Re: Bug#765545: RM: octave-ltfat [armhf mips] -- ROM; FTBFS

* Rafael Laboissiere [2014-10-16 07:20]: Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal Dear FTP master, Version 2.0.1-1 of the octave-ltfat package FTBFS on amrhf and mips, for obscure reasons. In order to allow the migration of this package into unstable, please remove the binaries for those

Bug#684930: unblock (pre-approval): octave/3.6.2-5

[Cc:ing to the DOG mailing list.] * Adam D. Barratt [2012-08-16 22:13]: > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > [snip] > > +--- a/src/mkoctfile.in > b/src/mkoctfile.in > +@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ > [...] > +-: ${XTRA_CXXFLAGS=%OCTAVE_CONF_XTRA_CXXFLAGS%} > ++: ${XTRA_CXXFLAGS=-I/usr/include/mpi %OCTAVE

Bug#684930: unblock (pre-approval): octave/3.6.2-5

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: freeze-exception We (the Debian Octave Group) have been discussing the issue described below during the past days and are requiring the pre-approval for octave/3.6.2-5, which would be uploaded to un

Bug#684023: unblock: octave-odepkg/0.8.2-2

/debian/changelog2012-08-05 23:36:13.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +octave-odepkg (0.8.2-2) unstable; urgency=low + + * Ensure that the "-fno-automatic" flag is passed to gfortran +(Closes: #664797) + + -- Thomas Weber Sun, 05 Aug 2012 21:39:05 +0200 + octave-odep

Bug#667863: transition: octave 3.2 -> 3.6

* Cyril Brulebois [2012-06-10 12:59]: > Sébastien Villemot (10/06/2012): > > All source uploads/NMUs concerning this transition have been done, and > > the octave3.2 package has been removed from unstable. > > That looks great, thanks for the follow-up. > > > The only thing left is to have tes

Bug#667863: transition: octave 3.2 -> 3.6

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition The Debian Octave Group (DOG) is preparing the transition from Octave 3.2 to 3.6. There will be an important impact on the Debian ecosystem because we abandoned the versioned naming sche

Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] octave3.2 autobuild problems

* Kurt Roeckx [2009-06-19 23:48]: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 09:49:34PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > The octave3.2 package failed to autobuild on ia64 and is stuck on > > powerpc. This is blocking our planned transition of the octave-forge > > packages from octa

octave3.2 autobuild problems

The octave3.2 package failed to autobuild on ia64 and is stuck on powerpc. This is blocking our planned transition of the octave-forge packages from octave3.0 to octave3.2 [1]. The failure on caballero is due to the infamous alternatives problem [2] but nobody seem to care. I wish I could ask fo

Re: SuiteSparse 3.2.0->3.3.0 transition

* Adeodato Simó [2009-05-26 20:40]: > + Rafael Laboissiere (Sun, 10 May 2009 14:57:15 +0200): > > > The upstream authors of SuiteSparse have released version 3.3.0. If we > > package this version for Debian, we will have to go through another > > library transition s

Re: SuiteSparse 3.2.0->3.3.0 transition

* Rafael Laboissiere [2009-06-05 22:09]: > * Adeodato Simó [2009-05-26 20:40]: > > > Yes, Bin-NMUs should be enough. I see there are appropriate Replaces in > > place, and I think that should be enough. I *think* the Conflicts are > > not necessary, and I'm not

Re: SuiteSparse 3.2.0->3.3.0 transition

* Adeodato Simó [2009-05-26 20:40]: > Yes, Bin-NMUs should be enough. I see there are appropriate Replaces in > place, and I think that should be enough. I *think* the Conflicts are > not necessary, and I'm not sure whether they hurt or not; upgrdability > has never been my strong point, and in a

Re: Bug#524745: give back drivel on mips and mipsel ?

* Luk Claes [2009-05-09 12:55]: > Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > > I am really frustrated with this bug and I have the impression we > > are going nowhere. I cannot believe that there is something wrong with > > the packages, since some of them had successful build

Re: give back drivel on mips and mipsel ?

* Philipp Kern [2009-05-08 11:13]: > On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 09:51:05AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > + Rafael Laboissiere (Fri, 08 May 2009 08:51:05 +0200): > > > > That's caused by a kernel bug on the mipsen buildds. It's not fixed, but > > > > a wo

Re: give back drivel on mips and mipsel ?

