Bug#1022573: transition: procps

2022-12-30 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Craig, On 31-12-2022 06:45, Craig Small wrote: Looks like old dependencies so the removal of libprocps-dev from their build dependency line in control is all that is needed. I can do that, or the respective maintainers can. Thanks for updating the respective bugs (thanks to Peter). Paul

Bug#1022573: transition: procps

2022-12-30 Thread Craig Small
On Thu, 29 Dec 2022 at 05:04, Paul Gevers wrote: > With procps migrated to testing, dose [1] is reporting two more packages > that weren't on our radar: open-vm-tools and guymager. Can you have a > Both these packages do not use any symbols from the old library and their binary packages do not

Bug#1022573: transition: procps

2022-12-30 Thread Craig Small
OK, open-vm-tools doesn't even use the library so that's an easy fix. On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 at 15:50, Craig Small wrote: > On Thu, 29 Dec 2022 at 05:04, Paul Gevers wrote: > >> With procps migrated to testing, dose [1] is reporting two more packages >> that weren't on our radar: open-vm-tools

Bug#1022573: transition: procps

2022-12-30 Thread Craig Small
On Thu, 29 Dec 2022 at 05:04, Paul Gevers wrote: > With procps migrated to testing, dose [1] is reporting two more packages > that weren't on our radar: open-vm-tools and guymager. Can you have a > look and help the maintainer with migrating to the new version of > procps? open-vm-tools has a

Bug#1022573: transition: procps

2022-12-28 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Craig, With procps migrated to testing, dose [1] is reporting two more packages that weren't on our radar: open-vm-tools and guymager. Can you have a look and help the maintainer with migrating to the new version of procps? open-vm-tools has a new version in unstable that's now unable to

Bug#1022573: transition: procps

2022-12-22 Thread 陳昌倬
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 07:54:17PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > ChangZhuo, src:lxqt-session is in the same boat, but already changed it's > Build-Dependency in experimental. An upload to unstable would be > appreciated. Uploaded to unstable -- ChangZhuo Chen (陳昌倬) czchen@{czchen,debian}.org

Bug#1022573: transition: procps

2022-12-22 Thread Craig Small
On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 19:50, Paul Gevers wrote: > That's (in general) sub-optimal for the release team. We try hard to > avoid entangling transitions and therefor we try to finish transitions > sooner rather than later. My preference would be that you NMU (minimal > changes) now; the maintainer

Bug#1022573: transition: procps

2022-12-22 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Craig, On 22-12-2022 00:28, Craig Small wrote: BUT, procps is in transition and this linking needs to happen before the first freeze milestone so I will upload 20220525 linked to libproc2 if we get near to running out of time. That's (in general) sub-optimal for the release team. We try

Bug#1022573: transition: procps

2022-12-21 Thread Craig Small
(added the bug report for igt) On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 08:29, Craig Small wrote: > On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 07:46, Paul Gevers wrote: > >> An actual upload. If the maintainer isn't doing it, I think an NMU is >> appropriate if you're sure of the fix. >> > Ah, I thought you were the igt maintainer

Bug#1022573: transition: procps

2022-12-21 Thread Craig Small
On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 07:46, Paul Gevers wrote: > An actual upload. If the maintainer isn't doing it, I think an NMU is > appropriate if you're sure of the fix. > Ah, I thought you were the igt maintainer :) I'll have a go recreating it and uploading it tonight. I'm pretty confident about the

Bug#1022573: transition: procps

2022-12-21 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 21-12-2022 21:42, Craig Small wrote: Is there something else you need? This one was one of the easier ones to fix. An actual upload. If the maintainer isn't doing it, I think an NMU is appropriate if you're sure of the fix. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital

Bug#1022573: transition: procps

2022-12-21 Thread Craig Small
On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 05:54, Paul Gevers wrote: > The issue is that src:intel-gpu-tools is a key packages but currently > unfixed. Having procps migrate to testing now would cause it to be > instantaneously RC buggy, but because it is key, we can't simply remove > it from bookworm. Can you help

Bug#1022573: transition: procps

2022-12-21 Thread Paul Gevers
Dear Craig, ChangZhuo, This is a heads up that I just added a block against procps to prevent the package in unstable from migrating to testing too soon. The issue is that src:intel-gpu-tools is a key packages but currently unfixed. Having procps migrate to testing now would cause it to be

Bug#1022573: transition: procps

2022-11-10 Thread Sebastian Ramacher
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-procps.html Hi Craig On 2022-10-24 20:04:22 +1100, Craig Small wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > The

Bug#1022573: transition: procps

2022-10-24 Thread Craig Small
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition The procps library is now finally changing. Over 20 years ago there was a library to assist with the procps binaries but the API wasn't very good nor not really intentioned for use