On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 08:17:22PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> well, the source-only upload to jessie-backports was rejected, claiming
> that architecture-independent packages have to be included. Great surprise,
> that wasn't the case before.
source only uploads (without arch:all binaries) to an
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:18:43PM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 07:17:03PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > Fixed package is in sid (5.0-3) since Fri, 15 Jul, should migrate to
> > testing soon. I just uploaded to jessie-backports.
>
> It migrated to testing this morning.
Your message dated Thu, 21 Jul 2016 19:17:27 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#828966: transition: ros-ros-comm
has caused the Debian Bug report #828966,
regarding transition: ros-ros-comm
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this i
Your message dated Thu, 21 Jul 2016 19:18:05 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#830966: transition: gdal
has caused the Debian Bug report #830966,
regarding transition: gdal
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Thu, 21 Jul 2016 19:19:10 +0200
with message-id <7c9fd70d-e6d9-0ce8-a383-5f9f532c2...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#829371: transition: ntl
has caused the Debian Bug report #829371,
regarding transition: ntl
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 07:17:03PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> Fixed package is in sid (5.0-3) since Fri, 15 Jul, should migrate to
> testing soon. I just uploaded to jessie-backports.
It migrated to testing this morning.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FC
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 07:04:47PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 13/07/16 19:19, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > I think I have found the bug, for the moment I am waiting for confirmation
> > by someone more knowledgable than me about this part of the code.
>
> Any progress on this? D
On 18/07/16 13:12, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can we downgrade the move from openjpeg1.x to openjpeg2.x ? Still
> keeping it as a release goal, but RC-critical?
>
> I maintain (most of) the meteorology software, and the principal format
> for weather data is GRIB2, which uses openjpeg as
Hi,
On 13/07/16 19:19, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> I think I have found the bug, for the moment I am waiting for confirmation
> by someone more knowledgable than me about this part of the code.
Any progress on this? Do you have a patch? It'd be good to fix this, as at the
moment there are many packages
Hi Laszlo,
On 30/03/16 07:38, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:
> ICU has a new major upstream release, supporting several new things
> that I would like to see in Stretch:
> - CLDR[1] 28 [2] and 29 [3] support,
> - Unicode 8.0.0 [4] support.
What's the status of this? I see it is in experimental n
Your message dated Thu, 21 Jul 2016 18:59:25 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#830137: transition: gnustep-gui
has caused the Debian Bug report #830137,
regarding transition: gnustep-gui
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #832030 [release.debian.org] transition: givaro
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
832030: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=832030
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
On 21/07/16 15:53, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> On 2016-07-19 20:19, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 19/07/16 19:01, Bertrand Marc wrote:
>>> Do you know if I could have access to a testing build infrastructure ?
>>
>> You can ask someone (your sponsor) to request access to a porterbox for you.
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 21/07/16 16:52, Doug Torrance wrote:
> A new upstream release of givaro (version 4.0.1) which bumps the SONAME has
> recently been packaged and uploaded to experimental. Therefore, I am
> requesting a transition slot.
Go ahead.
Cheers,
Emilio
On 21/07/16 at 16:40 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2016-07-21 16:18 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:21:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >
> >> Some of the new bugs are like this:
> >>
> >> make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
> >>
> >> Targets
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> clone 830997 -1
Bug #830997 [release.debian.org] release.debian.org: Permission to consider
dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC
Bug 830997 cloned as bug 832029
> reassign -1 lintian
Bug #832029 [release.debian.org] release.debian.org: Permission to c
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hello!
A new upstream release of givaro (version 4.0.1) which bumps the SONAME has
recently been packaged and uploaded to experimental. Therefore, I am
requesting a transition slot.
