Control: tags -1 + pending
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 08:24 +0200, Michael Prokop wrote:
* Cyril Brulebois [Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 01:51:52AM +0200]:
Michael Prokop m...@debian.org (2013-09-23):
New debdiff attached.
Looks good to me, please upload.
Thanks, done.
Flagged for acceptance;
Processing control commands:
tags -1 + pending
Bug #723632 [release.debian.org] pu: fai/4.0.8 - wheezy point-release update
for FAI
Added tag(s) pending.
--
723632: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=723632
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
* Cyril Brulebois [Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 01:51:52AM +0200]:
Michael Prokop m...@debian.org (2013-09-23):
New debdiff attached.
Looks good to me, please upload.
Thanks, done.
regards,
-mika-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Control: tag -1 confirmed
Michael Prokop m...@debian.org (2013-09-23):
New debdiff attached.
Looks good to me, please upload.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Processing control commands:
tag -1 confirmed
Bug #723632 [release.debian.org] pu: fai/4.0.8 - wheezy point-release update
for FAI
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
723632: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=723632
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
* Cyril Brulebois [Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 05:06:10AM +0200]:
Michael Prokop m...@debian.org (2013-09-18):
as the stable release manager of FAI I'm kindly asking for letting
src:fai 4.0.8 enter the upcoming wheezy point release update.
we could do ftp things to get that version into wheezy
Hi,
Michael Prokop m...@debian.org (2013-09-18):
as the stable release manager of FAI I'm kindly asking for letting
src:fai 4.0.8 enter the upcoming wheezy point release update.
we could do ftp things to get that version into wheezy, but I'd prefer
if you could prepare a stable update
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Tags: wheezy
thanks
Hi,
as the stable release manager of FAI I'm kindly asking for letting
src:fai 4.0.8 enter the upcoming wheezy point release update.
We've FAI 4.0.8 sitting in jessie
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 22:54 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 09:23:19PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Please could we have a debdiff between the package currently in stable
(well p-u due to the DSA) and the proposed new package? We'd like
discussions of changes in stable
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 09:23:19PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Please could we have a debdiff between the package currently in stable
(well p-u due to the DSA) and the proposed new package? We'd like
discussions of changes in stable to stand alone without having to
reference external
On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 10:07 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
I was going through bugs in php5 and I have prepared fix for a bugs,
none of them are truly critical, but the patches are small, pulled
from upstream and they fix the problems our users are experiencing.
Apologies for the delay in getting
Hi,
I was going through bugs in php5 and I have prepared fix for a bugs,
none of them are truly critical, but the patches are small, pulled
from upstream and they fix the problems our users are experiencing.
php5 (5.3.3-7+squeeze11) squeeze; urgency=low
* Pass flags to mysqli_real_connect
Package: libc6
Version: 2.11.3-2
Severity: important
The squeeze point release changed libc6's behaviour w.r.t. to name
servers not supporting queries.
It guess it gets confused if the dns server (in this case a local pdnsd
as the ISP supplied server does not answer to at all thus
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org wrote:
To be able to evalutate this requestn Stable Release Managers will need
to see
a complete debdiff (based on what stable currently provides). Concerning
backports, you are free to upload at any time (provided your upload
Hi Release managers and list,
The purpose of this mail comes from the below bug
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=641469
I always asked FFe to this package while there was release freeze when
debian 6.0 was under development and regularly updated the package
cf:
On 09/23/2011 09:01 AM, Bhavani Shankar R wrote:
Hi Release managers and list,
The purpose of this mail comes from the below bug
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=641469
I always asked FFe to this package while there was release freeze when
debian 6.0 was under
Hi,
thanks for your update!
On Montag, 1. August 2011, Neil McGovern wrote:
Release Goals GOALS
Carried forward from last release:
+ piuparts clean archive (goal since lenny...)
cheers,
Holger
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Hi Daniel,
On Dienstag, 18. Januar 2011, Daniel Baumann wrote:
neither Ben or me, nor the list have been contacted wrt/ debian-live.
is this the usual 'we completely forgot debian-live, it's so new we
couldn't possibly know that it's actually really existing', or, do you
don't consider live
On 01/19/2011 10:24 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
I do understand you being annoyed (or unhappy or whatever) about this...
the meaning of 'coordinate on a release date' is to *find* a suitable
date *in advance*, not declare one and expect others to adapt.
true, on the one hand, ignoring debian-live
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:23:11AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 01/19/2011 10:24 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
I do understand you being annoyed (or unhappy or whatever) about this...
the meaning of 'coordinate on a release date' is to *find* a suitable
date *in advance*, not declare one
On 01/19/2011 03:39 PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
well, we mainly follow [0]. The goal of this release is also to improve the
documentation, as this was mainly copied from the Lenny point release notes.
lenny point releases do get communicated to live (see ml archives of
-live@).
but point releases
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, Neil McGovern wrote:
Awesomeness of Squeeze
Obviously, because it's a Debian release, it's awesome! Or at the very
least, awe-inspiring. What more is needed?
