Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package debian-security-support to fix #1034077
"debian-security-support: Lots of noise about DEBIAN_VERSION 12 being invalid
when upgrading bullseye→bookworm" i
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: bullseye
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
hi,
this is a pre-approval request, I have not uploaded this yet (except to
unstable).
[ Reason ]
unfortunatly debian-security-support in both bullseye and bookworm
are
Your message dated Wed, 03 May 2023 20:52:54 +
with message-id
and subject line unblock calamares-settings-debian
has caused the Debian Bug report #1035357,
regarding unblock: calamares-settings-debian/12.0.5-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
On 2023-05-01 20:05:58 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: unblock
> X-Debbugs-Cc: calamares-settings-deb...@packages.debian.org
> Control: affects -1 + src:calamares-settings-
Hello,
please unsuscribe me from this list.
Thank you
- Mail original -
De: "Ana Guerrero Lopez"
À: debian-annou...@lists.debian.org
Envoyé: Lundi 1 Mai 2023 22:46:41
Objet: Updated Debian 11: 11.7 released
--
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:calamares-settings-debian
Bug #1035357 [release.debian.org] unblock: calamares-settings-debian/12.0.5-2
Added indication that 1035357 affects src:calamares-settings-debian
--
1035357: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1035
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
X-Debbugs-Cc: calamares-settings-deb...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:calamares-settings-debian
Please unblock package calamares-settings-debian
This change re-enables os
Your message dated Mon, 01 May 2023 09:12:44 +
with message-id
and subject line unblock debian-cd
has caused the Debian Bug report #1035309,
regarding unblock: debian-cd/3.2.1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
[ Reason ]
[ Impact ]
While not absolutely needed to have in bookworm, it looks like a good
idea to ship the tooling that's making the re
Your message dated Sun, 30 Apr 2023 08:23:52 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1035087: unblock: debian-archive-keyring/2023.3
has caused the Debian Bug report #1035087,
regarding unblock: debian-archive-keyring/2023.3
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-archive-keyr...@packages.debian.org, j...@debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:debian-archive-keyring
Please unblock package debian-archive-keyring
[ Reason ]
Users
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:debian-archive-keyring
Bug #1035087 [release.debian.org] unblock: debian-archive-keyring/2023.3
Added indication that 1035087 affects src:debian-archive-keyring
--
1035087: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1035087
Debian
Your message dated Sat, 29 Apr 2023 10:54:14 +0100
with message-id
<502b8fb37ece620c9723446611a9287974ba5a0c.ca...@adam-barratt.org.uk>
and subject line Closing p-u requests for fixes included in 11.7
has caused the Debian Bug report #1033157,
regarding bullseye-pu: package debian-archive-k
Your message dated Sat, 29 Apr 2023 10:54:14 +0100
with message-id
<502b8fb37ece620c9723446611a9287974ba5a0c.ca...@adam-barratt.org.uk>
and subject line Closing p-u requests for fixes included in 11.7
has caused the Debian Bug report #1030732,
regarding bullseye-pu: package debian-ports-a
On Thu, 2023-03-30 at 08:41 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> That is not the responsibility of this team. I'm also not sure what you
> mean with rootfs, but I think you mean how to bootstrap Debian. We have
> several tools in Debian that do that. I *think* debootstrap [1] is the
>
> On Mar 30, 2023, at 14:41, Paul Gevers wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On 29-03-2023 04:06, z Spring wrote:
>>I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to inquire about the
>> construction of Debian Rootfs. I was wondering if you could kindly provide
>&g
Your message dated Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:36:13 +
with message-id
and subject line unblock debian-edu-config
has caused the Debian Bug report #1034400,
regarding unblock: debian-edu-config/2.12.32
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package debian-edu-config, which is a key package and thus
needs unblocking. All autopkgtests are successful and the package has been
in unstable since 17 days.
The update
Your message dated Tue, 04 Apr 2023 21:25:56 +
with message-id
and subject line unblock calamares-settings-debian
has caused the Debian Bug report #1033932,
regarding unblock: calamares-settings-debian/10.0.5-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
X-Debbugs-Cc: calamares-settings-deb...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:calamares-settings-debian
Please unblock package calamares-settings-debian
This addresses serious bug
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:calamares-settings-debian
Bug #1033932 [release.debian.org] unblock: calamares-settings-debian/10.0.5-2
Added indication that 1033932 affects src:calamares-settings-debian
--
1033932: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1033
Your message dated Sun, 02 Apr 2023 19:50:47 +
with message-id
and subject line unblock debian-pan
has caused the Debian Bug report #1033687,
regarding unblock: debian-pan/0.4
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
ing
Bug #1033157 [release.debian.org] bullseye-pu: package
debian-archive-keyring/2021.1.1+deb11u1
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
1033157: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1033157
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
package release.debian.org
tags 1033157 = bullseye pending
thanks
Hi,
The upload referenced by this bug report has been flagged for acceptance into
the proposed-updates queue for Debian bullseye.
