Re: Could the release notes for potato mention smail?

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Josip Rodin wrote: > > I'm the new maintainer for smail. I will soon try to fix as many bugs as > > possible and prepare packages for potato because many people use smail. Is > > it possible to put a note in the release notes that there will be > > unofficial smail packages f

Re: Potato revision 1

yOn Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Hi guys, Hi Anthony, >... > I'm also inclined to let in a couple of interesting, non-essential, > bug-free packages that didn't make potato r0. I think the following > rules are reasonable: > > * only allowing at most a handful of packages fit

Re: 2.2r3 preparation

On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: >... > Anyone have any worthwhile opinions on how 2.2r3 and 2.4.0 should get > along? There already seems to be an iptables package and adding a new > devfsd package would have little chance of breaking any existing installs If you look at the bugs page o

Re: 2.2r3 preparation

On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Adrian Bunk wrote: > > To support Kernel 2.4 you we need to upgrade at least: > > - modutils > > Won't happen for potato: it's either 2.0+2.2 kernel support or 2.2+2.4, > and I refuse to drop 2.0 kerne

Re: 2.2r3 preparation

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Adrian Bunk wrote: >... > > - Shall I create an apt-able archive with the packages needed for kernel > > 2.4 recompiled for potato? If noone has a good reason against this I'll > > set it up next week. &

Packages for using kernel 2.4.x with potato

Since it seems noone has already done this: I'll set up an apt-able archive with _all_ the packages someone might need when upgrading the kernel to 2.4.x . I hope I'll have it ready till Tuesday. I plan to include: Upgraded packages: - modutils - util-linux - e2fsprogs - ppp - pcmcia-cs New pac

Re: Packages for using kernel 2.4.x with potato

On 12 Feb 2001, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > > Since it seems noone has already done this: I'll set up an apt-able > > archive with _all_ the packages someone might need when upgrading the > > kernel to 2.4.x . I hope I'll have it ready till Tuesday. > > Let me know when it's there and I can put a ment

Re: Preparing 2.2r3

On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Martin Schulze wrote: > An up-to-date version (copy of my work copy) is at > > > > Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r3 > = > > This list is based on the report posted by Anthony Towns. I'll have > to

Re: Preparing Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r3

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Martin Schulze wrote: > Hi, Hi Martin, > I'd like to know whether it may be useful to provide updates to those > packages that don't work with a Linux 2.4.x kernel anymore. There are > a couple of packages that would have to be updated. Currently none of > them are on my li

Re: Preparing Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r3

CFLAGS on ARM (closes: #79180) > > Alpha is also missing > > Explanation from Adrian Bunk: > > It was meant to go in potato: All the patches (except the > changed maintainer address) are ARM-specific or save (I don't > ex

Re: Uploads to proposed-updates (updated)

On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: >... > reject mtools_3.9.6-4_arm.changes > Not release critical >... Why is it not RC when a package is completely broken on one architecture [1]? cu Adrian [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release-0103/msg00016.html -- Nicht weil die Dinge schwi

Re: More updates

On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: > And then, after reading my email... > > > 188,197c188,192 > < reject mtools_3.9.6-4_arm.changes > < Not release critical > < reject mtools_3.9.6-4_i386.changes > < Not release critical > < reject mtools_3.9.6-4_m68k.changes > < Not release critical

Re: To Do for 2.2r3

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: > Things still needed/wanted for r3: >... I've build mtools_3.9.6-4_alpha.changes that is now waiting in incoming (this architecture was missing at the mtools packages). > Cheers, > aj cu Adrian -- Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie ni

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 06:44:11AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Hi, fellow debian audio developers, and release managers. > > > > I think jack-audio-connection-kit and related packages should enter > > mini-freeze, > > to get something released to testing. > > > > From the look of it, jack-

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 07:29:43AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > > From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for > > > > > > puredata: Too young, only 7 of 10 days old > > > > > > > > > and it will be ready for install. > > > > > > You missed at least Wine and #21847

Re: arla/heimdal/krb4/cyrus-sasl2 ?

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 12:28:39AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Are these four ready to be hinted in together, or am I missing something? According to update_output, at least PostgreSQL needs to go into testing before heimdal can go into testing. PostgreSQL waits for glibc and perl. glibc

Re: Time to push qt-x11 and friends into testing?