* Adeodato Simó [2009-05-05 15:07]: > + Cyril Brulebois (Tue, 05 May 2009 13:40:30 +0200): > > > | Setting up libgnomevfs2-common (1:2.24.1-1) ... > > | Traceback (most recent call last): > > | File "/usr/sbin/gconf-schemas", line 82, in > > | pids=os.popen('pidof gconfd-2').readlines()[0

Re: Suitesparse 3.2.0

* Adeodato Simó [2009-04-09 14:42]: > - octave3.0 has an RC bug that prevents it from migrating; the > maintainers initially thought of downgrading it, but now think it > shouldn’t make it to testing, and I don’t want to override that > (#523042). > > However, I’m leaning towar

Re: Suitesparse 3.2.0

* Julian Gilbey [2009-04-07 19:51]: > Is there any reason to still be holding back suitesparse from > migrating to testing (as requested by Adeodato)? It is now the only > thing, AFAICT, holding back openoffice.org 3.0 from migrating to > testing. According to the transitions summary page [1],

Re: Bug#521726: python-pymtp: needs upating of depends fromlibmtp7 to libmtp8

* Adeodato Simó [2009-04-05 21:53]: > * Rafael Laboissiere [Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:21:51 +0200]: > > > Done: > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2009/04/msg00251.html > > Thanks, I pushed the transition now. Thanks, I see it is already there:

Re: Bug#521726: python-pymtp: needs upating of depends fromlibmtp7 to libmtp8

* Rafael Laboissiere [2009-04-02 22:44]: > * Adeodato Simó [2009-04-02 20:41]: > > > Great, I’ll be waiting for the upload and then do the migration. > > I prepared the NMU, which can be accessed here: > > dget http://people.debian.org/~rafael/pymtp/pymtp_0

Re: Bug#521726: python-pymtp: needs upating of depends fromlibmtp7 to libmtp8

age to unstable. Cheers, Rafael Laboissiere = debian/rules == pymtp (0.0.4-1.1) unstable; urgency=low * Non-maintainer upload, for unblocking the libmtp7 -> libmtp8 transition (closes: #521726), with approval of the package main

Re: Bug#521726: python-pymtp: needs upating of depends fromlibmtp7 to libmtp8

* Adeodato Simó [2009-04-02 12:32]: > * Rafael Laboissiere [Tue, 31 Mar 2009 03:03:29 +0200]: > > > [snip] > > I merged both version for pymtp.py and the resulting debdiff is attached > > below. I tested it with a Zen Creative device and creation of a track > &

Re: Bug#521726: python-pymtp: needs upating of depends from libmtp7 to libmtp8

* Rafael Laboissiere [2009-03-30 16:31]: > * Thomas Perl [2009-03-30 13:00]: > > > The following seems to work for users of MTP devices so far (see the > > attachment to that bug): > > > > http://bugs.gpodder.org/show_bug.cgi?id=307 > > Thanks for th

Re: Give back totem-pl-parser on mips

* Rafael Laboissiere [2009-03-29 19:46]: > * Adeodato Simó [2009-03-29 19:36]: > > > * Rafael Laboissiere [Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:26:57 +0200]: > > > > > Perhaps this is appropriate: > > > gb totem-pl-parser_2.22.3-1+b1 . mipsel > > > > Done,

Re: Give back totem-pl-parser on mips

* Adeodato Simó [2009-03-29 19:36]: > * Rafael Laboissiere [Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:26:57 +0200]: > > > Perhaps this is appropriate: > > gb totem-pl-parser_2.22.3-1+b1 . mipsel > > Done, Thanks. This is blocking rhythmbox, which is the last blocker of the libmtp t

Give back totem-pl-parser on mips

Compilation of totem-pl-parser failed [1] with cc [snip] totem-disc.c [snip] In file included from /usr/include/asm/byteorder.h:65, from /usr/include/linux/cdrom.h:14, from totem-disc.c:56: /usr/include/linux/byteorder.h:8:3: error: #error Fix asm/byte

Re: Fixed gtick in s-p-u

* Philipp Kern [2009-03-26 00:04]: > Hallo Rafael, > > am Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:38:04PM +0100 hast du folgendes geschrieben: > > * Philipp Kern [2009-03-25 16:15]: > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 04:11:17PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > > > The RC B

