Bug#904316: transition: boost-defaults

2018-10-25 Thread Giovanni Mascellani
Hi, Il 28/09/18 18:31, Giovanni Mascellani ha scritto: > The second block of packages have a failure that is rather clearly > related to the new boost version. For most of them the problem is that > something was moved to a different namespace or header, so the patch > should not be complicated to

Bug#911889: transition: libsmpp34

2018-10-25 Thread Ruben Undheim
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Hi, I would like to start a transition of libsmpp34. It has only one reverse dependency - openbsc, which builds just fine. This transition is closely related to libosmocore and should t

Bug#911887: transition: libosmocore

2018-10-25 Thread Ruben Undheim
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Hello! I would like to start a transition of libosmocore with also a couple of sub-transitions: libosmogb5 -> libosmogb6(src:libosmocore) libosmogsm8 -> libosmogsm10 (src:libosmoc

Re: Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

2018-10-25 Thread Stephan Seitz
On Do, Okt 25, 2018 at 04:02:38 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: I am concerned about the lack of progress. I would be grateful for advice on what I should do next. Can it possible be that simply no one really cares about some names because they don’t find this case important enough? The upstream

Bug#909596: marked as done (RM: searchload-options -- RoQA; incompatible with newer firefox-esr versions)

2018-10-25 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:19:15 +0100 with message-id <1540491555.2893.27.ca...@adam-barratt.org.uk> and subject line Re: Bug#909596: RM: searchload-options/0.8.0-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #909596, regarding RM: searchload-options -- RoQA; incompatible with newer firefox-esr

Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

2018-10-25 Thread Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"): > I look forward to hearing from the Debian maintainer, who I think is > the first point of contact for the management of the package in > Debian. I am concerned about the lack of progress. I would be grateful for advice on wha

Bug#901015: marked as done (transition: protobuf)

2018-10-25 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:03:46 +0530 with message-id <62ea7346-f201-c24a-ec50-61d970ee5...@onenetbeyond.org> and subject line protobuf 3.6.1 is in testing now has caused the Debian Bug report #901015, regarding transition: protobuf to be marked as done. This means that you claim that