Bug#1069270: rendering failure with gtk 4

Package: librnd Severity: serious Version: 4.2.0-1 There appears to be a bug in this version of librnd that prevents successful rendering with the default gtk 4 hid. In the short term, users can work around the problem by installing librnd4-hid-lesstif and invoking the various ringdove tools

Bug#1068810: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1068810:

Gianfranco Costamagna writes: > yes, but the library was renamed in librnd4t64, so either you need to > depend on the new one, or drop it, to let the auto decrufter finish > the time64_t transition and decruft it. Ah, thank you, that's a useful observation. Since the relevant version hasn't

Bug#1068810: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1068810: sch-rnd: hardcoded librnd4 dependency

Gianfranco Costamagna writes: > Hello, I found that librnd4 is correctly evaluated from shlibs:Depends > in the core library and then it can be dropped also on core > reverse-dependencies. The point of the dependency is to require version 4.1.0 or later, since that's the librnd version that

Bug#1061001: python3.12 at fault?

This appears to be another manifestation of the incompatibility with python3.12 reported in #1059647. I'm not going to mark it as a duplicate in the BTS since the process of getting there is so different, but I believe the fix will be the same. Upstream has reworked the build process to allow

Bug#1059647: fixed in upstream branch

tags 1059647 +upstream thanks Upstream reports in https://github.com/scikit-fmm/scikit-fmm/issues/78 that this issue is fixed on a development branch, and will be merged and released as soon as a test suite issue gets resolved. Bdale signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#1066248: test builds successful

tags 1066248 +pending tags 1049315 +pending thanks Last night I successfully completed a test build of librnd from upstream svn trunk that resolves all open Debian bugs. The next upstream release is still expected on 10 April, and I plan to update the Debian librnd package immediately after that

Bug#1066248: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1066248: librnd: FTBFS: ../src/librnd/plugins/hid_lesstif/main.c:261:25: error: implicit declaration of function ‘lesstif_attr_sub_update_hidlib’ [-Werror=impl

Peter Michael Green writes: > The functions in question are defined in > src/librnd/plugins/hid_lesstif/dialogs.c > and used in src/librnd/plugins/hid_lesstif/main.c Correct. Upstream has fixed this and will have a new release on 10 April that I'm waiting for rather than patching the current

Bug#1059647: scikit-fmm: autopkgtest failure with Python 3.12

tags 1059647 +help thanks Graham Inggs writes: > Source: scikit-fmm > Version: 2022.08.15-4 > Severity: serious > User: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: python3.12 > > Hi Maintainer > > scikit-fmm's autopkgtests fail with Python 3.12 [1]. I've copied what > I hope is the relevant

Bug#1055723: rocketcea ftbfs with Python 3.12

You have my permission. Bdale On December 14, 2023 11:54:24 AM MST, Alexandre Detiste wrote: >Hi, > >I ll try to fix this one if you permit. > > >Greetings

Bug#1058273: gpredict: FTBFS: dh_install: error: missing files, aborting

tony mancill writes: > So this is very possibly a bug in libreoffice-writer-nogui. Sure seems like it. My guess would be that what files go in what libreoffice binary packages got refactored somehow? Not sure what the point of the nogui package is if it can't be used here any more. [shrug]

Bug#1054819: ezdxf: FTBFS: make[2]: *** [Makefile:44: html] Error 2

Lucas Nussbaum writes: > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build > on amd64. I am unable to reproduce this problem building in a fresh, minimal sid chroot environment. Is this a repeatable failure? If so, any thoughts on what might cause it to fail in your build

Bug#1031445: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1031445: camv-rnd: FTBFS: build-dependency not installable: librnd4-dev (>= 3.2.0)

Lucas Nussbaum writes: > Source: camv-rnd > Version: 1.1.1-1 > Severity: serious > Justification: FTBFS > Tags: bookworm sid ftbfs > User: lu...@debian.org > Usertags: ftbfs-20230216 ftbfs-bookworm > > Hi, > > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build > on amd64.

Bug#1024510: do not include yet in a Debian stable release

Package: sch-rnd Version: 0.9.3-1 Severity: serious Upstream was happy for me to package sch-rnd for Debian unstable, but would prefer we not include it in a stable release until he makes a stable upstream 1.0 release. Bdale signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#1022385: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1022385: pcb-rnd: FTBFS: diff: out.copper_p2.svg: No such file or directory

Lucas Nussbaum writes: > Source: pcb-rnd > Version: 3.0.5-3 > Severity: serious > Justification: FTBFS > Tags: bookworm sid ftbfs > User: lu...@debian.org > Usertags: ftbfs-20221023 ftbfs-bookworm > > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build > on amd64. Thanks for

Bug#1008700: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1008700: Should geda-gaf be removed?

Moritz Mühlenhoff writes: > If lepton-eda is a sufficient drop-in replacement for existing geda-gaf > users, lepton could provide a geda-gaf transition package for the bookworm > release? I can file a bug against lepton-eda when geda-gaf has been > removed. Yes, we could certainly do that.

