Debian 10, which in turn was extracted from
+upstream git. Should help the inkscape project. Closes: #891347.
+See https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/issues/271 for details.
+
+ -- Santiago Vila Sat, 31 Aug 2019 01:30:22 +0200
+
gettext (0.19.8.1-2) unstable; urgency=medium
* Use
Package: src:mpi4py
Version: 3.0.2-12
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in sid with "dpkg-buildpackage -A"
but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh build-indep
Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 13:22:42 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The only thing it did not have was more than one CPU, but AFAIK that's
> > not something that may be considered as a misconfiguration.
>
> Roughly what proportion of Debian packages
-release. Closes: #829245. Please note
+that this is only for stable releases.
+
+ -- Santiago Vila Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:45:44 +0200
+
base-files (9.9+deb9u9) stretch; urgency=medium
* Change /etc/debian_version to 9.9, for Debian 9.9 point release.
diff -Nru base-files-9.9+deb9u9/etc
Package: src:gcc-9-cross-mipsen
Version: 1+c1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in sid but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
gcc: 9.2.1-3 / 9.1.0-10cross1
old
Hi.
I'm still tracking FTBFS bugs in buster. Am I right to think that this
upload for stable (when accepted) will fix Bugs #931002 and #931003 in
rust-coresimd and rust-simd, making them buildable again?
(Those bugs have been closed automatically by FTPmaster, but the automatic
script does not
Greetings.
I can reproduce this bug, and I've put a bunch of failed build logs here:
https://people.debian.org/~sanvila/build-logs/hkl/
The bug happens "randomly", but in a very particular way: always in some
instances and never in the others.
I believe this may be some sort of Makefile bug
Package: src:parsedatetime
Version: 2.1-3+deb9u1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in stretch but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh build-indep --with
Package: src:libbusiness-hours-perl
Version: 0.12-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in stretch but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh build-indep
Package: src:gcc-defaults
Version: 1.168
Fixed: 1.181
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in stretch and this is what happened:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh_testdir
rm
Package: src:range-v3
Version: 0.5.0-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in sid but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules binary-indep
dh binary-indep
Package: src:fence-agents
Version: 4.0.25-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs patch
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in stretch but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-arch
dh build-arch --with python2
Hi.
I confirm that the patch by Chris Lamb fixes the build failure.
For completeness I would also make the build-dependency on gnupg to be
versioned.
Thanks.
Hi.
Maybe you mean #934034 instead of #861457?
The one I reported recently is #934034 and it happens "always"
in stretch, not just randomly (this is why I filed it as serious).
On the other side, #861457 was reported a long time ago and it was
just "random".
Since the package always fail now,
Package: src:golang-github-anacrolix-ffprobe
Version: 1.0.0-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in sid but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh build-indep
Package: src:de4dot
Version: 3.1.41592.3405-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in sid but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh build-indep --with cli
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 09:43:53AM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> If a build issue appeared *after* the release, due to a regression
> caused by a point release, then yes I think the issue is worth reporting
> (but I wouldn't bother reporting minor test failures that can be easily
> skipped to
severity 930057 serious
retitle 930057 alot: FTBFS because of expired keys
thanks
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Source: alot
> Version: 0.8.1-1
> Severity: important
>
> Hi,
>
> alot will FTBFS in the future. For example, running with a clock in
> 2020 results in: [...]
Hi. I can
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 02:01:27PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 06/08/2019 à 12:45, Santiago Vila a écrit :
>
> > Dear maintainer:
> >
> > I tried to build this package in stretch but it failed:
>
> Hi Santiago,
>
> I'm not sure to understand
Package: src:sorl-thumbnail
Version: 12.3+git20160928-2
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in stretch but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh build-indep --with
Package: src:heimdal
Version: 7.1.0+dfsg-13+deb9u2
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in stretch but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh build-indep --with
Package: src:libjaxen-java
Version: 1.1.6-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in stretch but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
test -x debian/rules
mkdir -p "."
Package: src:monkeysphere
Version: 0.41-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in stretch but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh build-indep
dh_testdir -i
Package: src:ocrmypdf
Version: 4.3.5-3
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in stretch but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh build-indep --with python3,sphinxdoc
Package: src:mitmproxy
Version: 0.18.2-6
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in stretch but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh build-indep --with python2
reopen 903213
found 903213 0.4.1-1
fixed 903213 0.10.2-1
thanks
Hi. Could we please fix this in stretch?