Thanks for your contribution!
Upload details
==
Package: debian-archive-keyring
Hi,
On 29-03-2023 04:06, z Spring wrote:
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to inquire about the
construction of Debian Rootfs. I was wondering if you could kindly provide some
information on how your team constructs this system, and whether the method of
construction
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-...@packages.debian.org,
debian-pan-maintain...@alioth-lists.debian.net, pi...@debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:debian-pan
Please unblock package debian-pan
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:debian-pan
Bug #1033687 [release.debian.org] unblock: debian-pan/0.4
Added indication that 1033687 affects src:debian-pan
--
1033687: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1033687
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact
Dear,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to inquire about the
construction of Debian Rootfs. I was wondering if you could kindly provide some
information on how your team constructs this system, and whether the method of
construction has been open-sourced.
As a
Your message dated Fri, 24 Mar 2023 08:22:35 +
with message-id
and subject line unblock debian-security-support
has caused the Debian Bug report #1033378,
regarding unblock: debian-security-support/1:12+2023.03.23
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package debian-security-support, for a trivial, yet adequate
update. Sadly it has no autopkgtest, thus this unblock request.
[ Reason ]
debian-security-support in bookworm
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: bullseye
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-archive-keyr...@packages.debian.org, j...@debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:debian-archive-keyring
[ Reason ]
The bookworm archive keys need adding to
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:debian-archive-keyring
Bug #1033157 [release.debian.org] bullseye-pu: package
debian-archive-keyring/2021.1.1+deb11u1
Added indication that 1033157 affects src:debian-archive-keyring
--
1033157: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?
Your message dated Sat, 18 Mar 2023 07:35:58 +0100
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1032885: unblock:
debian-security-support/1:12+2023.03.05
has caused the Debian Bug report #1032885,
regarding unblock: debian-security-support/1:12+2023.03.17
to be marked as done.
This means that you
control: retitle -1 unblock: debian-security-support/1:12+2023.03.17
control: tags -1 -moreinfo
thanks
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:49:46AM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > openjdk-17 See
> > https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#open
Processing control commands:
> retitle -1 unblock: debian-security-support/1:12+2023.03.17
Bug #1032885 [release.debian.org] unblock:
debian-security-support/1:12+2023.03.05
Changed Bug title to 'unblock: debian-security-support/1:12+2023.03.17' from
'unblock: debian-sec
Am Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 03:07:34PM + schrieb Holger Levsen:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 03:58:45PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > Am Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 01:43:11PM +0100 schrieb Holger Levsen:
> > > * security-support-limited:
> > > - for golang and openjdk-17, point to the bookworm m
Your message dated Wed, 15 Mar 2023 20:55:56 +0100
with message-id <9569bc32-8190-30dd-098e-2762c790e...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1033009: unblock: calamares-settings-debian/12.0.5-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1033009,
regarding unblock: calamares-settings-debian/12.0.5-1
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:calamares-settings-debian
Bug #1033009 [release.debian.org] unblock: calamares-settings-debian/12.0.5-1
Added indication that 1033009 affects src:calamares-settings-debian
--
1033009: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1033
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
X-Debbugs-Cc: calamares-settings-deb...@packages.debian.org, Please alloq
calamares-settings-debian (12.0.5-1) to migrate to testing, it contains the
correct artwork for bookworm
Control
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 03:07:34PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 03:58:45PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > Am Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 01:43:11PM +0100 schrieb Holger Levsen:
> > > * security-support-limited:
> > > - for golang and openjdk-17, point to the bookworm ma
ates expected from the security team's POV?
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
We need to learn to live with cholera. What is the alternative? Breaking up
all streets
Am Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 01:43:11PM +0100 schrieb Holger Levsen:
> * security-support-limited:
> - for golang and openjdk-17, point to the bookworm manual instead the one
> for bullseye.