Good job everyone, and keep it up!
Don Armstrong
--
Herodotus says, Very few things happen at the right time,
On 01/18/2011 08:36 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
we now have a target date of the weekend of 5th
and 6th February for the release. We have checked with core teams, and
this seems to be acceptable for everyone.
neither Ben or me, nor the list have been contacted wrt/ debian-live.
is this the usual
are interested in helping with this process, please contact us.
Release Update (Squeeze Status)
===
Freeze Status (Unblock Policy)
--
The Release Team would like to remind everybody that we are under deep
freeze. We are updating the current unblock
Hi,
this is more or less my personal view, we have not discussed this list
recently among Debian Edu. I expect this will happen now...
On Freitag, 7. Mai 2010, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Timeline
[...]
Due to the rate of change in unstable, it's not easy at the moment to
accurately
[adding -release to Cc]
On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 09:58 -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
A forthcoming new upstream version will bump the soname to fix the
problem, and the few packages that depends on libforms1 will need to be
rebuilt.
% apt-cache rdepends libforms1 | grep -v libforms
Reverse
Hi,
On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 21:23 +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
I don't know if that qualifies as a transition but I have three
packages which need to migrate to testing together:
It technically does, as there's more than one package involved. It's
unlikely to cause anyone except the
On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 11:48:44PM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
however, for cosmetic reasons, it would be nicer to build them against
final lenny. otherwise the release files on lenny final images would
claim it's testing (without any other technical consequence) which feels
akward.
Sure,
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Cool. I'll be doing builds during Saturday; let's co-ordinate as we go
so that we can release as quickly as possible.
i'll be online the whole weekend, so best would be if someone would ping
me on irc when i can start the builds. once they are finished, i'll let
steve know
Daniel Baumann wrote:
Adeodato Simó wrote:
The weekend of February 14th is going to be our tentative target for
release. We've checked with all the involved teams (which are many!),
and the date works for all of them.
Just to clarify: we've checked with key people if the date would be ok
and
Luk Claes wrote:
Just to clarify: we've checked with key people if the date would be ok
and if they could coordinate with the people actually doing things.
for the records: since from an organizational point of view, the
live-team does not fit (resp. was not allowed/welcomed to fit) under
Adeodato Simó wrote:
The weekend of February 14th is going to be our tentative target for
release. We've checked with all the involved teams (which are many!),
and the date works for all of them.
you forgot debian-l...@lists.debian.org. remember that producing final
live images requires:
a)
On 2009-02-02 00:19, Daniel Baumann wrote:
you forgot debian-l...@lists.debian.org. remember that producing final
live images requires:
Can somebody update/correct the Debian live paragraph in the
release notes, please? See #493931. Currently it says:
section id=live-cd condition=fixme
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 03:35:35PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Architecture status
~~~
Of the current 12 architectures, 8 are still at risk of being dropped
unless their issues can be solved. Check the [ARCH:QUAL] pages for more
information as to the current issues. In some cases,
Bastian Blank wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 03:35:35PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Architecture status
~~~
Of the current 12 architectures, 8 are still at risk of being dropped
unless their issues can be solved. Check the [ARCH:QUAL] pages for more
information as to the current
(Please reply only to debian-boot; reply-to set accordingly; add other
recipients only selectively)
A week since the planning was posted, time for an update.
Thanks to James, the upload of d-i was processed very quickly. Since then
various, mostly minor issues have been identified and resolved.
on my mobile phone if you need urgent input. I'm really very
disappointed to see your (IMHO way not perfect) text send out to
debian-announce now, but the text that should have gone out together
with the release update was not for reasons you even didn't communicate
to us.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http
Moin!
Andreas Barth wrote:
just two things:
First, I think the release team has the right to send out texts to
debian-news on his own. Why didn't you approve our mail? I'm considering
to ask the mailing list admins to give us direct permissions to post to
that list.
I don't think so. I
Martin Schulze wrote:
Moin!
Hi Joey
I only want to understand what went wrong, so we can avoid it in the
future, so please don't take anything as an attack of some sort, but an
honest question on why something happened the way it did AFAICS...