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 01:33:26AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > These are the qt2 packages. Currently they are held up because they > break innovation3d and nurbs++ -- both of these have newer, c102 > versions in unstable which use qt3. They FTBFS on some architectures, > so they can't go

Re: arla/heimdal/krb4/cyrus-sasl2 ?

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 10:36:20AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:09:56PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 12:28:39AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > > > > Are these four ready to be hinted in together, or am I missing som

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:11:14AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Update: > > > From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for > > * gem -- which seems to have experienced build failure for powerpc and hppa > * wine -- which has a grave bug that it doesn't work on 2.6.0, I

Re: Time to push qt-x11 and friends into testing?

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:37:14PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >>Wouldn't it be more effective if you would try to fix these packages > > >>instead of proposing to remove them? > > No, it wouldn't. > > (1) I couldn't care less about these packages. I'm not competent to fix > them and > I

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:11:14AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > Update: > > > From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for > > > * wine -- which has a grave bug that it doesn't work on 2.6.0, I > > post

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:47:08PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:32:37PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:11:14AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > &g

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 01:51:30PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: >... > What criteria are you using to classify this as a grave bug, given that > the vast majority of sarge users will be running 2.4 kernels? I don't > recall seeing anything that made 2.6 support a "must" for sarge, so I > don't see

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:58:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Blahblahblah. The bug doesn't make it unusable for everyone, therefore it's > not grave. Stop arguing about severities and fix the bug instead. If you're > not able to do that, do something else that's productive instead. There ar

Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Hi, below are some subjective opservations and opinions regarding the progress towards Debian 3.1 . Please read it, and make your own opinions on where I'm right and where I'm wrong, even if you might not agree with my opinions on other issues or if you don't agree with everything below. This is

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:42:26PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > During the last months, the number of RC bugs of packages in unstable > > was constant at 700 bugs including 500 RC bugs in packages that are

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 12:34:27AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:42:26PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > For testing to work good, it's required to have unstable in a good &g

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:01:07PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 17:42, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > If a maintainer is MIA, his packages should be orphaned and he should > > be kicked out of Debian as soon as possible. > > It would be better _not_ to make

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 08:48:04PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Please read it, and make your own opinions on where I'm right and where > > I'm wrong, even if you might not agree with my opinions on other i

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:53:36PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > Today, it's only 17 days until the officially announced "aggressive goal" > > for the release of Debian 3.1 [1]. That's a

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 05:47:44PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: > Joey wrote: > >Packages in unstable have dependencies in unstable which may not be > >met in testing, hence they cannot simply be included in testing. > >Unfortunately we need to take care of this. > > I've come up at least once with a

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:54:00PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:29:29PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > There are some good suggestions in your proposal, e.g. you suggest to > > check whether the build dependencies are fulfilled. The lack of checking

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: >... > That could be done either by a rebuild, or, less costly, by a simple > unpack/edit-changelog/repack. Repacking breaks with every Depends: somepackage (= ${Source-Version}) > In that case, if we had libfoo0_1.0-1 in pre-testing,

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:34:53PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: >... > One example of this is, while Gnome 2.2 has made it to testing, most > GTK2/Gnome2 killer apps, like Evolution, are still stuck in Unstable. > Why? Two reasons: > > 1) Ximian cranks out more releases than the Debian mai

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 08:35:42AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: >... > > > In that case, if we had libfoo0_1.0-1 in pre-testing, and > > > libfoo0_1.0-2 in unstable, we'd end up with libfoo0_1.0-2.0.1 in > > > pre-testing, and libfoo0_1.0-2.0.2 in unstable, whether the latter was > > > rebuilt or just

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 04:42:44PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:12:10AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > KDE 3 needed a long time until it was hinted into testing. > > Ahh, so why did it even needed to be hinted at all? > > How much more would testing

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:26:45AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: >... > > Binary NMU for unstable: > > Version: 1.0-2.0.1 > > > > Your suggested pre-tesing package: > > Version: 1.0-2.0.1 > > > > > > IOW: > > There are two different packages with the same version number. > > But: > > - if they com

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 11:16:40PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:32:38AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:26:45AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: > > >... > > > > Binary NMU for unstable: > > > > Version: 1.0

