Processed: transition: libqalculate

2024-06-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing control commands: > affects -1 + src:libqalculate Bug #1073039 [release.debian.org] transition: libqalculate Added indication that 1073039 affects src:libqalculate -- 1073039: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1073039 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact

Bug#1073039: transition: libqalculate

2024-06-11 Thread James Lu
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: libqalcul...@packages.debian.org, j...@debian.org Control: affects -1 + src:libqalculate User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Hello release team, I'm requesting a slot for the libqalculate 5.x transition.

Bug#1072813: marked as done (release.debian.org: Help doris migrate to testing)

2024-06-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:31:38 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#1072813: release.debian.org: Help doris migrate to testing has caused the Debian Bug report #1072813, regarding release.debian.org: Help doris migrate to testing to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#1073011: marked as done (nmu: cgal_5.6.1-1)

2024-06-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Tue, 11 Jun 2024 14:14:48 -0500 with message-id <3629900.R56niFO833@riemann> and subject line Re: nmu: cgal_5.6.1-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #1073011, regarding nmu: cgal_5.6.1-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If

Bug#1073011: nmu: cgal_5.6.1-1

2024-06-11 Thread Steven Robbins
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: c...@packages.debian.org, Joachim Reichel Control: affects -1 + src:cgal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu New version of Ipe has been uploaded, which cgal uses. nmu cgal_5.6.1-1 . ANY . unstable . -m

Processed: bookworm-pu: package crowdsec-firewall-bouncer/0.0.25-4~deb12u1

2024-06-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing control commands: > affects -1 + src:crowdsec-firewall-bouncer Bug #1072984 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package crowdsec-firewall-bouncer/0.0.25-4~deb12u1 Added indication that 1072984 affects src:crowdsec-firewall-bouncer -- 1072984:

Bug#1072984: bookworm-pu: package crowdsec-firewall-bouncer/0.0.25-4~deb12u1

2024-06-11 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: bookworm User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu X-Debbugs-Cc: crowdsec-firewall-boun...@packages.debian.org Control: affects -1 + src:crowdsec-firewall-bouncer Hi, [ Reason ] I'd like to fix the #1071247/#1071248 pair in

Bug#1072983: bookworm-pu: package golang-github-google-nftables/0.1.0-4~deb12u1

2024-06-11 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: bookworm User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu X-Debbugs-Cc: golang-github-google-nftab...@packages.debian.org Control: affects -1 + src:golang-github-google-nftables Hi, [ Reason ] I'd like to fix the #1071247/#1071248 pair

Processed: bookworm-pu: package golang-github-google-nftables/0.1.0-4~deb12u1

2024-06-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing control commands: > affects -1 + src:golang-github-google-nftables Bug #1072983 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package golang-github-google-nftables/0.1.0-4~deb12u1 Added indication that 1072983 affects src:golang-github-google-nftables -- 1072983:

Re: Bug#1070411: containerd fails to build as a normal user due to sysctl

2024-06-11 Thread Sebastian Ramacher
Hi On 2024-06-11 10:18:14 +0200, Jochen Sprickerhof wrote: > Hi Reinhard, > > * Reinhard Tartler [2024-06-10 22:26]: > > Are you sure that the test is actually executing a sysctl(2) command? > > Looking at the code, it seems to me that this is code is assembling a > > runtime spec that the CRI

Re: Bug#1070411: containerd fails to build as a normal user due to sysctl

2024-06-11 Thread Jochen Sprickerhof
Hi Reinhard, * Reinhard Tartler [2024-06-10 22:26]: Are you sure that the test is actually executing a sysctl(2) command? Looking at the code, it seems to me that this is code is assembling a runtime spec that the CRI implementation will then carry out. Forthermore, the output above indicates