Bug#1008700: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1008700: Should geda-gaf be removed?

Moritz Muehlenhoff writes: > Source: geda-gaf > Version: 1:1.8.2-11 > Severity: serious > > Your package came up as a candidate for removal from Debian: For the record, I've previously indicated that I consider lepton-eda a complete replacement for geda-gaf in Debian. It was forked some years

Bug#1006172: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1006172: src:lepton-eda: fails to migrate to testing for too long: FTBFS on s390x

Paul Gevers writes: > Your package fails to build on s390x where it build successfully in > the past. I've X-Debbugs-CC-ed the s390x porters to help you > understand why only this architecture is affected. It's hard to imagine anyone actually trying to use lepton-eda on s390x. If the porting

Bug#1002252: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1002252: pcb-rnd: FTBFS: dh_auto_test: error: make -j4 test VERBOSE=1 returned exit code 2

severity 1002252 important thanks Lucas Nussbaum writes: > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build > on amd64. It looks like noise from the latest librnd version is causing a pcb-rnd test failure. There is no operational bug in either the library or the

Bug#994921: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#994921: librnd3-dev: missing Breaks+Replaces: librnd-dev

Andreas Beckmann writes: > I'm not sure whether it would be helpful, but a (versioned?) > Provides: librnd-dev (= ${binary:Version}) > could ease upgrading from librnd-dev to librnd3-dev. Yes, that makes sense. > BTW, why has the -dev package been renamed from librnd-dev to librnd3-dev? >

Bug#984609: openrocket: uninstallable: depends on no longer available openjdk-8-jre

Andreas Beckmann writes: > Package: openrocket > Version: 15.03.6 > Severity: serious > User: debian...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: piuparts > > Hi, > > during a test with piuparts I noticed your package is no longer > installable in sid: > > The following packages have unmet dependencies: >

Bug#977595: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#977595: lepton-eda/lepton-attrib and lepton-eda/lepton-schematic can't find libgtk-x11-2.0

severity 977595 serious thanks Vanessa Dannenberg writes: Hi Vanessa! > Package: lepton-eda > Version: 1.9.13-1 > Severity: grave > > [ This is a fresh install of Bullseye/testing, from a net-install > image fetched just today] I couldn't duplicate your problem on my "unstable" development

Bug#970198: src:openrocket: fails to migrate to testing for too long: Depends on openjdk-8 which is blocked from testing

Paul Gevers writes: > Your package Depends on openjdk-8, which isn't supposed to be used in > testing since beginning 2019. FYI, this dependency will remain until/unless upstream makes a new release, and is still present in the version in unstable. Bdale signature.asc Description: PGP

Bug#957019: atlc: diff for NMU version 4.6.1-2.1

Sudip Mukherjee writes: > Control: tags 957019 + patch > Control: tags 957019 + pending > > Dear maintainer, > > I've prepared an NMU for atlc (versioned as 4.6.1-2.1) and > uploaded it to DELAYED/5. Please feel free to tell me if I > should cancel it. Thank you! Bdale signature.asc

Bug#966736: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#966736: geda-gaf: Unversioned Python removal in sid/bullseye

block 966736 by 965098 tags +wontfix thanks Matthias Klose writes: > Package: src:geda-gaf > Version: 1:1.8.2-11 > Severity: serious > Tags: sid bullseye > User: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: py2unversioned I've already requested removal of the geda-gaf package, so do not plan to

Bug#949519:

tags 949519 + help thanks I do not currently have the facilities or the motivation to try and debug LDAP issues in sudo. Happy to merge a patch if someone else figures out what's going wrong here. Bdale signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#885195: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#885195: Bug#885195: geda-gaf: please migrate to guile-2.2

Rob Browning writes: > Bdale Garbee writes: > >> However, I see little chance of geda-gaf upstream working on the things >> needed to keep it viable in Debian any time soon, and with lepton-eda in >> my mind a complete replacement that still works with the same fil

Bug#885195: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#885195: Bug#885195: geda-gaf: please migrate to guile-2.2

Rob Browning writes: > Bdale Garbee writes: > >> I'm not interested in maintaining pcb any more. > > Does that mean geda-gaf etc? If so might it make sense for you (or > who?) to file a removal request, i.e. ROM or similar? Sorry, you make a good point, geda-gaf and pcb

Bug#964922: sudo: segmentation fault when include directive is active in /etc/sudoers

tags 964922 +pending thanks Thorsten Glaser writes: > On Sun, 12 Jul 2020, Bdale Garbee wrote: > >> However, since your but report caused *me* to go read that and realize @ >> is now preferred to # for that directive, I'm updating the default >> sudoers file for D

Bug#885195: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#885195: Bug#885195: geda-gaf: please migrate to guile-2.2

I'm not interested in maintaining pcb any more. Bdale On July 13, 2020 7:04:01 PM MDT, Rob Browning wrote: >Bdale Garbee writes: > >> So... while I'm sure gEDA could be "saved" in Debian with enough >effort, >> I just don't see the point, and won't put any ti