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 05:12:24PM -0500, Enrique Robledo Arnuncio wrote: >... > Meanwhile, since fftw3 seems to keep failing to build in some archs > due to test bench errors, I should probably rebuild freqtweak using > fftw2... Looking at the log of the failed ftw3 builds on arm and powerpc, the

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:18:18AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 08:59:54AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Nothing stops me from using Version 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9. > > It's sure that this system of numeration only works for non-native > Debian packages. It's not clear

Re: Status of mozilla packages for debian 3.1 release

On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 10:44:54AM +0100, Eric Valette wrote: > Eric Valette wrote: > > >This shows that very basic feature are not working with debian provided > >mozilla packages whereas they *do work* with the official mozilla binary > >and are therefore either due to maintainer changes (the

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 07:53:47PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >... > > I haven't found it explicitely mentioned, but the logial version number > > for a binary NMU of version 1.0 would be 1.0-0.0.1 . > > A bin

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 04:10:56PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: >... > > * it isn't consistent in all respects; e.g. although the package > > dependencies might have been fulfilled, it contained for some time a > > strange mixture of GNOME 1 and GNOME 2 > > I'm pretty sure that was because of hi

Re: Hinting openmotif & friends?

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:47:51AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > I just noticed a rather complicated interdependency web: > > new fbi depends on new libpcd > new ida depends on new openmotif *and* new libpcd > new motv depends on new openmotif *and* new xawtv > > new libpcd breaks old fbi and

Re: Hinting openmotif & friends?

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 09:15:00PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: > >Independent of this, they are not ready: > > > >xawtv depends on new zlib > > zlib has build failures on several architectures > This should hopefully be fixed ASAP as it

Re: Hinting openmotif & friends?

On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 06:22:56PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >... > >>jack-audio-connection-kit has to go in at the same time as: > >> alsaplayer > >> ecamegapedal > >> ecawave > >> fluidsynth > >> freqtweak > >> alsa-lib > >> puredata (which needs to finish building on all archs) > >> soundtr

Re: Why mozilla stalled by zlib?

On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 02:46:39AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: > > From what I can see, mozilla only depends on zlib >= 1:1.1.4, which > should be satisfied by zlib 1:1.1.4-16 currently in testing, and I > would believe mozilla could go in now. > > Still, update_excuses says mozilla is inva

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 08:31:11AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > Can anyone explain to me why the use of recommends: grub is a policy > violation? I scanned through the policy and failed to find anything > obvious. If you can't fulfill a Recommends, that's a violation of section 2.2.1. of

Re: a failed purge is RC

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:27:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 12:36:09AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > severity 274272 grave > > thanks > > > > A failed purge of a package is definitely RC. > > Yes, but it doesn't 'ren

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:31:06AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Adrian Bunk] > > If you can't fulfill a Recommends, that's a violation of section > > 2.2.1. of your policy. > > That is not how I interpret section 2.2.1. > > [http://www.debian.org/doc

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:39:31AM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: >... > [*] However, I think Policy should be changed to requre Depends only > and not Recommends. In the past, dselect would scream loudly about > Recommends not being fulfilled but these days the tools don't really > care as much a

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 12:44:21PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-03 03:22]: > > If you change policy to make Recommends similar to Suggests, you > > might even remove Recommends from policy since there will no longer > > b

Re: RC policy - editorial clarifications?

Hi Andreas, > + the already discussed topic of recommends (IMHO yes, as main should be > a closure, and broken recommends break that; although I tend to > sarge-ignore if there is no other clean solution, as all-packages > don't support something like foo[i386] in their recommends line); Wh

Circular dependencies are not a good idea

Hi Jeroen, I'd disagree with your opinion that this issue (abuse-lib should depend on abuse) is really a bug. You are suggesting something that would create a circular dependency which is something e.g. apt doesn't always handle optimally. A similar example is e.g. tetex-base which doesn't depe

Re: Circular dependencies are not a good idea

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 06:18:56PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 06:34:10PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > As long as non-fulfillable are treated as RC bugs the current Recommends > > is enough since a missing abuse in sarge is then a reason for a RC bug &

