Hi,
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 03:16:55PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 03:09:05PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > libreoffice: CHECK-NEEDED (but it's so huge and there was no problem before)
>
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/tree/configure.in?h=libreoffice-3-5#
On 17.04.2012 23:36, OndÅej Surý wrote:
I will check with doko, but I think it's no longer true as python has included
support for bdb 5.1.
But let me get back to you tomorrow, when I have full internet access.
OndÅej Surý
On 17. 4. 2012, at 21:32, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17,
I will check with doko, but I think it's no longer true as python has included
support for bdb 5.1.
But let me get back to you tomorrow, when I have full internet access.
Ondřej Surý
On 17. 4. 2012, at 21:32, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 15:09:05 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 15:09:05 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> The only real obstacle is python, but since it started using db5.1, I
> think it won't be a big problem (like bumping from 4.8 to 5.1).
>
I thought bumping to 5.1 already required ignoring test failures? That
seems rather like a proble
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 03:09:05PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> libreoffice: CHECK-NEEDED (but it's so huge and there was no problem before)
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/tree/configure.in?h=libreoffice-3-5#n5113:
[...]
for dbver in 5.1 5.0 5 4.8 4.7 4; do
for dash
Hi release team,
here is the list of packages which are not binNMUable right away:
bogofilter: unrelated-FTBFS (#660717) (test suite failure, so it compiles fine)
ggcov: unrelated-FTBFS (#669099) (test suite failure, so it compiles fine)
gridengine: PATCH-NEEDED (but compiles ok when patched)
lib
Just FYI, I am doing a check for all reverse dependencies on libdb{,4.8,5.1}-dev
and the result so far are quite good:
Number of binNMUable packages: 61
Number of packages I still need to check[*]: 22
Number of packages with invalid dependency on libdb*-dev: 5
The rest of the packages in the trac
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 15:57:55 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Did the release team came to conclusion whether to do this transition or not?
>
Not as far as I know.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
Hi,
I have just found that there is a transition tracker for db5.3 transition.
Did the release team came to conclusion whether to do this transition or not?
O.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 20:17, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> 2012/2/6 Julien Cristau :
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 09:55:47 +0100, Ondřej Surý wr
2012/2/6 Julien Cristau :
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 09:55:47 +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
>> db4.7 has been reduced just to utils and db4.8 still has some
>> dependencies left (with most prominent python2.7), but I would
>> like to try python2.7 with db5.3, maybe it will help the build
>> failures M
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 09:55:47 +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> db4.7 has been reduced just to utils and db4.8 still has some
> dependencies left (with most prominent python2.7), but I would
> like to try python2.7 with db5.3, maybe it will help the build
> failures Martin Pitt is seeing.
>
Sounds l
Thanks for contacting us.
Ondřej Surý (06/02/2012):
> as announce earlier (5.1->5.2->5.3), I would like to start
> transition from db5.1 (src:db) to db5.3 (src:db5.3) in unstable.
Since you need to be told explicitly: please wait for an answer before
you start this transition. Thanks already.
M
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi,
as announce earlier (5.1->5.2->5.3), I would like to start
transition from db5.1 (src:db) to db5.3 (src:db5.3) in unstable.
Hopefully lot of packages have learned from last time and
13 matches
Mail list logo
