Bug#760560: RM: ghostscript-cups/9.06~dfsg-1
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:22:06 +0100 Adam D. Barratt adam@adam- barratt.org.uk wrote: Control: reassign -1 ftp.debian.org On 2014-09-05 11:52, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Seems from https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=ghostscript and https://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=ghostscript that binary package ghostscript-cups needs to explicitly be removed from testing to allow new release (which has that package dropped) is allowed to migrate to testing. No, it needs to be removed _from unstable_. Binary packages are not individually removed from testing other than as part of an automatic migration. (and in any case removal from testing wouldn't help, as the outdated packages would still be _in unstable_.) ...and reportbug tells me you are the ones to task to about that. If your choice of suite were correct, sure. :-) As it's not, it's not. I'm re-assigning this to ftp.d.o rather than closing it, but to save people checking, the reason that the package isn't getting semi-autoremoved by the FTP team is: dak rm -m [auto-cruft] NBS (no longer built by ghostscript) -s unstable -a amd64,arm64,armel,armhf,hurd-i386,i386,kfreebsd-amd64,kfreebsd- i386,mips,mipsel,powerpc,ppc64el,s390x,sparc -p -R -b ghostscript-cups - broken Depends: splix: printer-driver-splix Once the reverse depend is fixed, please remove the moreinfo tag. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#760560: RM: ghostscript-cups/9.06~dfsg-1
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 06:35 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: [...] dak rm -m [auto-cruft] NBS (no longer built by ghostscript) -s unstable -a amd64,arm64,armel,armhf,hurd-i386,i386,kfreebsd-amd64,kfreebsd- i386,mips,mipsel,powerpc,ppc64el,s390x,sparc -p -R -b ghostscript-cups - broken Depends: splix: printer-driver-splix Once the reverse depend is fixed, please remove the moreinfo tag. cups-filters has Provides: foomatic-filters, ghostscript-cups, so this should be fine afaict. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#760560: RM: ghostscript-cups/9.06~dfsg-1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Seems from https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=ghostscript and https://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=ghostscript that binary package ghostscript-cups needs to explicitly be removed from testing to allow new release (which has that package dropped) is allowed to migrate to testing. ...and reportbug tells me you are the ones to task to about that. - Jonas - -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.14-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=da_DK.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=da_DK.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQF8BAEBCgBmBQJUCZXaXxSAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ3NjQ4ODQwMTIyRTJDNTBFQzUxRDQwRTI0 RUMxQjcyMjM3NEY5QkQ2AAoJEE7BtyI3T5vWB4AIAI6xk3D6qHsFmNFH/Kosu6lE kpuuccpiDf/etE8ctjnbQPSLbQ7qmW1OlISNYouDQ2hNOWF4Q6eh9I0BW1jdlS9w 4yF3ebmD8Tij+hOo4b+NGezNYV1kEXduVk6MxzZnx/u+p7W7SKCP/OwvqOovjJZW dH9vp4ZqFoI3rKMbZn18L6GQk/1tHEssJKuK3faaQrgFzhqCi6FdT9ochQBakjMo xgnBUGhEJxYxL2GdTUpjlGztxYxXQ4OafImEPibYMXlo0SRCgIN7ccDdswELwNXs 9Y7NSY0eTeGRTil/GGEijHBmZqgBuqxtHHS6rixKI3ubo67x0JO8uPXzrUGHBdI= =UOB5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#760560: RM: ghostscript-cups/9.06~dfsg-1
Control: reassign -1 ftp.debian.org On 2014-09-05 11:52, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Seems from https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=ghostscript and https://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=ghostscript that binary package ghostscript-cups needs to explicitly be removed from testing to allow new release (which has that package dropped) is allowed to migrate to testing. No, it needs to be removed _from unstable_. Binary packages are not individually removed from testing other than as part of an automatic migration. (and in any case removal from testing wouldn't help, as the outdated packages would still be _in unstable_.) ...and reportbug tells me you are the ones to task to about that. If your choice of suite were correct, sure. :-) As it's not, it's not. I'm re-assigning this to ftp.d.o rather than closing it, but to save people checking, the reason that the package isn't getting semi-autoremoved by the FTP team is: dak rm -m [auto-cruft] NBS (no longer built by ghostscript) -s unstable -a amd64,arm64,armel,armhf,hurd-i386,i386,kfreebsd-amd64,kfreebsd-i386,mips,mipsel,powerpc,ppc64el,s390x,sparc -p -R -b ghostscript-cups - broken Depends: splix: printer-driver-splix Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#760560: RM: ghostscript-cups/9.06~dfsg-1