Re: Bug#277074: Circular dependencies are not a good idea

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:01:17PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: >... > > BTW: How do I correctly file such a Recommends bug then? > > It's a RC bug according to your policy and I'd add the > > sarge-ignore tag when filing, but Steve had explicitely stated that > > only the r

Re: Bug#277074: Circular dependencies are not a good idea

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:24:49PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:19:54PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:01:17PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > > You file it at 'important'. The 'serious' se

Re: Bug#276966: popt: #245819 is still present in sarge

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 01:41:18AM +0100, Paul Martin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 12:08:12PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:45:14AM +0100, Paul Martin wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 09:57:37PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > Pack

Re: Raising severity of Contains /usr/share/info/dir.gz if rebuilt on current sid"-bugs.

On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 11:59:04AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > Hi, > > * Andreas Metzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040317 11:10]: > > I.e. any of these package has a RC bug if it is recompieled without > > fixing this bug. Today an NMU happened (anubis) which did exactly > > this. To stop this from h

Re: removing libpng-dylan?

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 06:57:20PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > Should we remove libpng-dylan? > > It has 2 RC bugs now (one complicated one and missing copyright information), > and the maintainer doesn't seem to answer. Independent from the question whether this package should be remove

Re: Bug#236554: Postgresql does not depend on libkrb5-17-heimdal but it is needed for upgrades

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 01:10:53PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > severity 236554 important > thanks > > Hi Steve, hi Oliver, hi d-release! > > On 2004-03-17 16:08 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > > Hi Steve, hi Oliver! > > > > On 2004-03-17 0:43 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > I question whether th

Re: Upgrade only supported from most recent point release

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 01:43:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > This will ensure _nothing_. > > > > It's supported that users upgrade from Debian 3.0r0 to 3.1. > > Unfortunately, I think that already isn't supported.

Re: Package removal proposals

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 03:22:20PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >... > (xemacs21 would be on this list, but the last versions in sarge actually don't > have any of the current RC bugs. Which is a sort of victory for the > 'testing' scripts. Of course, this is because no version has gotten into

Re: Package removal proposals

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 05:30:21PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >... > > Surely not all problems need to be resolved with an axe? > As I said, "Eventually it will be fixed and it can go in again, of course." > > Do you want to release with packages which don't build from source? > That is the on

Re: Removal suggestions due to uninstallability

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 06:46:28PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > So, the nagios mess does not look close to being fixed. > The following packages have no installable binaries in 'testing' (except > nagios-nrpe-doc, which seems kind of silly when none of the other packages > are installable.) Wh

Re: Removal suggestions due to uninstallability

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 09:44:35PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >... > | All I can see is that they will become installable in testing ass soon > | as netsaint-plugins enters testing, and netsaint-plugins is waiting for > | PostgreSQL. > > You mean nagios-plugins, right? Yes, my fault. > | Wha

Re: Old RC bugs

On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 01:39:44PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > I compiled a list of all RC bugs older than about one month against > package versions in testing. Some should perhaps be removed from > testing, other need a review. Comments and actions welcome. >... > remove crm114/20040312-

Re: XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote: >... > Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which > I promptly downgraded; if it didn't go in today, I expect that will be > because of the new sppc upload, making it a transitive problem. Please don't forge

Re: XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)

On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 06:39:47AM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote: > > >... > > > Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC

Re: Old RC bugs

On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 02:55:30AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: >... > > db3 > > #223142, #234507 > > db4.0 > > #223140 > > I know we can't remove them. One of the base problems > > It would be nice to see fewer copies of libdb in sarge, in all honesty. >... There is external (non-free) software

Re: Excess copies of libdb

On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 10:20:28PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 03:05:21PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Perl (last db4.0 "Standard" package) would most likely be a lot harder, > > since it *does* expose the db interface, so it probably shouldn't be > > altered

Re: XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)

On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 03:22:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > There was little point holding up 4.3.0's progress into sarge because of > it; the exact same bug is present in XFree86 4.2.1, already in sarge. > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=libx11-6 I don't disagree with

Re: Removing zope

On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 12:17:32PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: >... > I would expect that if there isn't clear progress on fixing zope's > RC bugs within a week, I would be hinting it for removal, along with any >... You are already hinting it for removal: * -zope (2.6.4-1 to -) +