(Packages in stretch must be buildable in stretch).
Thanks.
reopen 902162
found 902162 2.0.0-1
fixed 902162 2.3.1-3
thanks
Hi.
Could we please fix this in stretch?
(Packages in stretch must be buildable in stretch)
Thanks.
reopen 902241
found 902241 2.1.11-2
fixed 902241 2.6.0-2
thanks
Hi.
Could we please fix this in stretch? After all, this is what I
reported initially (packages in stretch must be buildable in stretch).
Thanks.
.
+ - Do not raise a zip bomb alert for a misplaced central directory.
+Reported by Peter Green. Closes: #932404.
+
+ -- Santiago Vila Mon, 05 Aug 2019 18:10:06 +0200
+
unzip (6.0-21+deb9u1) stretch; urgency=medium
* Fix buffer overflow in password protected ZIP archives. Closes: #889838
reopen 915270
found 915270 0.3.4-2
fixed 915270 0.3.4-3.1
thanks
Hi.
Could we please fix this in stretch as well? (Packages in buster must
build in buster, packages in stretch must build in stretch).
Would your diff apply cleanly to the version in stretch?
(I have not tested this yet).
Thanks.
Dear gradle maintainers:
I've reassigned this bug to gradle after hearing the explanations from
both Mark Adler here:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=931895#73
and the bug submitter here:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=931895#90
Thanks.
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 01:38:46PM -0300, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On 2019-07-27 13:18, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > tags 932318 - moreinfo
> > thanks
> >
> > Hello.
> >
> > The problem with Firefox should now be fixed, and it was unzip's fault.
> >
&g
Quoting Debian Policy:
Packages should build reproducibly, which for the purposes of this
document [19] means that given
a version of a source package unpacked at a given path;
a set of versions of installed build dependencies;
a set of environment variable values;
a build
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 05:23:49PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> without a bug roundtrip plus new upload. But second, and I think most
> important: how many extra fields would this need? Build-CPU,
> Build-RAM, Build-HDD spring to mind... But many other more detailed
> bits could creep their way in
Package: src:ugene
Version: 1.31.1+dfsg-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in buster but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-arch
dh build-arch --buildsystem=qmake
Package: src:devscripts
Version: 2.19.5
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in buster but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules binary-arch
dh binary-arch --with python3
tags 932318 - moreinfo
thanks
Hello.
The problem with Firefox should now be fixed, and it was unzip's fault.
If possible, I'd like this upload I did 6.0-23+deb10u1 to be rejected so that
I can reuse the +deb10u1 version with all the fixes included.
Thanks.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 04:01:15AM +, Adler, Mark wrote:
> All,
>
> Thank you Santiago for the report and David for the diagnosis. Though this is
> not a valid zip file, there are in fact no overlapping structures and so
> there should not be a bomb alert.
>
> I have added a commit that
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> It might help your case if you would describe why using more than one
> core is not an option for you.
I have already explained that several times.
The first one here, on a theoretical level:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=907829#57
Then I went ahead and
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:05:45PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Do I understand correctly that you are asking the TC to exercise our
> power to overrule developers, in order to overrule the maintainer's
> and/or the release team's judgement about the severity of (bugs like)
> #907829?
Not yet.
Maybe something like this would fix it, but beware because it's
completely untested:
--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
@@ -37,8 +37,8 @@ override_dh_auto_clean:
override_dh_auto_build:
dh_auto_build -- NO_PNG=1
-override_dh_install:
- dh_install
+override_dh_fixperms-arch:
+
Package: src:hhsuite
Version: 3.2.0-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in sid but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh build-indep --builddirectory=mybuild
retitle 932795 How to handle FTBFS bugs in release architectures
thanks
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:05:45PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I don't think framing this as a question of ethics is necessarily
> helpful. When people disagree on a technical question, a recurring
> problem is that both
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 01:30:58PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I suggest the following approach:
>
> - Introduce the words "supported" and "reasonable". So
>
> Packages must build from source in any supported environment;
> they should build from source in any reasonable environment.
