On 23.07.2024 23:33, Soren Stoutner wrote:
Hi,
Alternately, you could mark it as fixed in the current version of fq.
Actually I solved the issue by marking as notfound in fq. This ist not
100% correct, as it was package fq, which introduced the file conflict.
Anyway; nq has now migrated to
On 23.07.2024 23:07, Soren Stoutner wrote:
Hello,
Somehow the system didn’t pick up on the closure in the 1.0-0.1
changelog. I would suggest you manually mark it as fixed in 1.0-0.1
using:
The bug page itself [1] looks good and states:
Found in versions fq/0.9.0-2, nq/0.3.1-4, fq/0.0.4-2
Hi,
for nq the excuse [1] currently reads
Migration status for nq (- to 1.0-0.2): BLOCKED: Rejected/violates
migration policy/introduces a regression
Issues preventing migration:
Updating nq would introduce bugs in testing: #1005961
The bug has been closed in latest upload. What needs to
On 05.07.2024 11:04, Håvard F. Aasen wrote:
On 05.07.2024 00:25, Preuße, Hilmar wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to bring TeX Live 2024 into Debian testing. The excuse
pages for texlive-base/texlive-extra/texlive-lang say
"Migration status for texlive-... (2023.20240207-x to 2024.20240
Hi,
I'm trying to bring TeX Live 2024 into Debian testing. The excuse pages
for texlive-base/texlive-extra/texlive-lang say
"Migration status for texlive-... (2023.20240207-x to 2024.20240401-x):
Will attempt migration (Any information below is purely informational)"
Unfortunately these
On 04.03.2024 02:09, Loren M. Lang wrote:
Hi,
Have you just tried passing through -S from gbp? As in "gbp
buildpackage -S"? It might not work if you have set a different
builder like schroot, but you can just pass --git-builder=debuild or
similar in that case.
Yes, I tried that option "-S",
Hello,
dumb question: in an error I uploaded luametatex 2.11.01+ds-2 to Debian
unstable. This was a mistake, it should have been uploaded to
experimental, as it is part of the upcoming TL 2024. Is it possible to
downgrade the Debian archive (unstable) to 2.10.08+ds-1 and upload the
Hi all,
sorry to bother again. I was requested to stop building package on i386
(#1057407) so libqt6 can drop the i386 support too. So, how do do I do
that? Do I have to specify (and maintain) the list of all supported
arches in the debian/control file or can I specify something like "any
Moin,
dumb question, I did not find anything in the policy.
We got #1056587: in the postinst stage of a package a broken TeX format
file is generated. The root cause is that the user placed a customized
TeX input file anywhere and changed the TEXINPUTS variable in the
environment of user
On 10.11.2023 00:37, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 11:06:32PM +0100, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
Hello Mattia,
Can we override that anyhow?
Even if it was possible, how would that be of any help? You do realize
that versioning order matters for much more than whatever is shown on
On 10.11.2023 03:10, Wookey wrote:
Hi Wookey,
I think your options are
1) add an epoch (which exists to deal with this sort of problem)
Well, would like to avoid it, if possible.
2) wait till the next (numerical) release 1.3.9 and upload that.
Do releases happen often? This approach
On 07.11.2023 01:07, Santiago Vila wrote:
Hi,
Hi. I see that the previous change was also requested by you (and
uploaded by someone else) due to its interaction with Texinfo.
If you feel attachment to an orphaned package, you can also adopt it.
I'm aware of that, but currently I'm not
On 07.11.2023 00:25, Santiago Vila wrote:
El 6/11/23 a las 23:42, Hilmar Preuße escribió:
Hi,
TeXinfo 7.1 does not migrate to testing b/c the test suite of
autoproject returns with exit code > 0. I've filed a bug report and
created a patch for the issue. The package is maintained by the
On 21.10.2023 00:32, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
Hi,
That should be opening an rt ticket with DSA, as access on those guest accounts
expires after a while.
One only needs to go through the NM page the first time.
Yes, that worked. I had to open a ticket at rt.debian.org to reactivate
the
Hello,
dumb question. Currently the vcswatch for proftpd-dfsg [1] reports:
"OLD: VCS is behind the version in the archive: 1.3.8a+dfsg-1 <
1.3.8+dfsg-8."
According to deb-version(7) this is absolutely correct:
First the initial part of each string consisting entirely of non-digit
On 27.09.2023 19:07, Niels Thykier wrote:
Hi,
In your case, I would start with a give back and then if this attempt
fails, contact the buildd admins.
AFAICT that option is limited to Debian Developers. So if anybody would
be so kind
Hilmar
--
sigfault
OpenPGP_signature
Hi all,
the package texinfo has been built successfully for architecture loong64
and is in status "Uploaded" for about a month now. I'm pretty sure there
are a lot of packages in status "BD-Uninstallable" b/c it does not get
installed.
What can be done here?
Hilmar
--
sigfault
On 13.09.2023 00:00, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 23:51:26 +0200, Preuße, Hilmar wrote:
Hi,
My guess is different lintian versions, aka ftp-master running an
older lintian version which had a different formatting of the output.
Compare the strings:
texlive-binaries: lintian
Hello,
again a dumb question. I tried to upload texlive-bin into the NEW queue.
The upload was rejected:
texlive-binaries: lintian output: 'embedded-library usr/bin/pdftex:
poppler', automatically rejected package.
texlive-binaries: If you have a good reason, you may override this
lintian
On 04.09.2023 13:30, Preuße, Hilmar wrote:
Hi,
I signed the package now correctly, the processing E-Mail said:
dvisvgm_3.1.1+ds-1.debian.tar.xz has incorrect size; deleting it
Do I have to re-upload or remove the "associated files" in any way?
The ACCEPTED mail just rolled in. M
On 04.09.2023 12:42, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 12:28:01PM +0200, Preuße, Hilmar wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to upload a new package for dvisvgm[1]. Unfortunately this does
not work: the dput command runs fine, but I did not even got the E-Mail that
the upload
Hi all,
I'm trying to upload a new package for dvisvgm[1]. Unfortunately this
does not work: the dput command runs fine, but I did not even got the
E-Mail that the upload was successful and the package is processed.
In the meantime I could upload a new revision of texlive-bin, so there
is no
On 17.07.2023 09:31, Gábor Németh wrote:
Hi,
So basically I think I'm now looking for a new sponsor. I don't think
I can file a new RFS so that my package is in the repos already.
You can file an RFS file, in case you need help with uploading to
Debian. This does not depend on if the package
On 20.06.2023 13:34, Ramūnas Keliuotis wrote:
Hi,
We just opensourced our NordVPN Linux application
and want to make it available from the public Debian repository.
As we are planning to do packaging and support by
ourselves, it is still not clear how to properly go
through the Debian
On 06.05.2023 00:25, Dominik George wrote:
Hi,
Now I need to move some files to another package. Is there an easy
method the exclude some files from this package or do I have to compile
a positive list (which might vary between versions)?
In debian/rules:
Well, errrm. I should have looked
Hi all,
sorry, dumb question: currently a Debian package contains all files it
find below usr/bin and usr/share.
hille@sid-amd64:~/t2/texlive-bin/debian$ cat texlive-binaries.install
usr/bin
usr/share
Now I need to move some files to another package. Is there an easy
method the exclude some
On 20.03.2023 16:38, Aaron Boxer wrote:
Hi Aaron,
are you subscribed to debian-devel-annou...@lists.debian.org ?
Thanks, Santiago. How do I contact the release team to ask about unblock ?
"According to schedule, we have frozen bookworm a bit more
(2023-03-12). This means that we are one
27 matches
Mail list logo