That's wrong, though. (And the release notes need updating to, I'll file
a bug soonish): In Bookworm
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package debian-security-support, for some updated
information about security-support-limited in bookworm and a new
Romanian translation (plus 2 trivial packaging fixes). The
Your message dated Sun, 12 Mar 2023 23:23:29 +0100
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1031325: e2fsprogs 1.47.0 introduces a breaking change
into Bookworm, breaking grub and making installations of Ubuntu and Debian
releases via debootstrap impossible
has caused the Debian Bug report
(debian-ai, apologies for re-sending, I hit the wrong reply button.)
On 2023-03-08 18:21, Simon McVittie wrote:
> There is *a* version of llvm-toolchain-15 in bookworm, version 1:15.0.6-4,
> which is used by the rocm-hipamd_5.2.3-1 and mesa_22.3.3-1 in bookworm.
> I'm not suggesting
10).
>
> I subscribe the debian-ai mailing list. The ROCm compiler is
> currently built on top of llvm-toolchain-15, and moving back to
> the llvm-toolchain-14 may require some non-trivial effort if the
> latter were to not target Debian 12 bookworm.
There is *a* version of llvm
Source: llvm-toolchain-15
Version: 1:15.0.7-1
Severity: serious
Justification: blocking RC bug fixes in Mesa from migrating
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-release@lists.debian.org
llvm-toolchain-15/1:15.0.7-1 was uploaded several weeks ago, shortly
after the transition freeze, but has not migrated to
Source: libgusb
Version: 0.4.5-1
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-release@lists.debian.org
I notice that libgusb 0.4.5-1 was uploaded a few days ago. Is this package
intended to go into Debian 12 'bookworm'? It seems like a larger diff than
I would have expected at this st
Hi Ana,
On 28-02-2023 21:57, Ana Guerrero Lopez wrote:
Please, keep debian-timeline out of bookworm, the installed HTML doesn't
show the timeline like it should so the package is useless.
The recommended way to achieve that is by filing an RC bug against the
package and let autoremoval
Your message dated Tue, 28 Feb 2023 22:12:56 +0100
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1032162: RM: debian-timeline/45
has caused the Debian Bug report #1032162,
regarding RM: debian-timeline/45
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:debian-timeline
Bug #1032162 [release.debian.org] RM: debian-timeline/45
Added indication that 1032162 affects src:debian-timeline
--
1032162: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1032162
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: rm
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-timel...@packages.debian.org,
debian-public...@lists.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:debian-timeline
Please, keep debian-timeline out of bookworm, the installed HTML
Dear Ted,
On 16-02-2023 23:24, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
But, if the Debian Release team would like to override my position, my
suggestion would be to just change the default for /etc/mke2fs.conf
for *everyone* running Debian bookworm, and with the understanding
that this will be reverted in D
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:28:59PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:34:29PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > The same general problem applies in various "building non-Debian
> > embedded Linux filesystem on Debian" situations where th
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:34:29PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> The same general problem applies in various "building non-Debian
> embedded Linux filesystem on Debian" situations where the target
> chroot does not contain mkfs.ext4.
In practice, if the root file sys
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 12:43:01PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> I am not entirely convinced that using current rather than guest
> tools for image building is an anti-pattern. You've been working on
> filesystems for a long time; I've been working on various image
> building projects since my fi
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 02:08:28PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>...
> So enabling what may be
> convenient, but ultimately an anti-pattern is something that hopefully
> in the long-term Debian should be striving towards. Yes, it's
> annoying and and extra work. So is
>>>>> "Theodore" == Theodore Ts'o writes:
Theodore> So enabling what may be convenient, but ultimately an
Theodore> anti-pattern is something that hopefully in the long-term
Theodore> Debian should be trying to *avoid*.
That's certainly
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 02:08:28PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> So enabling what may be
> convenient, but ultimately an anti-pattern is something that hopefully
> in the long-term Debian should be striving towards.
Sigh, I managed to invert the sense of what I was trying to say
tends to all file system. The immediate question may be ext4
specific, but as I mentioned earlier, XFS is enabling the "bigtime"
feature for the first time in Bookworm. So enabling what may be
convenient, but ultimately an anti-pattern is something that hopefully
in the long-term Debia
Adrian Bunk writes:
> The image creators could just set the features they enable to what they
> copied from /etc/mke2fs.conf from the target distribution, a label with
> a timestamp wouldn'tbring much benefit here.
That's a very good point and I'm embarrassed it wasn't immediately obvious
to me.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 03:05:06PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>...