Quoting Adam D. Barratt (2014-09-05 13:22:06) Control: reassign -1 ftp.debian.org On 2014-09-05 11:52, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Seems from https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=ghostscript and https://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=ghostscript that binary package ghostscript-cups needs to explicitly be removed from testing to allow new release (which has that package dropped) is allowed to migrate to testing. No, it needs to be removed _from unstable_. Binary packages are not individually removed from testing other than as part of an automatic migration. (and in any case removal from testing wouldn't help, as the outdated packages would still be _in unstable_.) ...and reportbug tells me you are the ones to task to about that. If your choice of suite were correct, sure. :-) As it's not, it's not. I'm re-assigning this to ftp.d.o rather than closing it, but to save people checking, the reason that the package isn't getting semi-autoremoved by the FTP team is: dak rm -m [auto-cruft] NBS (no longer built by ghostscript) -s unstable -a amd64,arm64,armel,armhf,hurd-i386,i386,kfreebsd-amd64,kfreebsd-i386,mips,mipsel,powerpc,ppc64el,s390x,sparc -p -R -b ghostscript-cups - broken Depends: splix: printer-driver-splix Thanks for the explanation. I will file a severe bugreport against printer-driver-splix. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#760560: RM: ghostscript-cups/9.06~dfsg-1
Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2014-09-05 14:13:42) Quoting Adam D. Barratt (2014-09-05 13:22:06) Control: reassign -1 ftp.debian.org On 2014-09-05 11:52, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Seems from https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=ghostscript and https://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=ghostscript that binary package ghostscript-cups needs to explicitly be removed from testing to allow new release (which has that package dropped) is allowed to migrate to testing. No, it needs to be removed _from unstable_. Binary packages are not individually removed from testing other than as part of an automatic migration. (and in any case removal from testing wouldn't help, as the outdated packages would still be _in unstable_.) ...and reportbug tells me you are the ones to task to about that. If your choice of suite were correct, sure. :-) As it's not, it's not. I'm re-assigning this to ftp.d.o rather than closing it, but to save people checking, the reason that the package isn't getting semi-autoremoved by the FTP team is: dak rm -m [auto-cruft] NBS (no longer built by ghostscript) -s unstable -a amd64,arm64,armel,armhf,hurd-i386,i386,kfreebsd-amd64,kfreebsd-i386,mips,mipsel,powerpc,ppc64el,s390x,sparc -p -R -b ghostscript-cups - broken Depends: splix: printer-driver-splix Thanks for the explanation. I will file a severe bugreport against printer-driver-splix. No wait - I won't: I believe nothing's wrong with that dependency. the package ghostscript-cups should be dropped, but a non-versioned dependency against it is fine as that is satisfied by cups-filters now providing that package. So tell me again: Which package needs removal in unstable for ghostscript to be allowed into testing?!? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#760560: RM: ghostscript-cups/9.06~dfsg-1
On 2014-09-05 13:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2014-09-05 14:13:42) Quoting Adam D. Barratt (2014-09-05 13:22:06) [...] dak rm -m [auto-cruft] NBS (no longer built by ghostscript) -s unstable -a amd64,arm64,armel,armhf,hurd-i386,i386,kfreebsd-amd64,kfreebsd-i386,mips,mipsel,powerpc,ppc64el,s390x,sparc -p -R -b ghostscript-cups - broken Depends: splix: printer-driver-splix Thanks for the explanation. I will file a severe bugreport against printer-driver-splix. No wait - I won't: I believe nothing's wrong with that dependency. the package ghostscript-cups should be dropped, but a non-versioned dependency against it is fine as that is satisfied by cups-filters now providing that package. dak's removal tool doesn't always cope with cases such as this. So tell me again: Which package needs removal in unstable for ghostscript to be allowed into testing?!? The answer's still the same - the ghostscript-cups binary needs to be removed, because it's no longer built from the ghostscript source. Now that the details have been explained, someone from the FTP team will hopefully pick this up and everything will be fine. :) Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#760560: RM: ghostscript-cups/9.06~dfsg-1
Quoting Adam D. Barratt (2014-09-05 14:23:08) On 2014-09-05 13:16, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: the package ghostscript-cups should be dropped, but a non-versioned dependency against it is fine as that is satisfied by cups-filters now providing that package. dak's removal tool doesn't always cope with cases such as this. So tell me again: Which package needs removal in unstable for ghostscript to be allowed into testing?!? The answer's still the same - the ghostscript-cups binary needs to be removed, because it's no longer built from the ghostscript source. Now that the details have been explained, someone from the FTP team will hopefully pick this up and everything will be fine. :) Thanks, again :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