Andreas Barth wrote:
just two things:
First, I
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 04:20:26PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Andreas Barth wrote:
just two things:
First, I think the release team has the right to send out texts to
debian-news on his own. Why didn't you approve our mail? I'm considering
to ask the mailing list admins to give us
of the press release was that we wanted to avoid press people
to get a wrong impression from the release update on dda (like in the
past). After most news sites already had an article about this, the
posting to d-announce was completly unneeded from our point of view.
Also, by not explaining what
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 01:18:41PM +, Marc Brockschmidt wrote:
There was a new request for another approved release goal, that is NFS
v4 support. We approved that goal.
AFAICS, that goal has been completed for a while. What's needed in etch is:
- nfs-utils 1.0.7 or newer (check, 1.0.9 is
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:06:49PM +, Marc Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
(...)
Etch will carry 4.0 as version number.
Just out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind the major version change ?
(...)
And these release goals currently:
- - LSB 3.1 compatibility
- - SELinux
Mike Hommey wrote:
[snip]
The problem here is that the buildd in question is running a 64bit
kernel while building 32bit binaries. The same problem would happen if
building i386 binaries on amd64 buildds. Now my question is: could these
bugs be treated ignore-etch ? It's indeed RC, but is it
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 07:53:55PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
If it is the case,
someone with an amd64 or a sparc64 or anything that can do bi-arch
should try to build the whole archive to find those packages that have
the problem.
I already
* Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-17 19:53]:
The problem here is that the buildd in question is running a 64bit
kernel while building 32bit binaries. The same problem would happen if
building i386 binaries on amd64 buildds. Now my question is: could these
bugs be treated ignore-etch ?
* Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-17 20:31]:
I already asked tbm to do a rebuild with the machinetype set to
unknown. This will break also anything which uses autoconf but
forget to provide the --build parameter.
Daniel Priem kindly gave me access to a 10 CPU SPARC box the other
day,
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:23:02PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
It's not even RC at all, just a badly configured buildd. They should
be using linux32.
No, it is configured correctly. The buildd provides a build environment
which matches the standard configuration for this architecture.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:06:19PM +0200, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:23:02PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
It's not even RC at all, just a badly configured buildd. They should
be using linux32.
No, it is configured correctly. The buildd provides a
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:06:19PM +0200, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:23:02PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
It's not even RC at all, just a badly configured buildd. They should
be using linux32.
No, it is configured
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:39:37PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:06:19PM +0200, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:23:02PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
It's not even RC at all, just a badly
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 06:43:00PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
A lot of udebs have already been synced into testing for the beta. One
or two proved problimatic to get into testing (like cdebconf), and I've
been messing with getting those last things synced on and off all week.
There's potentially
Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
What about discover1 (1.7.14) and discover1-data (1.2005.09.25)?
I would really like to get the new discover1-data into the beta. This
does not strictly require the new version of discover1, but to use the
new arch dependant hw list we also need to update discover1.
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 02:36:28PM +0100, Richard Hirst wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 06:43:00PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Just a quick update on what's up with the beta release. Cc'd to -release
mostly because it has a certian bearing on architecture requalification.
I've started to make
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 09:58:04AM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
I've just uploaded ipsec-tools_0.5.2-1_i386.deb and
racoon_0.5.2-1_i386.deb
(source package ipsec-tools-0.5.2) to unstable. The version in testing is
0.5.1-1. Even though upstream version has changed,
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:23:25AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
This might be related to the fact the they're somewhat hidden, at least
to ./google sarge releasenotes -
http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/releasenotes isn't helpful atm either.
Why not? Isn't
Steve Langasek wrote:
I've just uploaded ipsec-tools_0.5.2-1_i386.deb and racoon_0.5.2-1_i386.deb
(source package ipsec-tools-0.5.2) to unstable. The version in testing is
0.5.1-1. Even though upstream version has changed, this is a purely bug fix
release and has some important fixes that should
Package: www.debian.org
Hi,
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 21:46, Steve Langasek posted a fine mail about a fine
change (thanks for both to whom it may apply).
Whohoo! :-)
Regarding testing upgrades from woody, I would like to propose mentioning
more visible that the suggested upgrade tool is
Hi Debian Release team!
Andreas Barth [2005-04-01 15:48 +0200]:
In the meantime, if you have a release-critical bugfix for sarge that is
being held out of testing *only* by a missing arm build, please contact
the release team so that we can arrange to push the package in if
appropriate.
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-02-23 22:29]:
There is no open bug to that effect.
It might be well a bug in the buildd - I can try to check that, but we
need to make that sure before promoting it to standard.