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Everyone else uses the common-sense approach of using CPU-strong
> machines for CPU-intensive tasks like package building, if you
> have made different practical experiences I'd be interested in
> seeing the bills.
Package: tech-ctte
Dear TC:
I reported this bug:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=907829
and it was downgraded on the basis that the official autobuilders
are multi-core.
I believe this downgrade is not appropriate, for several reasons:
* The informal guideline which is
Dear Release Managers:
Please leave this package unapproved for now.
It has some side-effects (like firefox FTBFS) which need to be
investigated:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=932404
I have the feeling that this will be another case of buggy zipfile,
like this one:
Hello Mark.
The Debian firefox package no longer builds from source when using the
patched unzip and I'm told this is a "false positive". Is it?
This is the way to reproduce it:
wget
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/68.0.1/linux-x86_64/en-US/firefox-68.0.1.tar.bz2
tar xvf
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Mike Hommey wrote:
> reassign -1 unzip
> found -1 6.0-24
> notfound -1 6.0-23
>
> This is a false positive from the changes in unzip 6.0-24.
Please note that this is not necessarily a false positive.
It could be a buggy zipfile as well, like the ones reported here:
in undefer_input() that misplaced the input state.
+ - Detect and reject a zip bomb using overlapped entries. Closes: #931433.
+Bug discovered by David Fifield. For reference, this is CVE-2019-13232.
+
+ -- Santiago Vila Wed, 17 Jul 2019 16:35:30 +0200
+
unzip (6.0-23) unstable; urgency=medium
Hi.
According to Mark Adler, those jar files are buggy:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=931895#73
Simple question: Do those jar files come from any package that we
(Debian) distribute? If yes, I'd like to reassign the bug. If not, I
guess closing the bug as "not really a bug"
Thanks a lot, Mark, for such a comprehensive reply!
I'll ask the submitter where exactly those files come from,
but there is indeed little to do on my side.
Thanks.
reassign 932170 debhelper
forcemerge 932073 932170
affects 932170 src:bird2
thanks
> If this is really a bug in one of the build-depends, please use reassign and
> affects,
> so that this is still visible in the BTS web page for this package.
I think that's actually the case.
Thanks.
Package: src:bird2
Version: 2.0.4-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in sid but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh build-indep
dh_update_autotools_config -i
> > (The Debian version in turn had already a bunch of other changes to
> > fix other CVE issues and other misc fixes, I hope there are not
> > incompatibilities).
>
> Well, apparently there is an incompatibility. I can make no promises about
> applying those commits to an unzip source of
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 04:32:53PM +, Adler, Mark wrote:
> Santiago,
>
> Thank you for the report.
>
> I downloaded the four false-positive zip files from the bugreport page, and
> none of them showed a zip bomb error (or any other error).
>
> How exactly did you apply the fix? Did you
reopen 930996
found 930996 8.0.0-4
fixed 930996 8.0.0-5
thanks
Hi. Reopening because packages in buster must build in buster.
In addition to the fix in unstable, this should be fixed in
buster-proposed-updates as well.
Thanks.
Hello.
I applied your fix for the zip bomb issue to the Debian unzip package
and shortly afterwards I received this bug report from one of our users
(Ben Caradoc-Davies, in the Cc).
(Note: Our BTS is email-based, but I could also put an issue on github
if you prefer).
The full report is
> > What would be next? Is this the kind of bug for which you will prepare
> > a DSA (security), or is stable-pu and oldstable-pu enough?
>
> Once the fix is in unstable, this can safely go via the next buster.
> and stretch point release. Can you contact the stable release managers
> for it?
Hi.
I'm going to upload a fix for unstable in short (patches by Mark Adler,
already applied by Markus Koschany in jessie LTS btw).
What would be next? Is this the kind of bug for which you will prepare
a DSA (security), or is stable-pu and oldstable-pu enough?
Thanks.
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 04:30:34PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> anything new about this package?
> The jessie version reports fixed for a few days.
Good to know. I've contacted the upstream maintainer (Steven Schweda).
If I don't get a reply soon I will just forward-port the patch from
On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 10:50:46PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Source: unzip
> Version: 6.0-23
> Severity: important
> Tags: security upstream
> Control: found -1 6.0-21+deb9u1
> Control: found -1 6.0-21
>
> Hi,
>
> The following vulnerability was published for unzip.
