On 10/24/18 3:54 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> If "a rebuild is required to make them compatible", you should add
> Breaks against those versions, as it maeans the new protobuf is not
> compatible to them and coinstallation should be prevented.
> That would also hint britney to trigger autopkgtest wi
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 03:47:47PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I think these regressions should not add a delay to testing migration as
> autopkgtests are passing in unstable and a rebuild is required to make
> them compatible with new protobuf version.
>
> autopkgtest for gazebo/9.0.0+dfsg5-4.
Hi Emilio,
I think these regressions should not add a delay to testing migration as
autopkgtests are passing in unstable and a rebuild is required to make
them compatible with new protobuf version.
autopkgtest for gazebo/9.0.0+dfsg5-4.2: amd64: Regression ♻
autopkgtest for ignition-msgs/1.0.0+dfs
On 2018, ഒക്ടോബർ 12 12:36:45 PM IST, "László Böszörményi (GCS)"
wrote:
> Uploaded ProtoBuf with the latest gRPC to Sid.
Thanks a lot for your work! I hope to upload them to stretch-backports as soon
as they enter testing (I have rebuilt them for my personal repo before).
--
Sent from my An
Hi Emilio,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:56 PM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>
> On 11/09/2018 09:51, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
> > The last package which fails is gazebo which seems to be team
> > maintained but it has two NMUs already. There's no bug reported her
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 11/09/2018 09:51, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM Pirate Praveen
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 10:21:41 +0200
>> =?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= wrote:
>>> The new protobuf -> protobuf-c / grpc chain compiles
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 09:51:07 +0200
=?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= wrote:
> The last package which fails is gazebo which seems to be team
> maintained but it has two NMUs already. There's no bug reported here
> for the protobuf update but upstream aware of it and has a patch[1
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 10:21:41 +0200
> =?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= wrote:
> > The new protobuf -> protobuf-c / grpc chain compiles now on all
> > release architectures. Due to the mentioned protobuf soname change, I
>
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 10:21:41 +0200
=?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:53 AM Robert Edmonds wrote:
> > I've released a new upstream version of protobuf-c that fixes the FTBFS
> > issue with protobuf 3.6, which fixes #900621. I will upload it to
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:53 AM Robert Edmonds wrote:
> I've released a new upstream version of protobuf-c that fixes the FTBFS
> issue with protobuf 3.6, which fixes #900621. I will upload it to
> unstable shortly.
To whom it may concern, a status update.
Robert released and uploaded an updated
Hi,
I've released a new upstream version of protobuf-c that fixes the FTBFS
issue with protobuf 3.6, which fixes #900621. I will upload it to
unstable shortly.
László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:14 AM Pirate Praveen
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:55:03 +0200
> > =?U
[Copying Emilio]
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 10:27:58 +0200
=?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= wrote:
> [Removed the Security Team Cc, they were relevant for backporting
> protobuf to Stretch, not for updating it in Sid.]
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:14 AM Pirate Praveen
> wrote:
>
On Thursday 12 July 2018 01:57 PM, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
> How quick do you need to solve this GitLab update? I guess, quick.
We are not able to backport some complex security fixes to gitlab 8.13
in stretch. Security team wants to remove gitlab 8.13 from stable and
I'd like to provide a
[Removed the Security Team Cc, they were relevant for backporting
protobuf to Stretch, not for updating it in Sid.]
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:14 AM Pirate Praveen
wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:55:03 +0200
> =?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= wrote:
> > The most problematic po
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:55:03 +0200
=?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= wrote:
> The most problematic point is the protobuf-c dependency package. It
> was developed (and packaged) by one of us (an other DD), Robert S.
> Edmonds. It is the most complete C language implementation of P
On July 6, 2018 2:25:03 PM GMT+05:30, "László Böszörményi (GCS)"
wrote:
>Praveen, as I saw you even talked to the Security Team about
>backporting protobuf and grpc packages to Stretch for GitLab
>issues[4]. Please do so with caution about protobuf-c for the reasons
>mentioned above. In the fu
Control: owner -1 !
Hi,
First thing first. Protocol Buffers is a data interchange format used
by several projects and C++ based. Language bindings are available,
but not all of those come from upstream, Google Inc. It also has an
RPC library and framework called gRPC with language bindings on its
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Dear release team,
protobuf 3.6 is in experimental and ready to start the transition from
3.0 in unstable.
I've rebuilt the relevant reverse-build-dependencies from unstable. The
follow
18 matches
Mail list logo
