Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org a écrit :
Hi,
Hi,
Your libxmlezout upload yesterday included an unco-ordinated library
transition (SONAME is bumped from 1 to 2).
Sorry for that.
In 'Bits from the release team' or similar on:
- 2013-12-26
- 2014-05-01
- 2014-07-05
- 2014-09-26
it
Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org a écrit :
On 2014-10-04 19:39, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
You have a reverse
dependency from liblog4ada.
For this reason, I will schedule
the transition as normal[1].
liblog4ada build-depends on libxmlezout2-dev, and will therefore be
broken by this in
Hi,
tl;dr: see how to request further down this mail
As announced[1] we have set a mandatory 10-day delay for packages wishing to
migrate from unstable to testing.
Only members of the release team can override this, and will do so on
request for security fixes and other severe issues.
If you
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 10:29:53AM +0200, Xavier Grave wrote:
Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org a écrit :
Thanks for the transition schedule. I was catch by surprise that libxmlezout
came so fast out of NEW, liblog4ada should follow very soon, also with a
bump in SONAME because of gnat-4.9
Your message dated Sun, 5 Oct 2014 10:54:11 +0100
with message-id 20141005095411.gc22...@lupin.home.powdarrmonkey.net
and subject line Re: Bug#763297: transition: libsystemd
has caused the Debian Bug report #763297,
regarding transition: libsystemd
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 10:27:18AM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
Hi,
tl;dr: see how to request further down this mail
As announced[1] we have set a mandatory 10-day delay for packages wishing to
migrate from unstable to testing.
Only members of the release team can override this,
Hi,
Guido Günther wrote (05 Oct 2014 10:17:07 GMT) :
Are there any plans to unblock systemd anytime soon?
The udeb block was lifted a few hours ago, as announced by kibi.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Hi Release Team,
I ask for comments and/or permission to upload ntfs-3g to unstable. I
know that KiBi lifted the udeb freeze but I'd like to be sure.
The package is available for review[1], the upstream changes[2] show
that it's a new stable patchlevel relese. The changes list also
included here:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 20:48:31 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:03:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
I hope we could leave it as that for the upload - nobody has a time
machine to undo the upload, but we could try to make it better now and
discuss where we should
Hi,
On 2014-10-05 12:10, László Böszörményi wrote:
I ask for comments and/or permission to upload ntfs-3g to unstable. I
know that KiBi lifted the udeb freeze but I'd like to be sure.
Yes, you can go ahead with this now.
Thanks,
--
Jonathan Wiltshire
Control: tag -1 + pending
On 2014-09-29 20:42, Christian Kastner wrote:
keyutils in stable currently provides libkeyutils1, a library package
of
Priority: standard. As a user discovered in #757740, this package
failed
to install on a device with only 64MiB memory as this was insufficient
Processing control commands:
tag -1 + pending
Bug #763386 [release.debian.org] wheezy-pu: package keyutils/1.5.5-3+deb7u1
Added tag(s) pending.
--
763386: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=763386
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To
Processing control commands:
tag -1 + pending
Bug #763386 [release.debian.org] wheezy-pu: package keyutils/1.5.5-3+deb7u1
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #763386 to the same tags previously set
--
763386: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=763386
Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing changes file: keyutils_1.5.5-3+deb7u1_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xaouc-0008sg...@franck.debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
[ About the benefit of requiring a sourceful upload of reverse b-d,
instead of providing the libgnutls-dev by the accurate package. ]
Le 05/10/2014 12:35, Andreas Metzler a écrit :
On 2014-10-05 David Prévot taf...@debian.org wrote:
On
Hello,
I have prepared a new upload of grib-api, version 1.12.3-1. This is the
main bit of the changelog:
* New upstream version
- grib_api has an official soname now!
