Hi Adam,
> - okumura-clsfiles, ptex-jisfonts and vfdata-morisawa5 now appear to be
> virtual packages provided by texlive-lang-cjk, so I've assumed the "old"
> source packages should be removed from testing
Yes from my side, but the maintainers have to give their word.
> - cadabra depends on tex
On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 22:51 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Fr, 27 Apr 2012, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > testing and breaking it in unstable in the process - texlive people,
> > does that sound okay?
>
> Definitely.
I've been looking at some test runs for this. In brief:
- okumura-clsfiles
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 19:03 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 23:09 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > As mentioned on IRC, a Doodle for the former -
> > http://www.doodle.com/qxr4u5xa29yk3tid
>
> So far there have only been two responses, one of which was from me. :-/
Now up t
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I'd like to upload uim 1:1.8.0-2 which has changed SONAME (libuim7 => libuim8),
to unstable (1:1.8.0-1 in experimental, with no change).
El 02/05/12 00:01, Adam D. Barratt escribió:
After a little bit of research, the mighty archive.org has old copies of
the code, albeit not in a revision-controlled format. The earliest
version recorded there is from April 2004 and assuming I'm reading its
read_urgencies method correctly already
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 666889 pending
Bug #666889 [release.debian.org] transition: GNOME 3.4: clutter/cogl
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
666889: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bu
tag 666889 pending
thanks
Adam D. Barratt (01/05/2012):
> If the tracker looks correct now, then I think we can get this started.
From the discussion tonight on IRC, potential issues are:
gnome-sushi
eog-plugins
and they can be removed if needed.
Green light it is, then.
Mraw,
KiBi.
sig
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 17:44:24 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> tag 655912 + pending
> thanks
>
> On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 11:57 +0100, Nick Leverton wrote:
> > Sorry for delay, I had a bug on the transition from one of my
> > dependencies, and have been away+offline much of the last two weeks.
> >
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 23:41 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
> > Adam D. Barratt (01/05/2012):
> > > It's been that way for at least four years; I suspect a good deal
> > > longer but don't have the evidence immediately available. The start
> > > of the
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 23:41:59 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Anyway, I'm afraid you guys are now so used to the new behaviour that
> there is no room for debate here, which is sad, so I'll stop here.
>
It's nothing new, it's about as old as the existence of testing itself.
Cheers,
Julien
sig
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
At some point we need to transition from mysql-5.1 to mysql-5.5. We
would like to do this before the freeze though we appreciate that time
is now short. We arrived at this position as th
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 656829 pending
Bug #656829 [release.debian.org] transition: exiv2 - libexiv2-9 -> libexiv2-11
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
656829: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrep
tag 656829 pending
thanks
David Paleino (27/04/2012):
> I meant: what are the plans to start it?
The plan now is: let's go! :)
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, 1 May 2012, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Adam D. Barratt (01/05/2012):
> > It's been that way for at least four years; I suspect a good deal
> > longer but don't have the evidence immediately available. The start
> > of the release team's britney1 repository, when we took over direct
> > run
On Tue, 1 May 2012, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > However, if urgencies accumulate, how are we supposed to really mean
> > > "10 days" after an upload not of low priority? It's impossible!
>
> No. The idea is that if you specify urgency=medium that *this* *change* (not
> upload!) should go into test
Your message dated Tue, 1 May 2012 22:26:34 +0200
with message-id <20120501202633.gb26...@mraw.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#671066: ftp.debian.org: upload urgencies should not
accumulate
has caused the Debian Bug report #671066,
regarding ftp.debian.org: upload urgencies should not accumulate
to
Hi Adam
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 08:52:35PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> tags 670730 + confirmed
> thanks
>
> On Sat, 2012-04-28 at 17:01 +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > giplet has in its preferences to check for ip on interfaces eth0 wlan0
> > and www.whatismyip.org. But the last one do
Package: release.debian.org
Followup-For: Bug #667863
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
The octave transition is well under way, but it is still blocked by a few
packages which have not yet adapted to the new octave packaging scheme. The
goal of the Debian Octave Gr
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 670730 + confirmed
Bug #670730 [release.debian.org] pu: package giplet/0.2.3-3+squeeze1
Added tag(s) confirmed.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
670730: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport
tags 670730 + confirmed
thanks
On Sat, 2012-04-28 at 17:01 +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> giplet has in its preferences to check for ip on interfaces eth0 wlan0
> and www.whatismyip.org. But the last one does not work anymore [2].
>
> [2]: http://bugs.debian.org/670692
>
> Would the follo
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 16:29 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> On 30.04.2012 20:03, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 17:25 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >> On 29.04.2012 17:45, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 09:58 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> for GNOME 3.4, we n
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:10:20PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Santiago Vila writes:
> > I see that diffutils_1:3.2-6, which was uploaded with urgency=low,
> > will only need 5 days to enter testing, probably because I made
> > 1:3.2-4 to be urgency=medium. I don't know when you changed the
>
On 01.05.2012 18:23, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Ansgar Burchardt (01/05/2012):
Santiago Vila writes:
> I see that diffutils_1:3.2-6, which was uploaded with urgency=low,
> will only need 5 days to enter testing, probably because I made
> 1:3.2-4 to be urgency=medium. I don't know when you changed
Ansgar Burchardt (01/05/2012):
> Santiago Vila writes:
> > I see that diffutils_1:3.2-6, which was uploaded with urgency=low,
> > will only need 5 days to enter testing, probably because I made
> > 1:3.2-4 to be urgency=medium. I don't know when you changed the
> > algorithm but I think it is a b
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 671066 release.debian.org
Bug #671066 [ftp.debian.org] ftp.debian.org: upload urgencies should not
accumulate
Bug reassigned from package 'ftp.debian.org' to 'release.debian.org'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #671066 t
reassign 671066 release.debian.org
thanks
Santiago Vila writes:
> I see that diffutils_1:3.2-6, which was uploaded with urgency=low,
> will only need 5 days to enter testing, probably because I made
> 1:3.2-4 to be urgency=medium. I don't know when you changed the
> algorithm but I think it is a
Hi,
I noticed that you've uploaded an "acpid" package to proposed-updates.
Was this discussed with anyone on the release team beforehand?
Looking at the bug referenced in the changelog, I see that there was
some debate as to whether the changes might be included in a future DSA
or stable up
Hi Adam,
On 30.04.2012 20:03, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 17:25 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> On 29.04.2012 17:45, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 09:58 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
for GNOME 3.4, we need newer clutter-1.0 and cogl versions:
> [...]
Pa
A request to recheck for ia64 build failures ([1]) wasn't answered, same with a
question wether to default GCC to 4.7 on this architecture ([2]).
I am not aware of anybody within the Debian GCC Maintainers wanting to address
the IA64 specific issues. Please step up, if you want to help with IA64
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 08:24:30PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> 2012/4/22 Robert Millan :
> > I notice that my initial patch didn't handle the library dependency
> > part. I'm attaching a new patch that fixes this issue. This makes new
> > packages built against the patched libc0.1-dev depend on
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 17:25 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> On 29.04.2012 17:45, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 09:58 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >> for GNOME 3.4, we need newer clutter-1.0 and cogl versions:
> > [...]
> >> Packages which need sourceful uploads:
> >> =
31 matches
Mail list logo
