Hi -release
Due to an accident in timing by Martin Zobel-Helas, his hint to unblock
'trustedqsl/1.11-7' was commented out just before it became re-eligible to
return to testing along with 'tqsllib/2.0-8' as hinted by Luk Claes. I
would suggest it qualifies for a new freeze exception as it was rem
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi -release,
>
> I would like to upload geordi 0:20080725T0146-1+lenny1 to t-p-u to fix a
> DoS issue. The relevant changelog entry is:
>
> geordi (0:20080725T0146-1+lenny1) testing-proposed-updates; urgency=low
>
>* Ignore (rather than allow) fcntl system call to preven
Mirco Bauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please unblock mono 1.9.1+dfsg-6 as it contains important bugfixes such
> as ARM fixes, runtime crashes and memory leaks. mono -6 was also built
> on all archs already.
unblocked
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with
Hi,
Please unblock mono 1.9.1+dfsg-6 as it contains important bugfixes such
as ARM fixes, runtime crashes and memory leaks. mono -6 was also built
on all archs already.
Here the full changelog:
mono (1.9.1+dfsg-6) unstable; urgency=high
.
[ Mirco Bauer ]
* debian/rules:
+ Bumped API
Hamish Moffatt (29/01/2009):
> Thanks. Do normal 10 day propagation rules apply or is it different
> during the freeze?
Depends on the urgency, as always, unless overriden by the RMs through
age-days: http://release.debian.org/britney/hints/README
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital
Hi,
Upstream for geda* has released a new version with bug fixes only. This
release has been specifically aimed at us, and contains bug fixes only.
Some of the bugs are serious, some are minor, most aren't logged in our
BTS.
What is your opinion about including this in the release?
I have not u
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 08:16:07PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > I've uploaded new versions of the libgeda and geda-* packages to
> > unstable which fix RC bugs with the copyright files and a couple of
> > other things, like a tempfile vulnerability in an example script
> > (g
Hi -release,
I would like to upload geordi 0:20080725T0146-1+lenny1 to t-p-u to fix a
DoS issue. The relevant changelog entry is:
geordi (0:20080725T0146-1+lenny1) testing-proposed-updates; urgency=low
* Ignore (rather than allow) fcntl system call to prevent a DoS. Upstream
writes:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:00:04 +0100 Alexander Wirt
wrote:
>Moritz Muehlenhoff schrieb am Wednesday, den 28. January 2009:
>
>> On 2009-01-25, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
>> >
>> > --===6401238421216507687==
>> > Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
>> >protocol="applicat
Luk Claes wrote:
> Do you also take care of documenting this in the Release Notes?
I'll do that in the next days.
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Luk Claes wrote:
>> Do you also take care of documenting this in the Release Notes?
>
> I'll do that in the next days.
Ok, thanks!
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact list
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Hi,
> I've uploaded a NMU to fix #511477. Please unblock iceape/1.1.14-1.1
>
> I've recompiled all packages build-depending on iceape-dev
> (including fun packages like gcj-4.[23], eclipse, openjdk
> and openoffice.org) and they all rebuild fine.
>
> The interdiff cont
Luk Claes wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> The following packages have the same security fix and should also be
>> unblocked:
>>
>> rt2400 1.2.2+cvs20080623-3
>> rt2500 1:1.1.0-b4+cvs20080623-3
>> rt2570 1.1.0+cvs20080623-2
>
> All unblocked and binNMU scheduled on one arch (if that succeeds, I'll
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> The following packages have the same security fix and should also be
> unblocked:
>
> rt2400 1.2.2+cvs20080623-3
> rt2500 1:1.1.0-b4+cvs20080623-3
> rt2570 1.1.0+cvs20080623-2
All unblocked and binNMU scheduled on one arch (if that succeeds, I'll
schedule them on the rest).
Moritz Muehlenhoff schrieb am Wednesday, den 28. January 2009:
> On 2009-01-25, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> >
> > --===6401238421216507687==
> > Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
> > protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UfEAyuTBtIjiZzX6"
> > Content-Dispo
The following packages have the same security fix and should also be
unblocked:
rt2400 1.2.2+cvs20080623-3
rt2500 1:1.1.0-b4+cvs20080623-3
rt2570 1.1.0+cvs20080623-2
Ben.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
* W. Martin Borgert [Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:46:29 +0100]:
> On 2009-01-23 10:17, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:11:00AM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> > > Btw., will squeeze be 6.0?
> > Unknown yet, and probably won't be for some time.
> It would be cool, if we could define
Hi,
I've uploaded a NMU to fix #511477. Please unblock iceape/1.1.14-1.1
I've recompiled all packages build-depending on iceape-dev
(including fun packages like gcj-4.[23], eclipse, openjdk
and openoffice.org) and they all rebuild fine.