Re: Fixed gtick in s-p-u

* Philipp Kern [2009-03-25 16:15]: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 04:11:17PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > The RC Bug#514655 against gtick is damn easy to fix for lenny. Should a > > fixed package be uploaded to stable-proposed-updates? > > With the plain obvious f

Fixed gtick in s-p-u

The RC Bug#514655 against gtick is damn easy to fix for lenny. Should a fixed package be uploaded to stable-proposed-updates? -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Give back rhythmbox

I think you need this: gb rhythmbox_0.11.6-1.1 . sparc The autobuild failed [1] against ucf 3.0017 due to a bug that is fixed in the next version of the package: ucf (3.0018) unstable; urgency=low [...] Bug fix: "Need exactly two arguments, got 3", thanks to Kurt Roeckx

Re: Wrong dep-waits for mpi-defaults

* Luk Claes [2009-03-24 19:36]: > Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > Another one: > > > > dw arpack_2.1+parpack96.dfsg-2 . alpha . -m 'mpi-default-dev (>= 0.4)' > > Well first needed to reset the existing dep-wait or they would be > merged, though done

Re: Wrong dep-waits for mpi-defaults

* Riku Voipio [2009-03-24 10:01]: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:48:06AM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > The latest debian/control for mpi-defaults [1], version 0.4, has: > > > This means that the dep-waits I see in [2] for alpha (libopenmpi-dev (>= > > 1.3)

Wrong dep-waits for mpi-defaults

The latest debian/control for mpi-defaults [1], version 0.4, has: Source: mpi-defaults Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 5.0), libopenmpi-dev (>= 1.2.4-5) [i386 amd64 ia64 powerpc kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64], openmpi-bin [i386 amd64 ia64 powerpc kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64], lam4-dev [!i386 !amd

Re: Possible liblapack transition

* Rafael Laboissiere [2009-03-09 16:49]: > If no objections are raised in a reasonable amount of time from now, I will > release liblapack3gf_3.2.0 to unstable without bumping the SONAME. Done. Hopefully nothing will break. Cheers, -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-r

Some gb and dw for octave3.0 and h5utils

Some autobuilds for octave3.0 are stalled due to the broken build-dependency texlive-base >= 2007-11. it seems that it is okay now (texlive-base is arch all and version 2007.dfsg.1-5 is in sid). I think it is safe to ask for give-backs on armel and s390. On the other hand, there are broken gnuplo

Re: Possible liblapack transition

* Rafael Laboissiere [2009-03-01 13:58]: > Version 3.2 of the lapack library has been released [1] and is now packaged > in experimental (version 3.2.0-1). As regards the version currently in > unstable (3.1.1), the API has changed [2] in the following way: > > [snip] > >

Re: libmtp7 -> libmtp8 transition

* Adeodato Simó [2009-03-07 20:29]: > * Rafael Laboissiere [Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:38:01 +0100]: > > > #516559 audacious-plugins: FTBFS against libmtp-dev 0.3.6 now in unstable > > #516563 gnomad2: FTBFS against libmtp-dev 0.3.6 now in unstable > > #516564 rhythmbox: FTBFS

Re: libmtp7 -> libmtp8 transition

* Adeodato Simó [2009-03-07 20:29]: > * Rafael Laboissiere [Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:38:01 +0100]: > > > #516559 audacious-plugins: FTBFS against libmtp-dev 0.3.6 now in unstable > > #516563 gnomad2: FTBFS against libmtp-dev 0.3.6 now in unstable > > #516564 rhythmbox: FTBFS

Possible liblapack transition

ww.netlib.org/lapack/lapack-3.2.html#_8_interface_changes [3] http://wiki.debian.org/Lapack32Transition Thanks, -- Rafael Laboissiere signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: A few give-backs on alpha

* Philipp Kern [2009-02-27 13:42]: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 01:27:22PM +0100, Arthur Loiret wrote: > > The packages to give-back are: > > Thanks for using the syntax. Done. I keep forgetting this. Where can I find the specification for the syntax? Thanks, -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, e

Re: libmtp7 -> libmtp8 transition

* Adeodato Simó [2009-02-22 01:59]: > * Rafael Laboissiere [Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:26:24 +0100]: > > Hello again. > > > > > * mtpfs > > Version 0.8+svn11-1 builds file with the debdiff patch attached below. Not > > tested. > > > amarok 1.4.10-2

