On 11/19/23 00:40, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Hi Adrian,
A proper fix would be either to:
1. patch the version check out of texlive-bin (preferred), or
Did so, see [1]. I did not remove the check completely, I just
un-tightened the version. I can confirm that a texlive package linked on
testing
On 11/19/23 00:40, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 11:51:15PM +0100, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
On 11/18/23 20:18, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Hi all,
nmu texlive-bin_2023.20230311.66589-7 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against new
zlib"
Thanks for filing the NMU bug.
S
Control: severity -1 important
Control: block 1056183 by -1
On 11/18/23 20:18, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Hi Samuel,
nmu texlive-bin_2023.20230311.66589-7 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against new
zlib"
Thanks for filing the NMU bug.
So a binnmu of the texlive-bin source package seems
On 6/28/23 09:01, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
When do you expect the bugs to be closed in unstable?
I've pushed the new texlive-bin and the context package to unstable.
Hilmar
--
Testmail
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Unfortunately I've uploaded pssh, dvisvgm & latexmk to unstable, a while ago,
although the packages were not intended for bookworm. I expected that they will
migrate to testing, once
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
Many thanks for help.
Hilmar
09.04.2023 10:12:36 Sebastian Ramacher :
> Control: tags -1 moreinfo confirmed
>
> On 2023-04-09 00:29:55 +0200, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
>> On 4/9/23 00:24, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>
On 4/9/23 00:24, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Hi,
You can follow progress on this Bug here: 1034100:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1034100.
Attached is the promised debdiff.
Hilmar
--
Testmail
diff -Nru texlive-base-2022.20230122/debian/changelog
Am 02.02.2023 um 18:33 teilte Sven Joachim mit:
Hi Sven,
Sorry, if I keep debian-release in Cc, it is probably out of scope of
this list. Let me know if I should stop posting here.
I had a look at some of these logs, and all cases appear to be tripping
over the following change mentioned in
Am 25.01.2023 um 22:08 teilte Sebastian Ramacher mit:
On 2023-01-24 09:23:26 +0100, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
Dear release managers,
TeX Info version 7.0 was released last year at beginning of November and
was uploaded to experimental. We got a few bug reports, which were
addressed by upstream
Am 29.01.2023 um 02:08 teilte Anthony Fok mit:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 2:24 AM Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
Hi Anthony,
There's https://wiki.debian.org/MassRebuilds - best to talk to Lucas.
There is also the "ratt - Rebuild All The Things" tool written by
Michael Stapelberg, originally for
Am 25.01.2023 um 22:08 teilte Sebastian Ramacher mit:
On 2023-01-24 09:23:26 +0100, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
Hello Sebastian,
TeX Info version 7.0 was released last year at beginning of November and
was uploaded to experimental. We got a few bug reports, which were
addressed by upstream authors
Dear release managers,
TeX Info version 7.0 was released last year at beginning of November and
was uploaded to experimental. We got a few bug reports, which were
addressed by upstream authors promptly.
Since then two bugfix releases appeared (currently 7.0.2) and we could
think about uploading
Am 24.10.2022 um 19:48 teilte Paul Gevers mit:
Hi all,
I think Hilmar was afraid of what happens after latexml is removed from
testing. Than TL migrates and breaks latexml for users of testing that
don't immediately remove packages that are no longer in testing.
Yes, correct.
The idea to
Am 22.10.2022 um 10:21 teilte Debian Bug Tracking System mit:
Hi Adrian,
the breakage is not caused by the perl upload, but due to the latest TeX
Live upload at the beginning of this month. Hence TL either does not
migrate to testing (which is good in the moment IMHO). I reported the
issue
Am 19.09.2021 um 00:13 teilte Adam D. Barratt mit:
Hi Adam,
Thanks, and apologies if I was slightly impatient in jumping on the
uploads. In general, however, we'd expect the unstable upload to at
least have happened first, if not to have also had some time to weed
out any obvious issues.
Am 30.08.2021 um 08:32 teilte Hilmar Preuße mit:
On 8/25/21 11:42 AM, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi,
This transition was already started by the recent proftpd upload, but is
not caught caught automatically since it is a virtual package name that
has changed.