Re: No libtiff transition for sarge

On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 06:00:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:46:09PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >> > [1] OK, you could upload half of GNOME recompiled against an older > >> >

Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

Hi, it's obvious that freezing testing requires the extra amount of work for someone to check every single frozen package with a more recent version in unstable whether sarge lacks required fixes. They might be RC bugs like #237071, but it's also possible that an upload fixed a security bug [

Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 01:21:22PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040812 12:25]: > > it's obvious that freezing testing requires the extra amount of work for > > someone to check every single frozen package with a more recent version >

Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:23:00PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > Rather than complaining and posing that people aren't doing their jobs, > and asking "which member of e release team is responsible for doing this > task?", you could _help_ instead. If the release management has announced

Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 04:06:18PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote: > > If such an easy and clearly RC bug as #237071 which is already fixed in > > unstable isn't adressed in testing until today, something is definitely > > going wrong. And if it was Jeroen's job as you said, he isn't doing it > > prop

Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:21:24PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040812 14:10]: > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 01:21:22PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040812 12:25]: > > > > Why do you think

Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:51:56PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: >... > > The Debian release management thinks freezing testing is less work. > > That's OK (I have no influence on it - I'm not even a Debian developer), > > but I do not plan to do anything of the work that is only caused by the > > f

a failed purge is RC

severity 274272 grave thanks A failed purge of a package is definitely RC. Please fix your package instead of downgrading the bug. TIA Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only

Re: Bug#272853 acknowledged by developer (non-sense RC bugs on libgdiplus)

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:48:26AM -0800, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: >... > One cummulative answers for all stupid bug reports: > > About building non-buildable in Testing: that is how it works if there > are circular build dependencies. Please try to understand what is going > on before re

uninstallation bugs are RC

severity 287355 serious thanks It was always clear for me that uninstallation bugs definitely have to be RC. Installation bugs are RC, and uninstallation bugs are even worse since it may take longer util they are discovered. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked

nmu: petsc_3.7.5+dfsg1-4

Control: reassign -1 release.debian.org Control: retitle -1 nmu: petsc_3.7.5+dfsg1-4 Control: severity -1 normal Control: tags -1 - sid Control: affects -1 libpetsc3.7.5-dev On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 11:32:39AM -0800, Dima Kogan wrote: > Package: libpetsc3.7.5-dev > Severity: grave > > Hi. Currentl

Bug#855534: unblock: multiple packages, didn't make it to testing due to openssl1.1

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 10:25:55PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: unblock > Severity: normal >... > - h323plus > got removed [1] due a RC bug in ptlib. ptlib is now in testing

Bug#855968: unblock: ekg/1:1.9~pre+r2855-5

-09 21:07:36.0 +0200 +++ ekg-1.9~pre+r2855/debian/changelog 2017-02-23 16:37:45.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +ekg (1:1.9~pre+r2855-5) unstable; urgency=medium + + * QA upload. + * Disable parallel building to work around a FTBFS. +(Closes: #811234) + + -- Adrian Bunk Thu, 23 Feb

Bug#855991: unblock: kstars-data-extra-tycho2/1.1r1-9.1

upload. + * Move data file to /usr/share/kstars where kstars expects it. +(Closes: #854008) + * Add Turkish debconf template translation from Mert Dirik. +(Closes: #757490) + + -- Adrian Bunk Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:03:46 +0200 + kstars-data-extra-tycho2 (1.1r1-9) unstable; urgency=low

Bug#856021: unblock: libprelude/1.0.0-11.9

. + * Don't disable PIE. + + -- Adrian Bunk Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:50:44 +0200 + libprelude (1.0.0-11.8) unstable; urgency=medium * Non-maintainer upload. diff -Nru libprelude-1.0.0/debian/control libprelude-1.0.0/debian/control --- libprelude-1.0.0/debian/control 2016-09-06 17:51:48.