It means that it now builds just a standard libgrib-api0, supported by
upstream, and we'd be done with having the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/10/2014 19:19, Enrico Zini wrote:
Hello,
I have prepared a new upload of grib-api, version 1.12.3-1. This is the
main bit of the changelog:
* New upstream version
- grib_api has an official soname now!
It means that it now
Hi,
On 05.10.2014 03:26, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
But I don't think that the mere possibility of such problems is a sufficient
reason to disregard Debian policy, which clearly states that embedded code
copies should not be used.
This is
On 05/10/14 21:17, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi,
On 05.10.2014 03:26, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
But I don't think that the mere possibility of such problems is a sufficient
reason to disregard Debian policy, which clearly states that
Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com (2014-10-05):
The whole discussion we are having currently is about letting FFmpeg
migrate to jessie!
So this is no 'unavoidable issue'.
But as you seem to be willing to consider this in principle, I think
now the time has come for the
control: tag -1 -moreinfo
control: unblock -1 by 740495
control: unblock -1 by 757384
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
Are we (really) ready for this? Removal of lcms in testing would break
several packages including gimp and libmagickcore-dev[1]
lcms no longer has any
On 05/10/14 21:52, Michael Gilbert wrote:
control: tag -1 -moreinfo
control: unblock -1 by 740495
control: unblock -1 by 757384
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
Are we (really) ready for this? Removal of lcms in testing would break
several packages including gimp and
Hi,
the bug mentioned below was fixed on
Mon, 08 Sep 2014 09:18:09 +0200
but the package did not migrated to testing. In fact other
architectures do not seem to build the package since the testing
migration page
https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=libtecla
shows a lot of
Processing control commands:
tag -1 -moreinfo
Bug #758492 [release.debian.org] RM: lcms/1.19.dfsg2-1.5
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
unblock -1 by 740495
Bug #758492 [release.debian.org] RM: lcms/1.19.dfsg2-1.5
758492 was blocked by: 743596 740495 757384
758492 was not blocking any bugs.
Removed
On Sun, 2014-10-05 at 22:12 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
the bug mentioned below was fixed on
Mon, 08 Sep 2014 09:18:09 +0200
but the package did not migrated to testing. In fact other
architectures do not seem to build the package since the testing
migration page
Hi,
On 05.10.2014 21:27, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com (2014-10-05):
The whole discussion we are having currently is about letting FFmpeg
migrate to jessie!
So this is no 'unavoidable issue'.
But as you seem to be willing to consider this in
Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com (2014-10-05):
On 05.10.2014 21:27, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
I'm not sure why one would think the decision still needs to be made.
That's because the last message from a release team member in this
bug said [1].
1:
Hi,
On 05.10.2014 22:38, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com (2014-10-05):
On 05.10.2014 21:27, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
I'm not sure why one would think the decision still needs to be made.
That's because the last message from a release team member in
* Andreas Cadhalpun (andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com) [141005 22:36]:
That's because the last message from a release team member in this bug
said [1]:
'However (and please note that I'm not a member of the security team
and just speak for myself here as always when not otherwise marked) if
On Sunday 05 October 2014 22:48:17 Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
When and how was this decision made, if apparently not even all release
team members were aware of that?
I refrained myself from making this comment on the previous debian-devel
thread, but now I consider it necessary to be said:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: wheezy
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Hi,
I would like to update the attached package update of debian-archive-keyring to
proposed-updates. This is a backport of the package in unstable, which adds
the Jessie key and
Hi Raphael,
On 05.10.2014 23:01, Raphael Geissert wrote:
I refrained myself from making this comment on the previous debian-devel
thread, but now I consider it necessary to be said: given your apparent lack
of understanding of the situation and way of communicating it only makes me
wonder on
Hi Andreas,
On 05.10.2014 22:54, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Andreas Cadhalpun (andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com) [141005 22:36]:
That's because the last message from a release team member in this bug
said [1]:
'However (and please note that I'm not a member of the security team
and just speak for
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On Sun, 2014-10-05 at 23:13 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
I would like to update the attached package update of debian-archive-keyring
to
proposed-updates. This is a backport of the package in unstable, which adds
the Jessie key and replaces my key signing key with
Processing control commands:
tags -1 + confirmed
Bug #764156 [release.debian.org] wheezy-pu: package
debian-archive-keyring/2014.1~deb7u1
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
764156: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=764156
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with
Control: tags -1 + pending
On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 21:38 +0530, kamathvasu...@gmail.com wrote:
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes:
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 22:50 +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
dwm (6.0-4+deb7u1) stable; urgency=low
* Fix broken
Processing control commands:
tags -1 + pending
Bug #763786 [release.debian.org] wheezy-pu: package dwm/6.0-4+deb7u1
Added tag(s) pending.
