Re: Offer to make a native 32-bit system avaiable

Thank you for the offer, but no need. It is not needed in Debian infrastructure. On Sat, 13 Jan 2024, 19:18 rhys, wrote: > > > >> I know the difference between a 32-bit processor and a 64-bit processor. > > > > Obviously you don't. Or at least are not aware about consequences. > > > > > >

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

Hi, On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 09:42, Bastian Blank wrote: > > Hi > > Linux 6.7 fails to build on at least i386 and armhf. Even it now > manages to make the compiler fail to allocate memory: > | cc1: out of memory allocating 135266296 bytes after a total of 235675648 > bytes > > Right now both

Bug#960193: transition: icu

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 13:26, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:59:07PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 12:34, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 03:40:43PM +0200, László Böszörményi wrote: > >

Bug#960193: transition: icu

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 12:59, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > If icu in unstable could add Breaks: libbost-regex1.67-0 (<< > 1.67.0-141) that should be sufficient to ensure upgrades happen the should read (<< 1.67.0-14~)

Bug#960193: transition: icu

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 12:34, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 03:40:43PM +0200, László Böszörményi wrote: > > > > Level 1.5 is needed for Boost packages to be binNMUed: > > Both boost1.67 and boost1.71 build correctly. > >... > > Changing the icu version changes the

Bug#904316: Fwd: boost-defaults_1.67.0.1_multi.changes is NEW

-- Forwarded message - From: Debian FTP Masters Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 14:40 Subject: boost-defaults_1.67.0.1_multi.changes is NEW To: Dimitri John Ledkov , Debian Boost Team binary:libboost-container-dev is NEW. binary:libboost-contract-dev is NEW. binary:libboost-numpy-dev

Bug#904316: transition: boost-defaults

On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 10:40, Giovanni Mascellani wrote: > > Dear pochu, > > Il 12/11/18 22:05, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort ha scritto: > > The icu transition has started now. Can you make a boost1.67 upload > > build-depending on the new icu, with a bumped shlibs, similar to [1] ? That > > will > >

Bug#904316: transition: boost-defaults

On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 10:26:34 +0100 Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > This transition was ready to be started for just over three months now. May I upload boost-de

Bug#904316: transition: boost-defaults

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 at 08:38, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:45:12PM +0200, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 at 11:16, Niels Thykier wrote: > >... > > > Hi, > > > > > > I noticed at least 13 packages that have

Bug#904316: transition: boost-defaults

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 at 11:16, Niels Thykier wrote: > > Dimitri John Ledkov: > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > > Usertags: transition > > > > This is a transition request to upgrade bo

Bug#904316: transition: boost-defaults

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 This is a transition request to upgrade boost defaults from 1.62 to 1.67. Whilst 1.65.1 never made it into Debian, it has in Ubuntu and

Bug#891872: transition: curl

On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:04:44 +0100 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 01/03/18 22:31, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > > Usertags: transition > > > > Hello, > > > > I'd like to

Bug#855121: unblock: btrfs-progs/4.9.1-1

On 26 February 2017 at 17:12, Jonathan Wiltshire <j...@debian.org> wrote: > Control: tag -1 moreinfo > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:31:06AM +0000, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: >> Roses are red, >> Violets are blue, >> This will not rhyme, >> Please unblock pa

Bug#843051: release.debian.org: boost1.62 transition

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Hello, boost-defaults has already been accepted to effectively start the boost1.62 transition. Quite speedy NEW queue processing there. smr and I, debate taking boost1.62 transition because it is a relatively small jump; and there are openssl fixes.

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

Hello, On 30 August 2016 at 23:07, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 22/08/16 at 19:12 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote: >> Hi Guillem, >> >> 2016-08-21 14:02 GMT+02:00 Guillem Jover : >> > Hi! >> > >> > On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 10:24:42 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote: >> >>

Bug#833377: release.debian.org: boost1.61 transition

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Hello, pkg-boost team would like to transition to the next boost abi, based on 1.61 release. boost1.61 is now in experimental. The abi is complex and depends on multiple things. We do not wish to maintain same boost series (1.61) with multiple abi

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On 14 June 2016 at 20:22, wrote: > On 2016-06-14 03:06, Philipp Kern wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:33:56PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: >>> >>> Philipp Kern: >>> > On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote: >>> >> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips,

Bug#798204: boost1.58 tracker

Package: release.debian.org Could you please setup boost1.58 transition tracker? E.g. title = "Boost 1.58"; is_affected = .depends ~ /libboost[a-z-]*1\.5/ | .build-depends ~ /libboost[a-z-]*1\.5/; is_good = .depends ~ /libboost[a-z-]*1\.58/ | .build-depends ~ /libboost[a-z-]*1\.58-dev/; is_bad =

Bug#797621: release.debian.org: binNMU critterding on hurd-i386

Severity: normal Package: release.debian.org Please binNMU critterding in experimental, on hurd-i386, against boost1.58. Currently it is built against boost1.57, but should be build with boost1.58. It's holding up removal of boost1.57 from the archive. Regards, Dimitri.

Bug#794458: release.debian.org: boost1.58/icu/gcc5 transition

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal X-Debbugs-CC: s...@debian.org gcc5, icu are now build with libstdc++11 abi, and so is boost1.58. It's time to switch boost from 1.55 to 1.58. Otherwise libraries that are getting gcc5 soname bump that use boost as well, may get incompatible abi as a

Re: Age of built packages to be part of the jessie release?

Following on this conversation. I did some simple stats. There are 6361 binary packages that have the same name in stable and testing on (all, amd64) architecture. This translates into 4821 source packages. Skimming through the list of them, I've poked some that for sure will generate a diff if

Bug#746741: release.debian.org: dh-python2 transition

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Dear release team, Debian python teams would find useful to evaluate on continuous basis removal of python-support from the archive and thus migrating to dh-python2. We are uncertain of the scope, and the pace at which this transition can be

Bug#746741: release.debian.org: dh-python2 transition

On 3 May 2014 09:54, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@debian.org wrote: On 03/05/14 08:48, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Dear release team, Debian python teams would find useful to evaluate on continuous basis removal of python-support from the archive

Bug#744171: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#744171: transition: boost-defaults

On 11 April 2014 03:11, Steve M. Robbins s...@debian.org wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition As previously requested on Feb 28 2014 (see https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=704032#220):