> Each time you change the defaults in a way that could be
> backward-incompatible, you could capture those new defaults in a
> permanently-fixed label of, say, 20230616, which is the defaults on that
> date. Probably in the defaul
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 05:24:04PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>...
> and that moving forward, we make it the image building tools
> problem if they want to support this highly dubious practice of using
> Debian N+X's mkfs to build images for Debian N.
>...
That's wh
"Theodore Ts'o" writes:
> As a long-term solution, one could image changing the various image
> creation tools to do something like "mfks.ext4 -T grub2_dumbdown
> /dev/XXX", and then have something like the following in
> /etc/mke2fs.conf:
> [fs_types]
> grub2_dumbdown = {
> features
things like
[fs_types]
jessie_dumbdown = {
features = ^metadata_csum_seed,^metadata_csum
}
etc.
Maintaining this would be a nightmare, and I'd want to ask for help,
since this would be change if we also want to add dumbdown file system
usage types for Ubuntu, and potentially, other
hen run a grub-install from a target system that
> >> does not cope > > with that feature; basically breaking the
> >> debootstrap method of installing > > Debian or Ubuntu onto a
> >> server (violating #4 of the Debian social contract
On 2023-02-16 07:54:52 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Sebastian" == Sebastian Ramacher writes:
>
> Sebastian> To better understand the impact of this change, I was
> Sebastian> wondering which tools / image builders in the archive
> Sebastian> would be affected by this change. I'
change, I was wondering which
> > tools / image builders in the archive would be affected by this change.
> > I've cloned the bug to vmdb2, but what about others?
>
> I didn't verify it yet, but AFAICT grml-debootstrap is affected as
> well, since it supports installing
elease around the same time as Bookworm.
We can only control what is in Debian releases, we cannot be waiting
for godot^Wgrub making a new release before making a change in Debian.
The best default assumption when discussing whether the change should be
made in bookworm or trixie is that there will
> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes:
Adrian> Below is my attempt to give an overview of the situation,
Adrian> feel free to amend/correct if anything is missing or wrong.
I believe your summary is correct and includes the issues I am aware of.
I believe I am following things enough tha
Replying off list, because I don't think it matters much for the RT
discussion.
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Yes, I'm probably understating the difficulty of making this
Russ> change in practice inside image building software as it's
Russ> currently constructed.
R
is unclear how many packages still require fixing.
This is a major unclear question.
3. Image creation versus target usage
The original #1030846 was from Debian Installer developers,
and everything discussed there is around image creation.
The original discussion was about installing bookworm f
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 08:02:11PM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote:
>...
> Most server providers have exctly *one*
> rescue system from where I can do a clean installation with deboostrap
> (and that even usually is a Debian). I cannot choose to use one that
> hasn't an e2f
Sam Hartman writes:
> * Anyone could prepare patches to image building software to use mkfs
> options that will work with bullseye. You could also try to prepare
> patches to run mkfs out of a chroot or container of the guest OS for
> the image. I appreciate Russ strongly favors this solu
prepare. I had <24 hours and gave you
already enough information so you did not have to start from scratch.
I will summarize my points at the bottom.
> The instructions you cite in [1] are for installing bullseye from
> non-Debian systems.
That is simply not true. Those are general ins
Leidert wrote:
>> > > ... > > Reasons: > > ... > > - - the change makes it
>> impossible to create filesystems with this version of > >
>> e2fsprogs and then run a grub-install from a target system that
>> does not cope > > w
nge makes it impossible to create filesystems with this
> > > version of
> > > e2fsprogs and then run a grub-install from a target system that does
> > > not cope
> > > with that feature; basically breaking the debootstrap method of
> > > installing
rogs and then run a grub-install from a target system that does not
> > cope
> > with that feature; basically breaking the debootstrap method of installing
> > Debian or Ubuntu onto a server (violating #4 of the Debian social
> > contract)
> > ...
> >
asically breaking the debootstrap method of installing
> Debian or Ubuntu onto a server (violating #4 of the Debian social contract)
>...
> Instead, turning on this feature should be postponed for the next release
> cycle
> where a proper transition can be done.
>...
Daniel, you a
eally more about
allowing multiple implementations co-existing. These days, "ext3"
file systems are handled by the code in fs/ext4/*.c, and the only
reason why we've kept fs/ext2/*.c is to provide sample file system
code more than anything else. Many distributions (including Debian)
use
> "Sebastian" == Sebastian Ramacher writes:
Sebastian> To better understand the impact of this change, I was
Sebastian> wondering which tools / image builders in the archive
Sebastian> would be affected by this change. I've cloned the bug to
Sebastian> vmdb2, but what about o
ge.