Re: libmtp7 -> libmtp8 transition

* Adeodato Simó [2009-02-21 21:56]: > * Rafael Laboissiere [Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:22:54 +0100]: > > * mtpfs > > > Version 0.9 currently in experimental builds fine without changes against > > libmtp-dev 0.3.6. > > Good. Chris, is mtpfs 0.9 ready to be uploaded

Re: libmtp7 -> libmtp8 transition

* Adeodato Simó [2009-02-21 21:56]: > * Rafael Laboissiere [Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:22:54 +0100]: > > > The version currently in experimental (2.0.1.1-1) depends already on > > libmtp8. Nothing to do here. > > Such version of Amarok depends on KDE4, and I don't

Re: SuiteSparse 3.2.0

* Adeodato Simó [2009-02-21 21:47]: > Thanks for your patience, please upload suitesparse 3.2.0 to unstable at > your convenience, and notify us when you've done so. Done. The package will go into NEW because there is the new component libcolamd-3.2.0. > If no source changes are needed in depe

Re: [Pkg-scicomp-devel] Uploading lapack 3.2.0 to unstable

* Sylvestre Ledru [2009-02-16 14:58]: > > As you all know, lenny is released. It is time now to migrate lapack 3.2.0 > > to unstable. There was no shlib bump, so this migration should be safe, > > UNLESS the library has changes in the API/ABI in spite of the SONAME not > > changing. Does anyon

Uploading lapack 3.2.0 to unstable

As you all know, lenny is released. It is time now to migrate lapack 3.2.0 to unstable. There was no shlib bump, so this migration should be safe, UNLESS the library has changes in the API/ABI in spite of the SONAME not changing. Does anyone know whether this is really the case? We should be ca

Re: SuiteSparse 3.2.0

* Julien Cristau [2009-02-15 14:09]: > On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 12:43 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > If it's only a shlibs bump, and no package is *dropped* (only > > additions), please go ahead, and thanks for contacting us. > > Judging from what's currently in experimental, it's actually a SONAM

libmtp7 -> libmtp8 transition

days. If the maintainers of the packages mentioned above take too much time to react, I will file appropriate bug reports. Thanks, -- Rafael Laboissiere --- audacious-plugins-1.5.1.orig/src/mtp_up/mtp.c +++ audacious-plugins-1.5.1/src/mtp_up/mtp.c @@ -182,7 +182,6 @@ { int ret; gchar *tmp

Re: SuiteSparse 3.2.0

* Rafael Laboissiere [2009-01-07 13:45]: > [N.B.: This message is being sent to the maintainers of all packages that > currently depend on libsuitesparse-3.1.0.] > > The new upstream package SuiteSparse version 3.2.0 is now in experimental. > When it will be uploaded to unstable

RC Bugs #514655 and #514659

Two RC bugs regarding the lack of oss-compat dependency have been recently filed against packages gtick and gtkguitune. The fix for these bugs is ridiculously simple and it would be a pity if these packages are dropped from lenny or are included with the bug. The maintainer of gtick did not react

Re: Fix for an RC bug in praat

* Luk Claes [2009-02-09 23:45]: > Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > I prepared version 5.0.29-1lenny1 that fixes an annoying RC bug in my praat > > package (#514652). The minimal debdiff is attached below. > > > > Questions: Should I upload the package to unstable or is

Fix for an RC bug in praat

ns (closes: #514652) + + -- Rafael Laboissiere Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:19:36 +0100 + praat (5.0.29-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release diff -u praat-5.0.29/debian/control praat-5.0.29/debian/control --- praat-5.0.29/debian/control +++ praat-5.0.29/debian/control @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@

SuiteSparse 3.2.0

in advance for your collaboration, -- Rafael Laboissiere, Debian developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Unblock request for jed/0.99.18+dfsg.1-11 (l10n addition)

(closes: #504996) + * debian/control: Update the Vcs-* fields to the new Git repository + + -- Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sat, 08 Nov 2008 14:44:17 +0100 + jed (1:0.99.18+dfsg.1-10) unstable; urgency=low * debian/control: diff -u jed-0.99.18+dfsg.1/debian/control jed-0.99.18+

Approval for planned t-p-u upload of webcalendar 1.0.5-15lenny1

; urgency=low + + * debian/po/sv.po: Add Swedish translation of the debconf templates, +thanks to Martin Bagge (closes: #502142) + + -- Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:48:03 +0200 + webcalendar (1.0.5-15) unstable; urgency=low * debian/patches/01_config_patch.

Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Give back octave3.0 on sparc

* Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-24 17:31]: > * Julien Cristau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-23 23:03]: > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:08:02 +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > > > > Please, give back octave3.0/3.0.1-6 on sparc. Th

Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Give back octave3.0 on sparc

* Julien Cristau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-23 23:03]: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:08:02 +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > > Please, give back octave3.0/3.0.1-6 on sparc. The autobuild failed with a > > cryptic message [1]: > > > > g++ -c -fPIC

Give back octave3.0 on sparc

Please, give back octave3.0/3.0.1-6 on sparc. The autobuild failed with a cryptic message [1]: g++ -c -fPIC -I. -I.. -I../liboctave -I../src -I../libcruft/misc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -Wall -W -Wshadow -Wold-style-cast -O2 -g ./DLD-FUNCTIONS/fft2.cc -o pic/fft2.o /tmp/cc3m4XSW.s: Assembler messages: /

Re: Give back plplot on ia64

* Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-22 01:46]: > * Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-22 00:12]: > > > * Rafael Laboissiere [Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:32:56 +0200]: > > > > > Please, give back plplot/5.9.0-8 on ia64. The last autobuild on

Re: Give back plplot on ia64

* Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-22 00:12]: > * Rafael Laboissiere [Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:32:56 +0200]: > > > Please, give back plplot/5.9.0-8 on ia64. The last autobuild on mundy > > failed with a very strange error message and I suspect that it may be >

Give back plplot on ia64

Please, give back plplot/5.9.0-8 on ia64. The last autobuild on mundy failed with a very strange error message and I suspect that it may be related to that specific machine and perhaps not a real bug in the package. Thanks, -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subje

Re: libmtp bumped soname, new pkg uploaded to experimental

* Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-01 15:57]: > Upstream released version 0.3.0 of libmtp and the soname has bumped to > libmtp.so.8. I just uploaded version 0.3.0-1 of the Debian package to > experimental, which is obviously waiting in the NEW queue now. The packa

libmtp bumped soname, new pkg uploaded to experimental

Upstream released version 0.3.0 of libmtp and the soname has bumped to libmtp.so.8. I just uploaded version 0.3.0-1 of the Debian package to experimental, which is obviously waiting in the NEW queue now. I do not think we will have time for a library transition before the lenny freeze but I think

Upload hppa autobuilt pkg for praat

The praat package version 5.0.23-1 did not migrate to testing because it "is not yet built on hppa" [1]. However, this is not true [2]. Could the autobuilt package please be uploaded? [1] http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=praat [2] http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=pr

Re: suitesparse/lam/hdf5 transitions

* Philipp Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-12 10:21]: > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 09:54:34AM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > > My hint file contains a (usually commented) hint for this, which I'm > > > testing from time to time. > > I keep forgetting

Re: suitesparse/lam/hdf5 transitions

* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-11 19:31]: > Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I cannot even tell which packages are currently blocking this jumbo > > transition. For sure, I know of petsc, which FTBFS mysteriously on hp

suitesparse/lam/hdf5 transitions

The suitesparse transition apparently got in the way of two other transitions: lam (lam42c -> lam4) and hdf5 (libhdf5-1.6.5 -> libhdf5-1.6.6). This involves a quite large number of packages, including important ones like Octave and friends, as well as OpenOffice.org. I hoped I am wrong and each tr

Give back spooles on s390

The spooles package is in "Dep-Wait: libopenmpi-dev" on s390, but it actually does not depend on openmpi (only on lam4-dev). Could it be given back, please? Thanks, -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Give back octave3.0 and plplot

* Julien Cristau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-04 11:10]: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:49:13 +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > > Architecture Version Status For > > hppa 1:3.0.0-10 Needs-Build (531) 1d 16:17 > > > > Wha

Re: Give back octave3.0 and plplot

* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-03 11:35]: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:52:27AM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > Now that hdf5 has been successfully built on hppa and s390, could you please > > give back octave3.0 on those architectures? > > It'