The interdiff contain some buildsystem-generated, I'm attach
On 2009-01-25, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
>
> --===6401238421216507687==
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
> protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UfEAyuTBtIjiZzX6"
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
>
> --UfEAyuTBtIjiZzX6
> Content-Type: text/plain; charse
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I've uploaded new versions of the libgeda and geda-* packages to
> unstable which fix RC bugs with the copyright files and a couple of
> other things, like a tempfile vulnerability in an example script
> (geda-gnetlist) and some missing error checking in a postrm
> (geda-sym
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> The stable release of this package has some bugfixes and needs to be
> uploaded to Lenny:
>
> * New spanish debian template translation thanks to Francisco Javier
> Cuadrado (Closes: #510468)
> * Backported a MySQL insertion security fix from the Git version (issue
> was
Daniel Burrows wrote:
> And just for the sake of completeness, here's the debdiff for my
> proposed upload.
Please upload and ping us again when the version is installed in the
archive, TIA.
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "un
John Goerzen wrote:
> Can someone tell me why this happened?
Because the one from unstable does not build on sparc nor mips. It's
only temporary to be able to migrate the version from unstable (which is
unblocked).
> FWIW, I uploaded 2.12-6 to unstable to fix the GHC migration, and it
> hasn't mi
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 28.01.2009, 08:15 -0600 schrieb John Goerzen:
>> I notice that the packages I uploaded for the ghc 6.8.2dfsg1 transition
>> -- which were apparently needed urgently -- are still just sitting in
>> unstable, and have not migrated to lenny. When wi
Can someone tell me why this happened?
FWIW, I uploaded 2.12-6 to unstable to fix the GHC migration, and it
hasn't migrated. There are no RC bugs on washngo.
Thanks,
-- John
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 04:39:17PM +, Debian testing watch wrote:
> FYI: The status of the washngo source package
>
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 28.01.2009, 08:15 -0600 schrieb John Goerzen:
> I notice that the packages I uploaded for the ghc 6.8.2dfsg1 transition
> -- which were apparently needed urgently -- are still just sitting in
> unstable, and have not migrated to lenny. When will this happen?
AFAIK, luk is th
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 02:25:41AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> Given #495683 is months old, and the maintainer hasn't commented on it, and
> it's never been in a stable release, should it just get removed from
> testing?
I made enquiries [1] about sshguard earlier this month, offering to
co-mai
Hi,
Given #495683 is months old, and the maintainer hasn't commented on it, and
it's never been in a stable release, should it just get removed from
testing?
regards
Andrew
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I uploaded a security fix for rt73 (1:1.0.3.6-cvs20080623-dfsg1-3) which
should be allowed to propagate to lenny.
linux-modules-contrib-2.6 builds binaries from this and therefore needs
a binNMU on all architectures. That should also be allowed to propagate
to lenny.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
When
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:07:43PM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> Version 0.10.8-4.1 fixes a security bug!
Unblocked.
Neil
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?
gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li B345BDD3
-
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 03:21:32PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hello,
>
> from Luk's hints file:
> | # 20081218
> | […]
> | unblock guile-1.6/1.6.8-6.1
>
> please make it: guile-1.6/1.6.8-6.3
>
Unblocked.
Neil
--
[local irc server has just been brought up]
suddenly there's quite some sil
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 03:37:24PM +0100, Jérémie Corbier wrote:
> and I would like to be allowed to upload it to t-p-u since wide-dhcpv6-client
> in
> its current state in testing is completely unusable.
>
Please upload.
Neil
--
* stockholm bangs head against budget
outsch
h01ger: it is sti
Hello Release Team,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 04:42:45PM +0100, Jérémie Corbier wrote:
> A grave bug was reported against wide-dhcpv6 earlier today [0]. The fix is
> really simple [2] and I already prepared a package. The thing is the current
> version in unstable (20080615-3) has quite a lot of c
Version 0.10.8-4.1 fixes a security bug!
Regards,
Cascardo.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hello,
from Luk's hints file:
| # 20081218
| […]
| unblock guile-1.6/1.6.8-6.1
please make it: guile-1.6/1.6.8-6.3
.2 fixed the FTBFS on sparc (which reminds me I should open a bug
against the compiler which seems to produce bad code at -O2 on this
arch), .3 fixed the FTBFS on hppa (which preven
I've uploaded new versions of the libgeda and geda-* packages to
unstable which fix RC bugs with the copyright files and a couple of
other things, like a tempfile vulnerability in an example script
(geda-gnetlist) and some missing error checking in a postrm
(geda-symbols).
The relevant versions ar
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 06:28:34AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Please, consider, this is urgent, as there's a security fix in this
> package. Is there any way to skip the 9 days delay?
>
Upload with urgency high?
Neil
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top p
Charles Plessy (28/01/2009):
> The advantage is normalisation. I prefer to use the latest Debhelper
> version if possible. We have more than 100 packages in our repository,
> and if some carry on some legacy versions from upgrade to upgrade,
> each time one will work on the packate, he will have t
Le Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:42:08AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
>
> I'm sorry, I still don't understand it. It has no user-visible effects.
> According to you it changes nothing to the binary packages. The best case is
> that everything remains the same. I'm puzzled then why you decided to m
On tiisdei 27 Jannewaris 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I did this on the simple assumption that what was good before would be good
> later until the next deadline, which is D-I RC2, as in the previous updates
> I made nobody told me anything about this kind of issue. Also, I did not
> expect this i
40 matches
Mail list logo