Have you had a chance to check this yet?
--
Martin Michlmayr
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:29:36PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050223 22:00]:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 09:15:46PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050223 21:05]:
I adjusted the behaviour of apt-listchanges to make it
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050224 00:10]:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 09:15:46PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
I can remember that having apt-listchanges installed at a buildd breaks
the buildd, as the installation of files in the chroot is stuck. Is this
still the case?
Don't
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050224 10:55]:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:29:36PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050223 22:00]:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 09:15:46PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050223 21:05]:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:44:12AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050224 10:55]:
Why should this be a blocker? Packages don't get installed on buildds
just because they're standard; promoting apt-listchanges to standard has
no effect on buildds.
If
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 08:15:04PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-02-22 21:07]:
In an effort to reduce the number of library packages, db4.1 and
vacation are no longer part of base. Also, some outdated libraries like
gnutls7, gnutls10 and libgcrypt
* Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-02-23 22:29]:
I can remember that having apt-listchanges installed at a buildd breaks
the buildd, as the installation of files in the chroot is stuck. Is this
still the case?
There is no open bug to that effect.
It might be well a bug in the
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 09:15:46PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
I can remember that having apt-listchanges installed at a buildd breaks
the buildd, as the installation of files in the chroot is stuck. Is this
still the case?
Don't install it then. It's priority standard, not build-essential.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 09:21:25PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Getting testing-security up and running is blocking on a couple of
changes to the archive configuration. Security uploads are first
uploaded to their own archive while the security announcement is in
preparation, and later (via a
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 09:59:03PM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 09:21:25PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Getting testing-security up and running is blocking on a couple of
changes to the archive configuration. Security uploads are first
uploaded to their own archive
Hi,
At 18 Nov 04 06:44:43 GMT,
Joey Hess wrote:
So it looks very much like the release will be this weekend. I've just
committed a release-annoucement.txt to the usual place in the tree, and
it could do with some fleshing out. I think that's all, other than
updating the web site and getting
Peter,
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 01:28:19PM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
I read here about strong commitment for new kernel 2.4.27 and 2.6.8.1
Kernel 2.6.8.1 has some severe bugs defuncting USB and some other
devices, etc. It's maybe the most experimental and broken kernel since
Hi, Steve:
KDE 3.3 has been uploaded to unstable; however, at this time it does
not look like the packages will have stabilized in time for sarge's
release. This means that if you have a package that depends on KDE,
you will need to upload any sarge fixes to testing-proposed-updates
Also you mention updated package translations, does this include *new*
translations or only fixes to existing ones?
My opinion is that this includes new translations. I mean, uploading
to t-p-u with new translations is OK.
This is even more important for dictionaries-common because this
On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 04:30:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
As of last night, thanks to Daniel Silverstone, no more base (as
installed by debootstrap) or standard (by priority) packages will be
accepted into testing from unstable.
Fixes
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 01:07:09PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
There's a steadily increasing buzz about the status of the sarge
release, now that the new installer is on the home stretch. The release
team has been hard at work on finalizing a
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
Does this mean I should use urgency=high for a base-files upload
which says 3.1 in /etc/debian_version, or should I upload that
to testing-proposed-updates instead?
I'm comfortable with either, as long as you use your best judgement when
Hi Bob,
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:32:26PM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Where possible, avoid new major upstream versions of other packages.
If in any doubt about whether an upgrade is appropriate, contact the
release team.
I have
On 2004-04-01 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 05:43:03PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
I'd like to get exim 4.31 into sarge but before I waste time I want
ask whether^Whow hard I'll be kicked.
* The dependencies won't change. - The version in sarge
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 05:43:03PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 03:40:22PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
[...]
* As of now, no new packages will be added to the base system. This
means that packages in the base system *must not* change their
package
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Where possible, avoid new major upstream versions of other packages.
If in any doubt about whether an upgrade is appropriate, contact the
release team.
I have been planning to package and upload two new upstream
versions of existing
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 03:40:22PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
[...]
* As of now, no new packages will be added to the base system. This
means that packages in the base system *must not* change their
package relationships.
* Large changes to the base system must be cleared with
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 06:21:02PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
(copy to Alastair McKinstry as slang packages maintainer, Shlomi
Loubaton as current worker on BIDI support for d-i and -boot as this
concern comes from Debian Installer needs)
* As of now, no new packages will be added to
Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
As mentioned on IRC, I believe it would be inappropriate to add
libfribidi0 to the base system at this stage, since this would be a
significant change to a very important library (libslang). Fortunately,
we can have d-i translated into Hebrew and
83 matches
Mail list logo