Give back octave3.0 and plplot

Now that hdf5 has been successfully built on hppa and s390, could you please give back octave3.0 on those architectures? Thanks, -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#473669: hdf5: OpenMPI support still failing

Package: hdf5 Version: 1.6.6-2 Severity: serious Tags: patch Justification: FTBFS The fix in 1.6.6-2 was not enough, the buildds on hppa, mips, and mipsel failed with: dh_gencontrol -a dpkg-gencontrol: error: current host architecture 'hppa' does not appear in package's architecture list (alpha

Re: hdf5: Drop openmpi support on some architectures

* Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-31 11:27]: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 03:41:11AM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > Note that I did not take the approach of adding an Architecture field for > > the libhdf5-openmpi-* package stanzas in debian/control.in. Ins

Re: Suitesparse transition

* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-30 21:57]: > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 02:55:53PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > > I just did the upload of octave3.0 3.0.0-10, which will also delay the > > transition. This upload was necessary because the libhdf5 1.6.5

Re: hdf5: Drop openmpi support on some architectures

PROTECTED]> Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:55:54 +0100 + [ Rafael Laboissiere ] + * NMU + * Do not create the libdhf5-openmpi-* packages on some selected + architectures (closes: #473328) + -- Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 31 Mar 2008 02:48:15 +0200 + hdf5 (1.6.6-1) unstab

Re: Suitesparse transition

* Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-27 10:19]: > Sorry, needed a new OOo upload because > [snip] I just did the upload of octave3.0 3.0.0-10, which will also delay the transition. This upload was necessary because the libhdf5 1.6.5 -> 1.6.6 transition came in the way of the suitesparse

Re: hdf5: Drop openmpi support on some architectures

* Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-30 11:13]: > package hdf5 > severity 473328 serious > thanks > > Following a suggestion of Steve Langasek [1], I am raising the severity of > this bug report to "serious". > > R. > > [1] With the

Re: hdf5: Drop openmpi support on some architectures

package hdf5 severity 473328 serious thanks Following a suggestion of Steve Langasek [1], I am rising the severity of this bug report to "serious". R. [1] * Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-30 00:01]: > Package: hdf5 > Version: 1.6.6-1 > Severity: i

OpenMPI support for hdf FTBFS on several arches

The OpenMPI support recently introduced in hdf5 has made the package FTBFS on several arches (arm, armel, hppa, mips, mipsel, and s390), because openmpi also FTBFS on them. I think you should disable the build of libhdf5-openmpi for those architectures. This is a highly important issue, because

Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Autobuilders weird failures

* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-28 20:39]: > "it is not going to be installed" != "it doesn't exist". This error message > means that the dependencies of your dependency are not satisfiable. > > Can be trivially demonstrated on i386: > > $ sudo apt-get install octave3.0-headers oc

Autobuilders weird failures

I do not know whether this is the right place for complaining, but: I am getting to desperation mode with the autobuilders. The plplot package FTBFS on four architectures (i386 [1], mips [2], mipsel [3], and s390 [4]), all with the same error message: The following packages have unmet depend

Re: Suitesparse transition

* Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-27 10:19]: > Sorry, needed a new OOo upload because > - it fixes a important calc calculation bug which we should not impose >on testing > - it most probably wouldn't have gone in anyway without disabling the >build on arm > - openoffice.org

Re: Give back shogun on hppa [was: Re: Give back petsc]

* Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-24 17:06]: > Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > * Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-23 22:42]: > >> The other blocker now is shogun, which is near the end of the Needs-Build > >> queue on hppa. Could th

Give back shogun on hppa [was: Re: Give back petsc]

* Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-23 22:42]: > * Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-23 22:12]: > > > Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > petsc is still in Dep-Wait status on arm, mips, mpisel,

Re: Give back petsc

* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-23 22:12]: > Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > petsc is still in Dep-Wait status on arm, mips, mpisel, and s390 [1], even > > though lam 7.1.2-1.3 has successfully built on all architectu

Re: Give back petsc [was: Re: Suitesparse transition]

* Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-20 16:06]: > I uploaded new spooles and petsc this morning. Spooles has built > successfully on arm. petsc was tried on hppa, but failed because of > missing lam. lam has not failed on hppa, but 7.1.2-1.3 has not been > attempted; same with armel.

Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] broken buildd (was: Suitesparse transition)

* Torsten Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-22 20:49]: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Could someone please give shogun back on arm, hoping that cats will not > > pick > > it up? > > I did a binary

Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] broken buildd (was: Suitesparse transition)

* Thomas Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-20 10:20]: > On 20/03/08 09:19 +0100, Torsten Werner wrote: > > Hi, > > > > please see > > : > > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 May 23 2007 /etc/alter

Re: Give back petsc [was: Re: Suitesparse transition]

* Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-20 22:43]: > * Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-20 16:06]: > > > One other note: libmesh and petsc4py may need to be rebuilt after petsc > > goes in, didn't see those on your igloo. Let me k

Re: Give back petsc [was: Re: Suitesparse transition]

* Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-20 16:06]: > I uploaded new spooles and petsc this morning. Spooles has built > successfully on arm. petsc was tried on hppa, but failed because of > missing lam. lam has not failed on hppa, but 7.1.2-1.3 has not been > attempted; same with armel.

Give back petsc [was: Re: Suitesparse transition]

Adam Powell uploaded version 2.3.3-7 of petsc that build-depends alternatively on liopenmpi-dev or lam4-dev. This should fix the Dep-Wait status on some arches, like arm, mips, mipsel, and s390. Will the autobuilds automatically happen on these arches or should the package be given back on them?

Re: Suitesparse transition

* Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-19 16:21]: > And python-scipy FTBFSes on mips... Reported as Bug#471549 today. The maintainer replied already and (I hope) a fix is in its way. -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont

Suitesparse transition

Dear maintainers, The suitesparse transition is involving a quite large number of packages. I prepared an igloo URL [1] with the ones I think are involved. Please, correct me if I am wrong. The mips arch seems to be the main blocker now, followed by hppa. The arm, mipsel, and s390 arches have

Need builds of octave3.0 and python-scipy

Is there a way to accelerate the auto-builds of octave3.0 on alpha and hppa, as well as that of python-scipy on mips? These packages are blockers of the suitesparse library transition and are also involved in the g77->gfortran transition. After the above is done, the suitesparse and associated pa

Re: Re: Library soversion numbers in SuiteSparse

* Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-10 13:07]: > Why not just use the whole library version in the soname and package > name? For example, libsuitesparse has lib*.so.3.1.0 which is the > soname, and forget about .so.3 . Then the soname and package name > match, so lintian is happy, a

Re: Library soversion numbers in SuiteSparse

Hi Steve, Thanks for your thorough comments. I am not going to reply to all of them because I think there is a misunderstanding here: * Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-09 10:53]: > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 02:42:29PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > As I wrote ab

Library soversion numbers in SuiteSparse

[I am Cc:ing this message to debian-release; perhaps the release folks will have some helpful comment on this.] In the process of preparing the 3.1.0-1 release of libsuitesparse, I noticed a serious problem regarding the soversion numbers of the libraries shipped in this package. The soversion nu

Re: libmtp6 -> libmtp7 transition

* Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-28 12:49]: > Now that the libmtp5 -> libmtp6 transition is completed in testing, it is > time to start the libmtp6 -> libmtp7 transition. I uploaded today > libmtp_0.2.4 to unstable, which has the new SOVERSION. Plea

Re: libmtp6 -> libmtp7 transition

* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-28 13:03]: > Well, that's kinda disruptive; amarok was already involved in the libgpod > transition, and now another library transition comes along while that's > still in process. I am sorry for that, I thought that all packages involved were already

Re: libmtp6 -> libmtp7 transition

* Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-28 13:27]: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > Now that the libmtp5 -> libmtp6 transition is completed in testing, it is > > time to start the libmtp6 -> libmtp7 transition. I uploaded today > > libmtp

libmtp6 -> libmtp7 transition

Dear amarok, audacious-plugins, gnomad2, and rhythmbox maintainers, Now that the libmtp5 -> libmtp6 transition is completed in testing, it is time to start the libmtp6 -> libmtp7 transition. I uploaded today libmtp_0.2.4 to unstable, which has the new SOVERSION. Please, build/test your packages

Re: Please hint libmtp, amarok and gnomad2 into testing

* Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-12 11:51]: > * Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-12 11:48]: > > > If what worries you is uploading a new libmtp6 with some other changes, > > feel free to do it now, since it's going to take a bit

  1   2   >