Hi Adrian (2024.05.07_17:39:58_+)
> Could this be solved through Provides, so that it could be handled
> with binNMUs during abseil transitions?
Implemented in 20240501-2.
Stefano
--
Stefano Rivera
http://tumbleweed.org.za/
+1 415 683 3272
On Wed, 8 May 2024 at 09:03, Jun MO wrote:
> 1) I hope there will still be the original
> w(1)/last(1)/lastb(1)/lastlog(1)/faillog(1)
> tools which can still read *old* format utmp/wtmp/lastlog in Debian at
> least for
> a while after switch to Y2038-safe replacements. Those tools can read
>
I c
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: bullseye
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
X-Debbugs-Cc: b...@packages.debian.org, sanv...@debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:bart
[ Reason ]
This upload fixes Bug #1026061 FTBFS randomly in bullseye.
[ Impact ]
Anybody
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:bart
Bug #1070723 [release.debian.org] bullseye-pu: package bart/0.6.00-3+deb11u1
Added indication that 1070723 affects src:bart
--
1070723: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070723
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.deb
Dear Developers,
A bit from a Debian user. Please note that I am not come to here to
blame/complain
against the Upstream/Maintainer of the pam package and the Maintainer of
the shadow
package, or come to here to request something. I just come to here to
present
some of my hope.
I often use t
Control: severity 1070706 normal
Control: severity 1070714 normal
On Tue, 07 May 2024 at 22:53:33 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Simon McVittie (2024-05-07):
> > do the release/installer teams consider udeb dependencies
> > on non-udeb packages, by udebs that d-i does not currently need or use,
Hi Simon,
Simon McVittie (2024-05-07):
> Looking at the d-i Packages.gz for amd64, the only other source
> package that has picked up the bad libpng16-16t64-udeb dependency
> seems to be matchbox-keyboard, which needs a sourceful upload to fix an
> implicit-declarations FTBFS anyway, therefore is
On Tue, 07 May 2024 at 22:02:12 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 07-05-2024 7:49 p.m., Simon McVittie wrote:
> > The version in testing, 4.12.5+ds-3, has the same dependencies, so this
> > is not a regression.
>
> Is it? It seems that the version in unstable depends on libpng16-16t64-udeb
> where th
Hi,
On 07-05-2024 7:49 p.m., Simon McVittie wrote:
The version in testing, 4.12.5+ds-3, has the same dependencies, so this
is not a regression.
Is it? It seems that the version in unstable depends on
libpng16-16t64-udeb where the version in testing depends on
libpng16-16-udeb. The later exis
Your message dated Tue, 7 May 2024 20:45:18 +0200
with message-id <751079c1-944a-4350-a5f5-80775c7e2...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1070708: unblock: rust-chrono/0.4.38-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1070708,
regarding unblock: rust-chrono/0.4.38-2
to be marked as done.
This means th
Hi,
On 07-05-2024 5:55 p.m., plugwash wrote:
Can you figure out what is going wrong and either fix it or override the tests?
As noted on IRC, it's unclear what caused this. I retriggered the test
and it's now picked up.
For those watching, britney2 would have done this by itself too after 5
Hi Adrian (2024.05.07_17:39:58_+)
> Could this be solved through Provides, so that it could be handled
> with binNMUs during abseil transitions?
>
> Example:
>
> Package: libboost-regex1.74.0
> Depends: ..., libicu72 (>= 72.1~rc-1~),...
> Provides: libboost-regex1.74.0-icu72
>
> $ cat /var/
Control: tags -1 + d-i
Control: found -1 4.12.5+ds-3
Control: retitle -1 gtk4 udeb has unsatisfiable dependencies
Control: clone -1 -2
Control: retitle -2 libvte-2.91-0-udeb depends on both GTK 3 and GTK 4
Control: reassign -2 src:vte2.91 0.75.92-1
On Tue, 07 May 2024 at 15:44:02 +0100, Peter Mich
On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 01:09:37PM -0400, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>...
> included a new dependency on abseil. This broke most of the
> reverse-dependencies. It also means that transitions will get more
> frequent, as every abseil transition will change re2's ABI.
>...
Could this be solved through Pr
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
rust-chrono's testing excuses say (and have listed for at least a day or so)
autopkgtest for rust-trash/3.3.1-1: amd64: Test in progress, arm64: Pass, i386:
Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pas
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #1070703 [release.debian.org] transition: libunibreak
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
1070703: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070703
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 07/05/2024 15:52, Pino Toscano wrote:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: libunibr...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:libunibreak
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi,
I'd like to request a trans
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:libunibreak
Bug #1070703 [release.debian.org] transition: libunibreak
Added indication that 1070703 affects src:libunibreak
--
1070703: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070703
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.o
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: libunibr...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:libunibreak
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi,
I'd like to request a transition slot for the update of the libunibreak
library 5.1 to 6.1. Each n
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:nano
Bug #1070702 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package nano/7.2-1+deb12u1
Added indication that 1070702 affects src:nano
--
1070702: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070702
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: bookworm
X-Debbugs-Cc: n...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:nano
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
As we did in previous Debian releases, this is an update
for Debian stable's nano package with selected patche
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #1070698 [release.debian.org] transition: ticcutils
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
1070698: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070698
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 07/05/2024 14:21, Bastian Germann wrote:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: ticcut...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:ticcutils
Control: forwarded -1
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-ticcutils.html
User: releas
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:ticcutils
Bug #1070698 [release.debian.org] transition: ticcutils
Added indication that 1070698 affects src:ticcutils
> forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-ticcutils.html
Bug #1070698 [release.debian.org] transition: ticcuti
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: ticcut...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:ticcutils
Control: forwarded -1
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-ticcutils.html
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
I am requesting a t
Your message dated Tue, 7 May 2024 12:56:47 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1059535: transition: abseil
has caused the Debian Bug report #1059535,
regarding transition: abseil
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the c
Processing control commands:
> block 1070689 by -1
Bug #1070689 [release.debian.org] transition: msgpack-c
1070689 was blocked by: 1070692 1070693 1070691
1070689 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 1070689: 1070694
--
1070689: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=10
Processing control commands:
> block 1070689 by -1
Bug #1070689 [release.debian.org] transition: msgpack-c
1070689 was blocked by: 1070691 1070692
1070689 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 1070689: 1070693
--
1070689: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070689
10
Processing control commands:
> block 1070689 by -1
Bug #1070689 [release.debian.org] transition: msgpack-c
1070689 was blocked by: 1070691
1070689 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 1070689: 1070692
--
1070689: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070689
1070692: h
Processing control commands:
> block 1070689 by -1
Bug #1070689 [release.debian.org] transition: msgpack-c
1070689 was not blocked by any bugs.
1070689 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 1070689: 1070691
--
1070689: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070689
10706
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:msgpack-c
Bug #1070689 [release.debian.org] transition: msgpack-c
Added indication that 1070689 affects src:msgpack-c
--
1070689: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070689
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org wit
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: msgpac...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:msgpack-c
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
The msgpack-c upstream renamed their C library from libmsgpackc.so to
libmsgpack-c.so. I've renamed the bin
Your message dated Tue, 7 May 2024 09:47:20 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1059852: transition: glibc 2.38
has caused the Debian Bug report #1059852,
regarding transition: glibc 2.38
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is n
33 matches
Mail list logo