Bug#856205: unblock: vbrfix/0.24+dfsg-1

@@ +vbrfix (0.24+dfsg-1) unstable; urgency=medium + + * QA upload. + * Set maintainer to Debian QA Group. (see #646384) + * Repackage the upstream tarball without the vbrfixc/vbrfixc binary. + * Fix FTBFS on armhf. (Closes: #856199) + * autoreconf for the FTBFS fix. + + -- Adrian Bunk Sun, 26 Feb

Bug#856348: unblock: inotify-tools/3.14-2

: #727902) + + -- Adrian Bunk Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:33:27 +0200 + inotify-tools (3.14-1) unstable; urgency=low * debian/source/format now set to 3.0 (quilt) diff -Nru inotify-tools-3.14/debian/control inotify-tools-3.14/debian/control --- inotify-tools-3.14/debian/control 2012-06-18 12:28

Bug#856021: unblock: libprelude/1.0.0-11.9

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:54:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 24/02/17 11:30, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > + * Switch from -dbg to -dbgsym. > > Please avoid doing that for future unblocks. libpreludecpp0 was split from libprelude2 to fix an RC bug. Given the choice

Bug#856799: unblock: gmchess/0.29.6-2.1

:49:57.0 +0200 +++ gmchess-0.29.6/debian/changelog 2017-03-04 17:39:45.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +gmchess (0.29.6-2.1) unstable; urgency=medium + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * autoreconf to fix FTBFS on arm64. (Closes: #727872) + + -- Adrian Bunk Sat, 04 Mar 2017 17:39:45 +0200

Bug#856884: unblock: regina-rexx/3.6-2.1

he current default xz is better. + + -- Adrian Bunk Sun, 05 Mar 2017 16:40:23 +0200 + regina-rexx (3.6-2) unstable; urgency=low * Fixed debian/rules build target. diff -Nru regina-rexx-3.6/debian/control regina-rexx-3.6/debian/control --- regina-rexx-3.6/debian/control 2012-0

Bug#856894: unblock: libmthca/1.0.6-1.1

-maintainer upload. + * Use autotools_dev to fix FTBFS on arm64. (Closes: #727417) + * Remove the obsolete DM-Upload-Allowed field. + + -- Adrian Bunk Sun, 05 Mar 2017 21:22:15 +0200 + libmthca (1.0.6-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release. diff -Nru libmthca-1.0.6/debian/control

Bug#856897: unblock: makebootfat/1.4-5.1

ngelog --- makebootfat-1.4/debian/changelog +++ makebootfat-1.4/debian/changelog @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +makebootfat (1.4-5.1) unstable; urgency=medium + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * Run dh-autoreconf to fix FTBFS on arm64. (Closes: #759446) + + -- Adrian Bunk Sun, 05 Mar 2017 21:55:12 +0200 + makeb

Bug#856896: unblock: openvanilla-modules/0.9.0a1.3+dfsg1-2.2

:25.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +openvanilla-modules (0.9.0a1.3+dfsg1-2.2) unstable; urgency=medium + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * Use autotools_dev to fix FTBFS on arm64. (Closes: #727479) + + -- Adrian Bunk Sun, 05 Mar 2017 21:36:25 +0200 + openvanilla-modules (0.9.0a1.3+dfsg1-2.1

Bug#858277: unblock: lft/2.2-5

. + * Set maintainer to Debian QA Group. (see #848570) + * Use autotools-dev to update config.{sub,guess} to fix +FTBFS on arm64 and ppc64el. (Closes: #755790) + + -- Adrian Bunk Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:02:59 +0200 + lft (2.2-4) unstable; urgency=low * Moved homepage from description to regul

Bug#858383: unblock: ladish/1+dfsg0-5.1

21:36:13.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +ladish (1+dfsg0-5.1) unstable; urgency=medium + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * Add arm64, hppa and sparc64 to the architectures where stacktraces +are disabled, thanks to Helge Deller. (Closes: #762016) + + -- Adrian Bunk Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:36:13

Merged /usr - supported in stretch?

(everything below is AFAIK and IMHO, please correct any mistakes) (Andreas added due to piuparts, see 4.) 0. Introduction Merged /usr wiki page: https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge Merged /usr does not seem to be ready for a stable release right now. The rationale used when the severity of #810

Bug#858446: unblock: efax-gtk/3.2.8-2.1

) unstable; urgency=medium + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * Apply patch from Logan Rosen to use autotools-dev to update +config.{sub,guess}, fixing FTBFS on arm64. (Closes: #727369) + + -- Adrian Bunk Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:43:43 +0200 + efax-gtk (3.2.8-2) unstable; urgency=low * debian

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >