python-ofxhome_0.3.3-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 01:01:05 +0200 Source: python-ofxhome Binary: python-ofxhome Architecture: source all Version: 0.3.3-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian QA Group Changed-By: Clint Adams Descri

python-ofxclient_2.0.2-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 01:08:48 +0200 Source: python-ofxclient Binary: python-ofxclient Architecture: source all Version: 2.0.2-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian QA Group Changed-By: Clint Adams De

Processing of python-ofxclient_2.0.2-1_amd64.changes

python-ofxclient_2.0.2-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: python-ofxclient_2.0.2-1.dsc python-ofxclient_2.0.2.orig.tar.gz python-ofxclient_2.0.2-1.debian.tar.xz python-ofxclient_2.0.2-1_all.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on h

Processing of python-ofxhome_0.3.3-1_amd64.changes

python-ofxhome_0.3.3-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: python-ofxhome_0.3.3-1.dsc python-ofxhome_0.3.3.orig.tar.gz python-ofxhome_0.3.3-1.debian.tar.xz python-ofxhome_0.3.3-1_all.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck

Bug#827011: marked as done (adduser: [INTL:it] Italian program strings translation)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#827011: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #827011, regarding adduser: [INTL:it] Italian program strings translation to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has be

Bug#827140: marked as done (adduser: French translation)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#827140: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #827140, regarding adduser: French translation to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is n

Bug#827012: marked as done (adduser: [INTL:it] Italian manpages translation)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#827012: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #827012, regarding adduser: [INTL:it] Italian manpages translation to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been deal

Bug#825867: marked as done (adduser: [INTL:pt] Updated Portuguese translation - program and manpage)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#825867: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #825867, regarding adduser: [INTL:pt] Updated Portuguese translation - program and manpage to be marked as done. This means that you claim that

Bug#825876: marked as done (adduser: [INTL:ru] Russian program translation update)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#825876: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #825876, regarding adduser: [INTL:ru] Russian program translation update to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has bee

Bug#826947: marked as done ([INTL:sv] Swedish strings for adduser debconf)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#826947: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #826947, regarding [INTL:sv] Swedish strings for adduser debconf to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt

Bug#826965: marked as done (adduser: [INTL:pt_BR] Brazilian Portuguese translation for runtime messages)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#826965: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #826965, regarding adduser: [INTL:pt_BR] Brazilian Portuguese translation for runtime messages to be marked as done. This means that you claim t

Bug#825778: marked as done ([INTL:da] Danish translation of the template adduser)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#825778: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #825778, regarding [INTL:da] Danish translation of the template adduser to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been

Bug#825944: marked as done (adduser: [INTL:ru] Russian documentation translation update)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#825944: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #825944, regarding adduser: [INTL:ru] Russian documentation translation update to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem h

Bug#825973: marked as done (adduser: [l10n] update Japanese translation of program)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#825973: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #825973, regarding adduser: [l10n] update Japanese translation of program to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has be

Bug#825770: marked as done (adduser: [INTL:sk] Slovak po-debconf translation)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#825770: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #825770, regarding adduser: [INTL:sk] Slovak po-debconf translation to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dea

Bug#776203: marked as done (Please extend LAST_UID 29999 to 59999.)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#776203: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #776203, regarding Please extend LAST_UID 2 to 5. to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. I

Bug#722583: marked as done (delgroup --only-if-empty is undocumented in manpage)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#722583: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #722583, regarding delgroup --only-if-empty is undocumented in manpage to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been

Bug#825777: marked as done ([INTL:da] Danish translation adduser manual)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#825777: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #825777, regarding [INTL:da] Danish translation adduser manual to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt wi

Bug#825734: marked as done ([l10n] Updated Czech translation of adduser)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#825734: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #825734, regarding [l10n] Updated Czech translation of adduser to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt wi

Bug#756180: marked as done (adduser: [INTL:pt] Updated Portuguese translation of manpage)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#756180: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #756180, regarding adduser: [INTL:pt] Updated Portuguese translation of manpage to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem

Bug#825610: marked as done (Updated Vietnamese translation)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#825610: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #825610, regarding Updated Vietnamese translation to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this i

Bug#508740: marked as done (adduser: confusing message regarding format of group names)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#508740: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #508740, regarding adduser: confusing message regarding format of group names to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem ha

Bug#712944: marked as done (Please update the examples directory with adduser.local v4.9)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#712944: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #712944, regarding Please update the examples directory with adduser.local v4.9 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem

Bug#676356: marked as done ([INTL:tr] Turkish debconf templates translation)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#676356: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #676356, regarding [INTL:tr] Turkish debconf templates translation to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been deal

Bug#547911: marked as done (adduser: option --add_extra_groups not mentioned in --help overview, but mentioned in manpage)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#547911: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #547911, regarding adduser: option --add_extra_groups not mentioned in --help overview, but mentioned in manpage to be marked as done. This mean

Bug#611898: marked as done (adduser: manpage mentions nonexistent possibility to run custom scripts)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#611898: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #611898, regarding adduser: manpage mentions nonexistent possibility to run custom scripts to be marked as done. This means that you claim that

Bug#695997: marked as done (adduser: Minor error in Norwegian Bokmål debconf translation)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#695997: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #695997, regarding adduser: Minor error in Norwegian Bokmål debconf translation to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem

Bug#698483: marked as done (Error in German adduser manpage)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#698483: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #698483, regarding Error in German adduser manpage to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this

Bug#697109: marked as done (adduser: [INTL:ja] updated Japanese program translation)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#697109: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #697109, regarding adduser: [INTL:ja] updated Japanese program translation to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has b

Bug#685529: marked as done (adduser: translation error in german manpage)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:18:48 + with message-id and subject line Bug#685529: fixed in adduser 3.115 has caused the Debian Bug report #685529, regarding adduser: translation error in german manpage to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt w

blackbox_0.70.1-31_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:11:31 -0300 Source: blackbox Binary: blackbox libbt-dev libbt0v5 Architecture: source amd64 Version: 0.70.1-31 Distribution: experimental Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian QA Group Changed-By: Herb

Bug#811970: marked as done (blackbox: FTBFS with GCC 6: symbol changes)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2016 16:49:38 + with message-id and subject line Bug#811970: fixed in blackbox 0.70.1-31 has caused the Debian Bug report #811970, regarding blackbox: FTBFS with GCC 6: symbol changes to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been deal

Processing of blackbox_0.70.1-31_amd64.changes

blackbox_0.70.1-31_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: blackbox_0.70.1-31.dsc blackbox_0.70.1-31.debian.tar.xz blackbox-dbgsym_0.70.1-31_amd64.deb blackbox_0.70.1-31_amd64.deb libbt-dev_0.70.1-31_amd64.deb libbt0v5-dbgsym_0.70.1-31_amd64.deb libbt0v5

Bug#811970: blackbox: FTBFS with GCC 6: symbol changes

Hi, On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:09:51 -0800 Martin Michlmayr wrote: > Package: blackbox > Version: 0.70.1-30 > Severity: important > User: debian-...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: ftbfs-gcc-6 gcc-6-symbols >  > This package fails to build with GCC 6.  GCC 6 has not been released > yet, but it's expecte

Processed: wvstreams: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Processing control commands: > block 827061 by -1 Bug #827061 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 827061 was blocked by: 828453 828515 828346 828593 828283 828594 828295 828520 828423 828365 828577 828253 828473 828341 828524 814600 828323 828420 828413 828246 828298 828466 828332 828440 82

Bug#828603: wvstreams: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Source: wvstreams Version: 4.6.1-8 Severity: important Control: block 827061 by -1 Hi, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at: https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-1.1-rebuild-2016-05-29/Attempt

Bug#828594: virtuoso-opensource: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Source: virtuoso-opensource Version: 6.1.6+dfsg2-3 Severity: important Control: block 827061 by -1 Hi, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at: https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-1.1-rebuild-20

Processed: virtuoso-opensource: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Processing control commands: > block 827061 by -1 Bug #827061 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 827061 was blocked by: 828462 828142 828592 828248 828447 828385 828317 828528 828250 828274 828398 828451 828400 828487 828399 828490 828228 828389 828416 828272 828544 828371 828355 828310 82

Bug#828581: turnserver: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Source: turnserver Version: 0.7.3-4 Severity: important Control: block 827061 by -1 Hi, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at: https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-1.1-rebuild-2016-05-29/Attemp

Processed: turnserver: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Processing control commands: > block 827061 by -1 Bug #827061 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 827061 was blocked by: 828573 828533 828307 828406 828483 828493 808669 828378 828374 828252 828355 828548 828328 828297 828534 828425 828470 828539 828508 828359 828234 828259 828254 828232 82

Bug#828537: samdump2: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Source: samdump2 Version: 3.0.0-3 Severity: important Control: block 827061 by -1 Hi, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at: https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-1.1-rebuild-2016-05-29/Attempte

Processed: sendmail: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Processing control commands: > block 827061 by -1 Bug #827061 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 827061 was blocked by: 828332 828412 828456 828494 828481 828265 828454 828463 828429 828243 828306 828419 828415 828351 828255 828082 828352 828420 828250 828505 828369 828390 828443 828319 82

Processed: samdump2: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Processing control commands: > block 827061 by -1 Bug #827061 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 827061 was blocked by: 828453 828515 828421 828297 828261 828378 828273 828274 828343 828390 828278 828420 828435 828364 828415 828383 828456 828279 828514 828281 828230 828331 828373 828492 82

Bug#828540: sendmail: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Source: sendmail Version: 8.15.2-4 Severity: important Control: block 827061 by -1 Hi, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at: https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-1.1-rebuild-2016-05-29/Attempt

Bug#828489: partimage: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Source: partimage Version: 0.6.8-3 Severity: important Control: block 827061 by -1 Hi, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at: https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-1.1-rebuild-2016-05-29/Attempt