>
>
Package: linux-image-4.19.0-5-cloud-amd64
Version: 4.19.37-5
Dear maintainer:
On a virtual machine running buster on Google Compute Engine, where
this kernel package is the default, I get the following messages:
google_clock_skew_daemon[1539]: hwclock: Cannot access the Hardware Clock via
any
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 06:58:06PM -0400, Sam Doran wrote:
> Package: base-files
> Version: 9.9+deb9u9
> Severity: minor
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> I am an Ansible Core maintainer and I would like to request that the
> minor verison information, e.g., 9.9, be included in /etc/os-release on
>
Package: src:rust-coresimd
Version: 0.1.2-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in buster but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-arch
dh build-arch --buildsystem cargo
Package: src:rust-simd
Version: 0.2.4-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in buster but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-arch
dh build-arch --buildsystem cargo
Package: src:cloudkitty
Version: 8.0.0-4
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in buster but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
pyversions: missing X(S)-Python-Version
Package: src:guile-2.2
Version: 2.2.4+1-2
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in buster but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh build-indep --parallel --with
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 07:29:08AM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Can you confirm that you were using the fuse implementation of overlayfs and
> not the one from the Linux Kernel?
Good question.
I'm using whatever schroot uses when using "union-type=overlay" in the
chroot definition at
Package: src:pyglet
Version: 1.3.0-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in buster but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
pyversions: missing X(S)-Python-Version in
Package: src:r-cran-webgestaltr
Version: 0.3.0-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in sid but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-arch
dh build-arch --buildsystem R
Package: src:elastalert
Version: 0.2.0b2-1
Tags: patch
Dear maintainer:
This package does not build twice in a row. Way to reproduce:
dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us
dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us
This is what will happen the second time:
dpkg-source: info: local changes detected, the modified files
Package: src:flycheck
Version: 31-2
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in buster but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-indep
dh build-indep --with elpa,sphinxdoc
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:00:17PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 16-05-2019 22:03, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 09:52:45PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> >> Well, if they are maintained by the QA group, there are at least around
> >> 90 people notified of stuff.
> >
> >
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 07:43:09PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> The reason why it got removed, is that nobody was looking after razor.
> Otherwise, preventing removal would have been easy.
Indeed. If I had known that it was going to be removed, I would have
downgraded the severity of the bug
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Severity: normal
Please allow razor back in testing, as a freeze exception.
It was autoremoved because there was a RC bug in the BTS, but the
real problem was not in the package itself but in the razor
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 02:21:49PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > To be precise, if I apply the patch below to hello-traditional_2.10-5
> > and do "dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us -b" in a sid chroot, I get a .deb
> > package with all files owned by "sanvila/sanvila".
>
> Ah. :) Ok let's try to see
ian/control b/debian/control
index 01f8dea..6fffe36 100644
--- a/debian/control
+++ b/debian/control
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Priority: optional
Maintainer: Santiago Vila
Standards-Version: 4.3.0
Homepage: http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/
-Rules-Requires-Root: binary-targets
+Rules-Requires-Root:
+
+ * Add Breaks: debian-security-support (<< 2019.04.25). Closes: #928172.
+This is the first version of debian-security-support which does not break
+when /etc/debian_version contains a string in the form "10.x".
+
+ -- Santiago Vila Mon, 13 May 2019 22:25:32 +0200
+
+
Hmm, this is probably not the same bug.
What Thorsten reported is a real failure. Mine is just an undesired warning.
(Not sure if they have a common cause)
Thanks.
I've just found this too.
Running as root from directory /root which is 700 by default I get this:
mymachine~# apt-get download base-files
Get:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian buster/main amd64 base-files amd64 10.1
[69.4 kB]
Fetched 69.4 kB in 0s (0 B/s)
W: Download is performed unsandboxed
Way to reproduce it:
1. Install package in the *host* machine:
# apt-get install debian-security-support
2. Enter a sid chroot where debian-security-support has never been installed:
# schroot -c sid
3. Install package inside the chroot:
# apt-get install debian-security-support
The postinst
On Mon, 13 May 2019, Holger Levsen wrote:
> severity 928204 important
> tags 928204 unreproducible moreinfo
> # thanks
>
> Kibi,
>
> #928204 is the bug with the title "check-support-status: cannot create
> /var/lib/debian-security-support/security-support.semaphore: Directory
> nonexistent"...
tags 928887 + pending
thanks
I've asked release.debian.org for permission to do very minimal
changes in addition to the dummy upload (see #928939 for details).
