Hi,
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > I started having a look at packaging the new upstream release of
> > rekall, to support python 3 (mostly because rekall is a r-dep of some
> > of the packages i maintain). For now it looks like the most immediate
> > need is to get aff4 ported
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 12:51:15AM -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> control: block -1 by 936091
>
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:02:23 +0200 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, 25 Aug 2019, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > If you have lost interest in the package, please let me know so I can ask
> >
Processing control commands:
> block -1 by 936091
Bug #927135 [src:rekall] src:rekall: Please update to python3 version
927135 was not blocked by any bugs.
927135 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 927135: 936091
--
927135: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=92713
control: block -1 by 936091
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:02:23 +0200 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2019, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > If you have lost interest in the package, please let me know so I can ask to
> > have it removed.
>
> Don't remove rekall please. There's a new upstream
Hi,
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> If you have lost interest in the package, please let me know so I can ask to
> have it removed.
Don't remove rekall please. There's a new upstream release with Python 3
support. We will get to it eventually.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 08:52:16 -0400 Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> Package: src:rekall
> Version: 1.6.0+dfsg-2
> Severity: important
>
> Python2.7 will go out of upstream security support during the Bullseye
> development cycle. It is not safe to assume it will be included in the
> next release, so if
6 matches
Mail list logo