--
763786: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=763786
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To
Processing changes file: dwm_6.0-4+deb7u1_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: keyutils_1.5.5-3+deb7u1_armel.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: keyutils_1.5.5-3+deb7u1_armhf.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: keyutils_1.5.5-3+deb7u1_i386.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes
Your message dated Mon, 6 Oct 2014 00:11:40 +0200
with message-id 20141005221140.gf8...@mraw.org
and subject line Re: Bug#763514: unblock: dbus/1.8.8-1 systemd/215-5
has caused the Debian Bug report #763514,
regarding unblock: dbus/1.8.8-1 systemd/215-5
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org (2014-10-05):
Dear hurd and kfreebsd porters. I plan to upload the attached patch,
which along with the previous upload introduces a bind udeb, which
will be dynamically linked by the dhcp udeb. Please let me know if
this looks ok.
NAK.
+bind9
On 05/10/14 22:09, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 05/10/14 21:52, Michael Gilbert wrote:
control: tag -1 -moreinfo
control: unblock -1 by 740495
control: unblock -1 by 757384
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
Are we (really) ready for this? Removal of lcms in testing
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: wheezy
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
I have just updated wireless-regdb in unstable to a new upstream
release. There have been many changes to the database based on new
regulations and information about additional
I initially asked this on debian-devel (
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/10/msg00055.html) and was told
that debian-release might be a more suitable place.
Since there is no longer a search functionality in
https://release.debian.org/migration/ to find out why a particular package
is
Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org (2014-10-05):
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
If parallel building worked before you changed things, you get to fix
the issues rather than working around them. bind9 is a pain to build,
so having to deal with a forced -j1 is a nasty
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
I'm not going to go through building this on a kfreebsd porterbox to try
and figure out how isc-dhcp would look if rebuilt against such packages,
but that looks a saner base for porters to build upon.
That doesn't make the timing issues
Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org (2014-10-05):
Would it be ok to stage the changes in unstable to make it somewhat
easy for porters to test?
Since D-I Jessie Beta 2 is out I can't think of a reason why that
wouldn't be a good idea.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Processing changes file: dwm_6.0-4+deb7u1_armhf.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: dwm_6.0-4+deb7u1_i386.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: dwm_6.0-4+deb7u1_ia64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: dwm_6.0-4+deb7u1_kfreebsd-amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file:
Processing changes file: dwm_6.0-4+deb7u1_mips.changes
ACCEPT
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xazur-0002su...@franck.debian.org
Hi,
At Sun, 05 Oct 2014 19:39:23 +0100,
Alastair McKinstry mckins...@debian.org wrote:
On 05/10/2014 19:19, Enrico Zini wrote:
Hello,
I have prepared a new upload of grib-api, version 1.12.3-1. This is the
main bit of the changelog:
* New upstream version
- grib_api has
Processing changes file: exuberant-ctags_5.9~svn20110310-4+deb7u1_i386.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: exuberant-ctags_5.9~svn20110310-4+deb7u1_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: exuberant-ctags_5.9~svn20110310-4+deb7u1_armel.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file:
50 matches
Mail list logo