Th
clone 830997 -1
reassign -1 lintian
retitle -1 lintian: fails to detect missing build-indep target in 9 packages
thanks
On 21/07/16 at 16:18 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:21:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > Some of the new bugs are like this:
> >
> > make: ***
On 2016-07-21 16:18 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:21:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
>> Some of the new bugs are like this:
>>
>> make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
>>
>> Targets build-arch and build-indep are mandatory, and this was already
>>
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:21:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Some of the new bugs are like this:
>
> make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop.
>
> Targets build-arch and build-indep are mandatory, and this was already
> decided by dpkg author. This is not new, so I would raise
On 2016-07-19 20:19, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 19/07/16 19:01, Bertrand Marc wrote:
Do you know if I could have access to a testing build infrastructure ?
You can ask someone (your sponsor) to request access to a porterbox for
you.
Other than that, I don't know.
As a DM, Bertrand ca
Hi,
Le 19/07/2016 à 21:19, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
> In lack of that, do you know how much the ABI changed?
Sorry I missed that bit in my first message. To my mind (but I am not
sure), the soname bump comes from a new member in the middle of a union
struct exposed in /usr/include/microht
On 2016-07-21 11:25, Andrew Shadura wrote:
On 21/07/16 12:19, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On 2016-07-21 11:01, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed
[...]
+wpa (2.3-1+deb8u4) jessie-security; urgency=medium
The distribution there should be "jessie" (and was in the earlier
On 21/07/16 12:19, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>
> On 2016-07-21 11:01, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed
> [...]
>> +wpa (2.3-1+deb8u4) jessie-security; urgency=medium
>>
>> The distribution there should be "jessie" (and was in the earlier
>> diff). With that changed, ple
Control: tags -1 +moreinfo -confirmed
On 2016-07-21 11:01, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed
[...]
+wpa (2.3-1+deb8u4) jessie-security; urgency=medium
The distribution there should be "jessie" (and was in the earlier
diff). With that changed, please feel free to go
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 +moreinfo -confirmed
Bug #832004 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
Bug #832004 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4
Removed tag(s) confirmed.
--
832004: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo
Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed
[CCing -boot@ and kibi for reference, as wpa produces a udeb. The fixes
look "obviously correct" enough to me]
On 2016-07-21 10:51, Andrew Shadura wrote:
On 21/07/16 11:42, Andrew Shadura wrote:
On 21/07/16 11:37, Andrew Shadura wrote:
On 21/07/16 11:32
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed
Bug #832004 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
Bug #832004 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
832004: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo
On 21/07/16 11:42, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> On 21/07/16 11:37, Andrew Shadura wrote:
>> On 21/07/16 11:32, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
I realise that none of the above are actually enabled in
debian/patches/series, but that makes it even more confusing that
they're in the diff. Please prep
On 21/07/16 11:37, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> On 21/07/16 11:32, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> > I realise that none of the above are actually enabled in
>> > debian/patches/series, but that makes it even more confusing that
>> > they're in the diff. Please prepare and test a package that contains
>> > on
On 21/07/16 11:32, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> I realise that none of the above are actually enabled in
> debian/patches/series, but that makes it even more confusing that
> they're in the diff. Please prepare and test a package that contains
> only the changes relating to fixing CVE-2016-4476 and CVE
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 + moreinfo
Bug #832004 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package wpa/2.3-1+deb8u4
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
832004: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=832004
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
On 2016-07-21 9:51, Andrew Shadura wrote:
I have prepared an upload fixing CVE-2016-4476 and CVE-2016-4477.
Please find the attached debdiff.
I may be missing something, but what do these changes have to do with
fixing either of the CVEs you mentioned?
patches/
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: jessie
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Hi,
I have prepared an upload fixing CVE-2016-4476 and CVE-2016-4477.
Please find the attached debdiff.
Sébastien Delafond advised me this upload is for the point release,
and isn'
On 21/07/16 at 02:21 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 09:47:52PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 15/07/16 at 00:23 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >
> > I did some work to verify Santiago's list of affected packages, and
> > identified more affected packages. The additional
35 matches
Mail list logo