Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
The eglibc transition has already started, but given a few packages have
to be rebuilt against the new libc, I thought it was a good idea to
open a bug.
The packages using private glibc
On 13209 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Based on some informal queries a little while ago, the weekend of 15/16
> June looks like a good date for the first wheezy point release. Would
> that work for everyone?
I'll be away then, with a TZ=UTC+8 and not very good net connection.
So I'm basic
Hi,
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:40:44AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the architecture status page for Wheezy[1] mentioned that it would be
> the last release if s390x comes in. As Wheezy was release with the
> s390x support, should we now look at removing s390 from both jessie and sid
On 05/12/2013 08:56 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Would that work for everyone?
yes.
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/
--
To UNSUBSC
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 07:05:39PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 23:08:15 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
>
> > I would like to change Debian's default boost version from 1.49 to
> > 1.53 or later -- likely to the most current Boost at the time the
> > transition is schedul
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 07:56:51PM +0100, Adam Barratt wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Based on some informal queries a little while ago, the weekend of 15/16
>June looks like a good date for the first wheezy point release. Would
>that work for everyone?
Yup.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.
Hi,
Based on some informal queries a little while ago, the weekend of 15/16
June looks like a good date for the first wheezy point release. Would
that work for everyone?
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
On Sun, 2013-05-12 at 18:50 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> This went into sid with version 9.0+ds1-11 and has migrated to jessie.
>
> For a pu upload, would the version number have to be 9.0+ds1-11+deb7u1 ?
The version needs to be lower than that in testing, so either -10+deb7u1
or -11~deb7u1
Hi,
This went into sid with version 9.0+ds1-11 and has migrated to jessie.
For a pu upload, would the version number have to be 9.0+ds1-11+deb7u1 ?
The debdiff would be otherwise the same as proposed in
http://bugs.debian.org/704227#5
Thanks,
Regards,
--
Steven Chamberlain
ste...@pyro.eu.org
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 667906 with 707361
Bug #667906 [release.debian.org] transition: libffi6
667906 was blocked by: 707797 707399 707440 701397 701393 705067 707509 707441
667906 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 667906: 707361
> thanks
Stoppin
On Sun, 2013-05-12 at 10:17 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/12/2013 01:32 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > What's the plan for getting a new keystone version in to sid? Currently
> > sid, testing and wheezy all have the same version.
[...]
> I am planning on uploading all of OpenStack Grizzly 20
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 667906 with 705067 707440
Bug #667906 [release.debian.org] transition: libffi6
667906 was blocked by: 707797 701393 707399 701397 707509 707441
667906 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 667906: 705067 and 707440
> thanks
Sto
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> user release.debian@packages.debian.org
> usertags 704566 = pu
> tags 704566 = wheezy
> retitle 704566 pu: isc-dhcp/4.2.2.dfsg.1-5+deb70u4
> tags 704426 + wheezy-ignore
> usertags 704426 + wheezy-can-defer
> thanks
>
>
> On 13.04.2013 17
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 701673 shogun
Bug #701673 [release.debian.org] nmu: shogun (python2.6 removal)
Bug reassigned from package 'release.debian.org' to 'shogun'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #701673 to the same values
previously set
Ignori
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user release.debian@packages.debian.org
Setting user to release.debian@packages.debian.org (was
dktrkr...@debian.org).
> usertags 707954 = binnmu
There were no usertags set.
Usertags are now: binnmu.
> reassign 707954 release.debian.org
B
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user release.debian@packages.debian.org
Setting user to release.debian@packages.debian.org (was
dktrkr...@debian.org).
> usertags 701673 = binnmu
There were no usertags set.
Usertags are now: binnmu.
> reassign 701673 release.debian.org
B
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 707871 + wheezy
Bug #707871 [release.debian.org] pu: package
libdatetime-timezone-perl/1:1.58-1+2013c
Added tag(s) wheezy.
> tags 707880 + wheezy
Bug #707880 [release.debian.org] pu: package profnet/1.0.21-1
Added tag(s) wheezy.
> thanks
Sto
Processing changes file: nss-pam-ldapd_0.7.15+squeeze4_i386.changes
REJECT
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1ubuyl-0008aa...@franck.debian.org
Your message dated Sun, 12 May 2013 13:27:46 +0200
with message-id <518f7cb2.2030...@dogguy.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#707953: nmu: slurm-drmaa_1.0.6-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #707953,
regarding nmu: slurm-drmaa_1.0.6-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem h
Hi,
gregor herrmann wrote (11 May 2013 20:49:47 GMT) :
> I'd like to upload libdatetime-timezone-perl/1:1.58-1+2013c to s-p-u
> (and also have it moved to stable-updates if possible).
> The change compared to 1:1.58-1+2013b in wheezy is the timezone info
> from the Olson database 2013c; the chang
Dear Release Team!
As we installed Wheezy on our cluster, I found that profisis is broken because
of a bug in profnet-isis (#707874 [1]). The bug was fixed in later
versions, but in Wheezy it is broken. I apologize for that.
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=707874
I prepared
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
Please schedule a binNMU for slurm-drmaa. It's the last package
depending on libslurm23 which changed soname to libslurm24.
nmu slurm-drmaa_1.0.6-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libslurm24."
On 2013-05-12 11:48, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 15:28:44 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
>> If we do actually obtain this state where we can say that ">= standard"
>> packages are always (co)installable in testing, it will open up some new
>> possible ways of optimizing Britney.
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 15:28:44 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> If we do actually obtain this state where we can say that ">= standard"
> packages are always (co)installable in testing, it will open up some new
> possible ways of optimizing Britney. E.g. we would be able to answer
> "is_coinstalla
May i ask what's best to do now ?
Shall i close this transition bug and reopen a new one
to latest libv8 version ?
Jérémy.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debi
25 matches
Mail list logo