Ben file:
title = "proftpd
Am 19.09.2021 um 00:03 teilte Adam D. Barratt mit:
Hi,
However, neither appears to be fixed in unstable yet. Is that correct?
If so, please resolve the issues in unstable first, as that is a basic
prerequisite for fixing them in (old)stable. If the issues are in fact
fixed in unstable, please
On 8/25/21 11:42 AM, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi,
This transition was already started by the recent proftpd upload, but is
not caught caught automatically since it is a virtual package name that
has changed.
Ben file:
title = "proftpd-dfsg";
is_affected = .depends ~ "proftpd-abi-1.3.7a" |
Am 28.05.2020 um 23:54 teilte Adam D. Barratt mit:
> On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 09:07 +0200, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
Hi Adam,
>> Anyway: I've uploaded the requested
>> change to Debian unstable yesterday. Is this sufficient to get deb9u5
>> into oldstable?
>>
>
>
Am 09.05.2020 um 16:22 teilte Adam D. Barratt mit:
> On Sat, 2020-05-09 at 15:57 +0200, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
Hi Adam,
>> Ho about that one: will deb9u5 accepted for next oldstable release?
>
> As Julien mentioned in a mail that you should have received on April
> 26th, if
Am 12.04.2020 um 23:45 teilte Adam D. Barratt mit:
Hi Adam,
Ho about that one: will deb9u5 accepted for next oldstable release?
Thanks!
> I'm afraid that I'm slightly confused on this point:
>
> adsb@coccia:~$ grep debconf proftpd-dfsg-1.3.6c/debian/proftpd-basic.postinst
> ucf
Am 26.04.2020 um 16:27 teilte Adam D. Barratt mit:
> Control: tags -1 + confirmed
Hi Adam,
> On Wed, 2020-03-11 at 19:19 +0100, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
>> the package fixes two critical issues, which impacts the usability of
>> the
>> mod_sftp proftp module. There are situations, where users can't
Am 12.04.2020 um 23:45 teilte Adam D. Barratt mit:
Hi Adam,
> I'm afraid that I'm slightly confused on this point:
>
> adsb@coccia:~$ grep debconf proftpd-dfsg-1.3.6c/debian/proftpd-basic.postinst
> ucf --debconf-ok ${file}.proftpd-new $file
> . /usr/share/debconf/confmodule
>
> That
Dear Release managers,
http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4385
"SSH authentication fails for many clients due to receiving of
SSH_MSG_IGNORE packet"
This bug will probably hit soon users using recent ssh clients.
Workaround would be not use sftp, instead ftps. Fix has been uploaded to
Am 30.12.2019 um 22:21 teilte Adam D. Barratt mit:
> Control: tags -1 + confirmed
> The distribution for a stretch-pu upload should simply be "stretch".
>
> + * Cherry pick patch from upstream:
> + - for upstream 861 (CVE-2019-19269) (Closes: #946345)
> +
Am 30.12.2019 um 22:23 teilte Adam D. Barratt mit:
> Control: tags -1 + confirmed
> + * Cherry pick patch from upstream:
> + - for upstream 861 (CVE-2019-19269) (Closes: #946345)
> + - for upstream 859 (CVE-2019-19270) (Closes: #946346)
> +
Am 30.12.2019 um 22:21 teilte Adam D. Barratt mit:
> On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 23:51 +0100, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi Adam,
>> #946345 proftpd-dfsg: CVE-2019-19269
>>
>> ...for Debian stretch. I built/installed the package an Debian
>> oldstable and could login into the server and transfer file.
>
>
reassign 276274 texlive-extra-utils
reassign 375819 texlive-extra-utils
reassign 503752 texlive-extra-utils
reassign 603707 texlive-extra-utils
reassign 609642 texlive-extra-utils
reassign 615943 texlive-extra-utils
reassign 468225 texlive-extra-utils
reassign 276275 texlive-extra-utils
stop
On
On 15.07.11 Philipp Kern (pk...@debian.org) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:14:16AM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi,
#633011
Why isn't it RC?
It is now.
But if it's indeed introduced with the latest binNMU for the
poppler transition I'd rather like to see a sourceful upload with
29 matches
Mail list logo