Processed: partimage: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Processing control commands: > block 827061 by -1 Bug #827061 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 827061 was blocked by: 828308 828139 828253 828239 828363 828355 828309 828240 828450 828319 828297 828248 828305 828328 828414 828340 828458 828298 828465 828386 828243 828237 828429 828366 82

Bug#828465: opencryptoki: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Source: opencryptoki Version: 3.4.1+dfsg-1 Severity: important Control: block 827061 by -1 Hi, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at: https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-1.1-rebuild-2016-05-29

Processed: opencryptoki: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Processing control commands: > block 827061 by -1 Bug #827061 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 827061 was blocked by: 828254 828273 828459 828428 828402 828457 828431 828262 828082 828360 828374 828396 828274 828453 828415 828255 828389 828286 828266 828447 828434 828393 828450 828283 82

Processed: mod-authn-webid: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Processing control commands: > block 827061 by -1 Bug #827061 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 827061 was blocked by: 828381 828374 828278 828338 828413 828355 828261 828307 828431 828289 828280 828358 828423 828315 828400 828416 828260 828394 828433 828249 828299 828414 828366 828337 82

Bug#828437: mod-authn-webid: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Source: mod-authn-webid Version: 0~20110301-4 Severity: important Control: block 827061 by -1 Hi, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at: https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-1.1-rebuild-2016-05

Processed: httperf: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Processing control commands: > block 827061 by -1 Bug #827061 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 827061 was blocked by: 828264 828241 828292 828247 828306 828288 828290 822380 828267 828248 828329 828246 828311 828293 828303 828296 828321 828315 828302 828327 828239 828274 828336 828263 82

Bug#828343: httperf: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Source: httperf Version: 0.9.0-5 Severity: important Control: block 827061 by -1 Hi, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at: https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-1.1-rebuild-2016-05-29/Attempted

Processed: ekg2: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Processing control commands: > block 827061 by -1 Bug #827061 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 827061 was blocked by: 828236 828230 828255 828273 828274 809271 828264 828249 828286 828272 828259 828239 828235 828139 828281 828248 828247 828289 828250 828083 828288 808669 828277 822380 82

Bug#828292: ekg2: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Source: ekg2 Version: 0.4~pre+20120506.1-12 Severity: important Control: block 827061 by -1 Hi, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at: https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-1.1-rebuild-2016-05-2

Bug#828291: ekg: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Source: ekg Version: 1.9~pre+r2855-3 Severity: important Control: block 827061 by -1 Hi, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at: https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-1.1-rebuild-2016-05-29/Attem

Processed: ekg: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Processing control commands: > block 827061 by -1 Bug #827061 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 827061 was blocked by: 828270 828273 828277 828258 828233 828285 828246 828262 828254 828278 828264 828236 828248 828238 828259 828228 828142 828244 828279 828241 828139 828290 808669 828242 82

Processed: burp: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Processing control commands: > block 827061 by -1 Bug #827061 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 827061 was blocked by: 828083 828139 828252 828247 828246 828239 828234 814600 828245 828230 828253 828127 828254 828082 828228 828248 822380 828142 828241 828237 828242 827068 828236 828235 82

Bug#828255: burp: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Source: burp Version: 1.3.48-4.1 Severity: important Control: block 827061 by -1 Hi, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at: https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-1.1-rebuild-2016-05-29/Attempted

Processed: boxbackup: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Processing control commands: > block 827061 by -1 Bug #827061 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 827061 was blocked by: 828242 828237 809271 814600 828127 828230 828251 828082 828231 828246 828229 828232 827068 828083 828249 828239 828240 828250 828248 828235 828245 828139 828252 828247 82

Bug#828253: boxbackup: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Source: boxbackup Version: 0.11.1~r2837-2 Severity: important Control: block 827061 by -1 Hi, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at: https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-1.1-rebuild-2016-05-29/

Processed: anon-proxy: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Processing control commands: > block 827061 by -1 Bug #827061 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 827061 was blocked by: 828229 808669 828232 809271 828228 828142 828127 828230 822380 814600 828139 828233 827068 828082 828231 828083 827061 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of

Bug#828234: anon-proxy: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

Source: anon-proxy Version: 00.05.38+20081230-3 Severity: important Control: block 827061 by -1 Hi, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at: https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-1.1-rebuild-2016-

Processed: Re: Downgrading severity

Processing control commands: > severity -1 critical Bug #128745 [libstroke0-dev] libstroke0-dev: aclocal is confused by libstroke .m4 files Bug #302907 [libstroke0-dev] Need more quoting of autoconf macro files. Severity set to 'critical' from 'important' Severity set to 'critical' from 'importa

Bug#128745: Downgrading severity

Control: severity -1 critical On 2016-06-26 10:51:12 +0900, Sean Whitton wrote: > The description for the 'serious' severity is > > is a severe violation of Debian policy (that is, the problem is a > violation of a 'must' or 'required' directive); may or may not > affect the usability