On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 1:28:32 AM AEST Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 08/23/16 16:45, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 11:32:10 AM AEST Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> >> protobuf (3.0.0-1) FTBFS pretty much everywhere. :-(
> >>
> >> Using -Werror may be a bit much
Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 8:51:23 PM AEST Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > That's not an excuse for causing disruption in unstable.
>
> I'm not sure when it is OK to cause disruption in unstable. For example
> uploading new GCC seems to cause a lot of problems despite attempts
On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 8:51:23 PM AEST Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> That's not an excuse for causing disruption in unstable.
I'm not sure when it is OK to cause disruption in unstable. For example
uploading new GCC seems to cause a lot of problems despite attempts to
mitigate FTBFS.
Also do
On 08/23/16 16:45, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 11:32:10 AM AEST Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
protobuf (3.0.0-1) FTBFS pretty much everywhere. :-(
Using -Werror may be a bit much based on the buildlogs.
I think it may not be the problem in this particular case...
I
Your upload broke building other packages (for instance,
evolution-data-server is currently unbuildable).
Could you please apply this patch and push to unstable?
Without this patch, protobuf failed to build in my sid sbuild; with
it; the build succeeded.
Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 patch
Bug #835266 [src:protobuf] protobuf: FTBFS with GCC 6: "misleading indentation"
Added tag(s) patch.
> block 835170 by -1
Bug #835170 [release.debian.org] transition: protobuf
835170 was not blocked by any bugs.
835170 was not blocking any bugs.
Added
I intend to upload linux version 4.7.2-1 to unstable later this week.
This is obviously a new upstream release for unstable. It includes
fixes for CVE-2016-5412, CVE-2016-6136, CVE-2016-5696.
Debian-specific changes include:
- For architectures covered by linux-signed, the unsigned linux-image
On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 00:45 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 11:32:10 AM AEST Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> > > Dmitry, have you tested the reverse dependencies if they still build?
>
> No... We will have to deal with fallout, if any... It is crucial to have
>
The current debdiff we'd like to upload is:
diff -Nru openssl-1.0.1t/debian/changelog openssl-1.0.1t/debian/changelog
--- openssl-1.0.1t/debian/changelog 2016-05-15 21:16:55.0 +0200
+++ openssl-1.0.1t/debian/changelog 2016-06-11 19:18:11.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,14 @@
+openssl
On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 11:32:10 AM AEST Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> > Dmitry, have you tested the reverse dependencies if they still build?
No... We will have to deal with fallout, if any... It is crucial to have
protobuf-3 from life cycle prospective. Also several golang dependencies
On 08/23/16 11:32, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
On 08/23/16 11:10, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
The upload of protobuf (3.0.0-1) to unstable has started an uncoordinated
transition.
Dmitry, have you tested the reverse dependencies if they still build?
I'll test the affected packages maintained by
On 08/23/16 11:10, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
The upload of protobuf (3.0.0-1) to unstable has started an uncoordinated
transition.
Dmitry, have you tested the reverse dependencies if they still build?
I'll test the affected packages maintained by the Debian GIS team and
upload them to unstable if
Processing control commands:
> forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-protobuf.html
Bug #835170 [release.debian.org] transition: protobuf
Set Bug forwarded-to-address to
'https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-protobuf.html'.
--
835170:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Control: forwarded -1
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-protobuf.html
The upload of protobuf (3.0.0-1) to unstable has started an uncoordinated
transition.
Dmitry, have
14 matches
Mail list logo