please unblock reiserfsprogs/1:3.6.21-1

Hello, please unblock reiserfsprogs 1:3.6.21-1. -- Felix Zielcke -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

future proofing linux-2.6 config, disabling deprecated interfaces

for 2.6.29 following interfaces will be unset: - SCSI_PROC_FS should only be needed by legacy apps, sysfs equiv exists - PCMCIA_IOCTL pcmciautils is even already shipped in etch - ACPI_PROCFS - ACPI_PROCFS_POWER - ACPI_PROC_EVENT scheduled to be removed soon they should only be needed by

Re: mailscanner stable update for CVE-2008-5312 CVE-2008-5313

Hi the following CVE (Common Vulnerabilities Exposures) id was published for mailscanner some time ago. CVE-2008-5312[0]: CVE-2008-5313[1]: Unfortunately the vulnerability described above is not important enough to get it fixed via regular security update in Debian stable. It does not

please unblock gnupg/1.4.9-4 (udebs)

Hi, gnupg/1.4.9-4 has been in unstable for 20 days without newly reported problems, but is blocked because it has udebs. Can it please be unblocked? cheers, Thijs signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: tqsllib stable update for CVE-2009-0124

Op dinsdag 10-03-2009 om 14:31 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Nico Golde: Hi, the following CVE (Common Vulnerabilities Exposures) id was published for tqsllib some time ago. Stable has version 2.0-8, which includes this fix. Regards, Joop signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is

Re: libphysfs 1.0.1

* Stefan Potyra [Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:01:13 +0100]: Hi, Hello, I've just taken a look at symbols and diff of headers between 1.0.1-1 and 1.1.1-1: Thanks. From an API perspecitive these are clearly compatible, Aha? Do you know something about the nature of

Re: libphysfs 1.0.1

Adeodato Simó wrote: * Stefan Potyra [Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:01:13 +0100]: Hi, Hello, I've just taken a look at symbols and diff of headers between 1.0.1-1 and 1.1.1-1: Thanks. From an API perspecitive these are clearly compatible, Aha? Do you know something

Reverting the libmpc 0.1~r435-1 upload

Hello, Sebastian. I'm writing you to inform you that I've just made an epoched upload of the old libmpcdec pacakge to unstable, which means that libmpcdec-dev will be provided again by libmpcdec, taking over libmpc's. The recent upload of libmpc to unstable implied a SONAME bump, but it was not

Re: please unblock reiserfsprogs/1:3.6.21-1

Felix Zielcke wrote: Hello, please unblock reiserfsprogs 1:3.6.21-1. unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: please unblock gnupg/1.4.9-4 (udebs)

Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: Hi, gnupg/1.4.9-4 has been in unstable for 20 days without newly reported problems, but is blocked because it has udebs. Can it please be unblocked? unblocked Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of

Re: libphysfs 1.0.1

Barry deFreese wrote: Adeodato Simó wrote: * Stefan Potyra [Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:01:13 +0100]: Hi, Hello, I've just taken a look at symbols and diff of headers between 1.0.1-1 and 1.1.1-1: Thanks. From an API perspecitive these are clearly compatible, Aha? Do you

Re: libphysfs 1.0.1

* Barry deFreese [Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:50:26 -0400]: OK, checking with nm -D for __PHYSFS, I get the following: libparagui1.1 - No results for __PHYSFS. Builds fine with libphysfs-1.1.1. asc - No result for __PHYSFS. Builds fine with libphysfs-1.1.1 and libparagui1.1 built with

Re: Upload of Boost 1.38

* Steve M. Robbins [Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:25:39 -0600]: Hi, Hello, Steve, sorry for the very late reply. In principle, I think having two boost versions in the archive is reasonable, particularly if the API is known to change often and porting to a new boost version is a significant effort that

Re: ImageMagick libs transition

* Nelson A. de Oliveira [Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:20:22 -0300]: Hi! Hello, Nelson. I still have to look closely at this transition, but in the meantime... (The new packages will have to pass the NEW queue, but we would like to have an answer from you to see if it's possible to upload it unstable,

Re: Upload of Boost 1.38

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 09:31:39PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: * Steve M. Robbins [Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:25:39 -0600]: I have a couple concerns with your proposal, though. Let me start the first of these with a question: given a new version of boost, eg. 1.38, how likely is it that a package

Re: ImageMagick libs transition

Hi Adeodato! On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:37:24 +0100 Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es wrote: * Nelson A. de Oliveira [Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:20:22 -0300]: Regarding the transition itself, I’ll try to get back to you as soon as possible, we’re a bit too backlogged at the moment! It’s quite possible,

Give-back of libgnomeuimm2.6 on armel and sparc

Hi Release Managers: Due to unmet dependency, libgnomeuimm2.6 FTBFS on armel, hppa and sparc, which should be satisfied by now. Hppa is already building, so only give-back on armel and sparc is needed: gb libgnomeuimm2.6_2.24.0-2 . armel sparc Also, there's a spurious dep-wait on sparc for

Re: Upload of Boost 1.38

Hello Adeodato et al., On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 09:31:39PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote: I have a couple concerns with your proposal, though. Let me start the first of these with a question: given a new version of boost, eg. 1.38, how likely is it that a package will rebuild just fine against

Re: Reverting the libmpc 0.1~r435-1 upload

Am Dienstag, den 10.03.2009, 17:34 +0100 schrieb Adeodato Simó: Hello, Sebastian. I'm writing you to inform you that I've just made an epoched upload of the old libmpcdec pacakge to unstable, which means that libmpcdec-dev will be provided again by libmpcdec, taking over libmpc's. The