Thanks.
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 04:57:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > I tried using compat version 12 in package "hello" and this is what
> > happened:
>
> For reference/FYI, I suspect this will happen already at compat 10 or
> later (I noted that hello in sid uses compat 9 and compat 10 is the
>
.0 +0100
@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-9
diff -Nru hello-2.10/debian/control hello-2.10/debian/control
--- hello-2.10/debian/control 2015-03-22 11:00:00.0 +0100
+++ hello-2.10/debian/control 2019-05-12 22:26:59.0 +0200
@@ -2,9 +2,10 @@
Section: devel
Priority: optional
Maintainer: San
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:32:36AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> hi,
>
> so there is "#928172 debian-security-support: fails to upgrade from 'testing':
> dpkg: error: error executing hook" which happens when base-files is upgraded
> before debian-security-support (but doesnt happen if d-s-s is
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> Please do a dummy 2.10-2 upload to fix this ...
I am in fact considering a not-so-dummy upload with minor changes,
because after all this is a package to be copied and pasted, but I'll
have to ask for permission to
Package: debhelper
Version: 12.1.1
Hello Niels.
I tried using compat version 12 in package "hello" and this is what happened:
sh: 1: build-aux/git-version-gen: not found
sh: 1: build-aux/git-version-gen: not found
sh: 1: build-aux/git-version-gen: not found
sh: 1: build-aux/git-version-gen: not
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> Package: hello
> Version: 2.10-1
> Severity: serious
> Tags: sid buster
> User: debian...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: piuparts
>
> Hi,
>
> during a test with piuparts I noticed your package violates version
> ordering:
>
>
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 03:37:51PM +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> The bug is now again in the bts-is-confused state: found+fixed in the
> same version (which is treated as not-fixed and wont-be-archived). My
> intention was to close it as invalid (found with version, fixed without
> version) +
On Tue, 7 May 2019, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> reassign 928405 src:glibc 2.28-10
> notfixed 926215 2.6~20180302-1
> tags 926215 + unreproducible
> thanks
Hello Andreas. Sorry, I have just marked this bug as fixed, because I
didn't realize that you had the intention to reassign it.
The bug I
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 11:40:24AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 12:56:18PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Hello Holger. I'd like to work on this issue.
> >
> > My plan is to change "exit 1" to "exit 0" (as proposed) in both
>
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 06:45:05PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 02:06:20PM -0400, Gabriel Filion wrote:
> > so in order to unblock things one might want to run:
> >
> > apt purge debian-security-support
> > apt update && apt upgrade
> > apt install debian-security-support
Note: The changes in elastalert are now in master branch according to this:
https://github.com/Yelp/elastalert/issues/2204#issuecomment-490763734
Thanks.
Hi.
In case it's useful, I've packaged elastalert version 0.2.0b2
(in upstream branch called "beta") and put the result here:
https://people.debian.org/~sanvila/elastalert/
but it does not work properly unless python-elasticsearch is also
updated, which I have also done here:
Hi.
Version 7.0.0 was released several weeks ago:
https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch-py/releases
While we are at it: Documentation at
https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch-py says:
For Elasticsearch 7.0 and later, use the major version 7 (7.x.y) of the library.
For Elasticsearch 6.0
Package: src:browserpass
Version: 3.1.1-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
I tried to build this package in sid but it failed:
[...]
debian/rules build-arch
dh build-arch --buildsystem=golang
Package: logrotate
Version: 3.14.0-4
Dear maintainer:
In a stretch system where the /etc/logrotate.conf has been modified
slightly, upgrading to buster and keeping the old configuration makes
entries for wtmp and btmp to be duplicated, as they are now in
separate files in logrotate.d. This makes
Package: src:ruby-pygments.rb
Version: 1.2.0-3
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs patch
Dear maintainer:
After fixing #923986 we have now the opposite problem: There is a test
which expects a timeout!
This is how it fails now in some of my autobuilders:
1201 - 1300 of 6104 matches
Mail list logo
