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Uncoordinated rpm transition
Michal Čihař ni...@debian.org (04/06/2012): All of them build just fine against new RPM with exception of fossology which did already FTBFS [1]. There is no need to binNMU rpm2html as I've already uploaded new version with few other fixes. Thanks. Scheduled level 1: dose2 + dose3. ceve + pkglab will follow tomorrow(-ish). Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Uncoordinated rpm transition
Hi Michal, here's an extract of Artur's mail, telling us about the uncoordinated rpm transition you started: Artur Rona ari-tc...@tlen.pl (02/06/2012): I've noticed that new revision of rpm source package has been uploaded this week and introduced new binary packages names. However, maintainer of rpm didn't let us know about that fact. The list of changed SONAME: librpm2 - librpm3 librpmio2 - librpmio3 librpmbuild2 - librpmbuild3 librpmsign0 - librpmsign1 Mehdi has set a tracker for those: http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/rpm.html This is very unfortunate to have (yet another) uncoordinated transition, *this late* in the release cycle… Especially since there was a libextractor transition, which (thankfully) just finished, but that was a really near miss… and since that package is also involved in the poppler transition… Next time, please coordinate with us, we have been trying to get the message across during the past few years through messages to dda@, and we have documentation on the process: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