> I've cloned the bug to vmdb2, but what about others?
I didn't verify it yet, but AFAICT grml-debootstrap is affected as
well, since it supports installing older Debian releases from within
more recent Debian/Grml environments and uses mkfs.ext4 as default.
BTW, we had a similar
On 2023-02-15 13:17:38 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Theodore" == Theodore Ts'o writes:
> the answer to your "how long" is that packages
> >> should also work with the kernel from the previous and the kernel
> >> from
recognized thing that came out of our focus on packages and
>> package dependencies.
> Note that package dependencies doesn't allow a binary created on Debian
> N to work on Debian N-1. It just *prevents* the package from being
> installed on Debian N-1. If you care about allowi
> packages and package dependencies.
Note that package dependencies doesn't allow a binary created on
Debian N to work on Debian N-1. It just *prevents* the package from
being installed on Debian N-1. If you care about allowing the package
to be instaslled on Debian N-1, that's what build ch
we care about stability in this
>> instance it's for +/-1 Debian release.
>>
>> I'm struggling trying to figure out whether we should commit to
>> that stability.
Theodore> I recogniuze that there are precedents that go in both
Theodore&g
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 01:17:38PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> I.E. I think your question of "for how long" has a very simple answer
> based on our history: if we care about stability in this instance it's
> for +/-1 Debian release.
>
> I'm struggling
>>>>> "Theodore" == Theodore Ts'o writes:
the answer to your "how long" is that packages
>> should also work with the kernel from the previous and the kernel
>> from the next Debian release.
Theodore> This isn't a proble
Bullseye chroot, everything will
work *just* *fine*. It's just that this isn't Daniel's workflow.
> For the kernel the answer to your "how long" is that packages should
> also work with the kernel from the previous and the kernel from the
> next Debian release.
> something which is actionable, and we don't hold back glibc updates
> just because you can no longer build on Debian 10.0 something that
> won't work on Debian 9.0, or 8.0.
>...
> We can change the default for mke2fs.conf file for Debian. I don't
> think it's
roots. This is not
something which is actionable, and we don't hold back glibc updates
just because you can no longer build on Debian 10.0 something that
won't work on Debian 9.0, or 8.0.
The same is true for file system featuers. We add new features to
improve the user experience. This
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: serious
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
A week ago, Theodore Ts'o uploaded e2fsprogs 1.47.0 into Debian unstable. This
version contains a unannounced change that basically breaks grub2 (and
grub-install). This issue has been report
ing
Bug #1030732 [release.debian.org] bullseye-pu: package
debian-ports-archive-keyring/2023.02.01~deb11u1
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
1030732: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1030732
Debian Bug T
package release.debian.org
tags 1030732 = bullseye pending
thanks
Hi,
The upload referenced by this bug report has been flagged for acceptance into
the proposed-updates queue for Debian bullseye.
Thanks for your contribution!
Upload details
==
Package: debian-ports-archive
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: bullseye
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-ports-archive-keyr...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:debian-ports-archive-keyring
[ Reason ]
The debian-ports archive 2023 key has been created
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:debian-ports-archive-keyring
Bug #1030732 [release.debian.org] bullseye-pu: package
debian-ports-archive-keyring/2023.02.01~deb11u1
Added indication that 1030732 affects src:debian-ports-archive-keyring
--
1030732: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-
Source: debian-archive-keyring
Version: 2021.1.1
Severity: serious
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-release@lists.debian.org
Hi,
We need an SRM key for bookworm, so that we can include it in the
release.
Regards,
Adam
Source: debian-archive-keyring
Version: 2021.1.1
Severity: serious
X-Debbugs-Cc: ftpmas...@debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org
Hi,
We need new archive signing keys for bookworm, so that we can include
them in the release.
Regards,
Adam
Hello and hope you have a great time during this Thanksgiving weekend.
When your back to office,
Could you please get back to me?
I have an enquiry regarding your domain name DEBIAN dot com.
Thank you in advance and happy Thanksgiving again.
*Yoshi Pratt,Marketing Team, DZ Lifestyle.*
Dear Debian Release Team, or whoever this may concern,
Let me provide some context for the current state of LXQt in Debian, and
where the shortcomings exist in our current process, leading to a
situation like this.
Lubuntu, an officially recognized flavor of Ubuntu, has used LXQt for
our
301 - 400 of 2788 matches
Mail list logo