Bug#885195: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#885195: Bug#885195: geda-gaf: please migrate to guile-2.2

أحمد المحمودي writes: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 08:48:59PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote: >> As far as I'm concerned, you can feel free to remove geda-gaf from Debian. >> >> I'm personally quite happily living on the fork that I've packaged of >> lepton-eda. Lepton-eda

Bug#885195: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#885195: geda-gaf: please migrate to guile-2.2

Rob Browning writes: > Please try to migrate soon, and at this point, to guile-3.0 if possible. > Otherwise we might need to consider removing the package from Debian. As far as I'm concerned, you can feel free to remove geda-gaf from Debian. I'm personally quite happily living on the fork

Bug#949419:

tags 949519 +needhelp thanks I don't have any easy way to debug LDAP issues. If someone else does and wants to chase this down and let me know where the problem is, that'd be great. Bdale signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#954283: gzip: produces corrupt output files on armv5tel

Jörg Mechnich writes: >> DEB_CPPFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND := -DUNALIGNED_OK That was originally meant to only be enabled on amd64 .. I think that got lost in one of the packaging style updates I accepted a while back. Just uploaded 1.10-2 hopefully making the architecture-specificity true again.

Bug#901952: can affect packaged with old source tarballs

Hans-Christoph Steiner writes: > this also goes the other way, where tarballs created in tar 1.30 fail to > work in pristine-tar when tar 1.29 is installed: Unfortunately, the nature of pristine-tar is such that it's somewhat brittle in the face of upstream changes to tar. I don't think it's

Bug#901952: anyone want to craft a patch?

tags 901952 +help thanks I question whether this bug is really release-critical, since the only cases of it I've heard about so far are the two instances pointed to in this bug log where pristine-tar is being used across distributions and versions... I've not seen the behavior in any of my own

Bug#915484: openrocket is an installer that must move to contrib

Adrian Bunk writes: > Package: openrocket > Version: 13.05.1 > Severity: serious > > openrocket was turned into an installer that downloads > the actual softare during package installation. > > In this state it mustn't be in main. Oops, you're right. Working on it now. Bdale signature.asc

Bug#908553: can't reproduce

tags 908553 +unreproducible severity 908553 normal thanks I've been unable to reproduce this problem, and am in fact a nearly-daily user of pcb-rnd. If the problem is persistent for you, I'm going to need to know more about your system config, how you're invoking pcb-rnd, etc, to be able to

Bug#901952: find the commit

We need to isolate which upstream commit caused the behavior change. I've got other things to work on that are higher priority to me right now, so help from someone more motivate to chase this down would be appreciated. Bdale signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#897653: tar 1.30 breaks pristine-tar

Paul Eggert writes: > On 05/14/2018 07:56 AM, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >> I still need to study the > code a bit further to try to come up with a >> better suggestion. > Sorry, the only suggestion I can make is that you should just use the > new GNU tar. The old one was

Bug#877516: sudo-ldap: fails to upgrade due to insserv rejecting the script header

Andreas Beckmann writes: > during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed to install due > to insserv rejecting the script header. Thanks for letting me know. > We had a similar problem in the past ... #719755 > Looks like the fix for #870456 "enabled" this bug

Bug#870456: postinst script is not executed until the end skipping debhelper bits

Laurent Bigonville writes: > It seems that the postinst script is exiting in the middle of the script > if the sudo group exists bypassing all the bits added by debhelper. Not intentional, but it looks like the only thing there is the dh_installinit fragment setting up the

Bug#858095: atlc FTBFS on mips: Build killed with signal TERM after 360 minutes of inactivity

Adrian Bunk writes: > Now one test is taking over 6 hours (is that completely hanging?). I have no idea. Never seen that happen. Makes me wonder what's changed in your kernel or toolchain since the last build? Bdale signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#806092: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#806092: proposed fix

Dima Kogan writes: > I'm attaching two patches to fix this. Please review soon if > possible. If I don't hear back by Dec 26, I'll NMU this. That's the > latest possible day to meet the cutoff for stretch. Thank you for your work on this. I see that an upload has happened.

Bug#809984: working on it...

I've packaged and uploaded mdocml/mandoc, as soon as it's accepted into the archive I'll be able to update the build process for sudo to fix this. Bdale

Bug#808233: p10cfgd still depends on perl5

Niko Tyni <nt...@debian.org> writes: > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 08:24:09AM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: >> > # still depends on perl5 >> > found 808233 1.0-15 >> Bug #808233 {Done: Bdale Garbee <bd...@gag.com>} [p10cfgd] p10cfgd: Depen

Bug#762465: sudo: Include future-timestamp patch for jessie

Christian Kastner deb...@kvr.at writes: All of the RC fixes have been in unstable for a while now, so an upload to t-p-u could be negotiated now with the RT. If you'd like me to take care of that, please let me know. Go for it. I'm likely to remain too busy to work on it much for the next

Bug#776137: sudo: fails to switch between sudo and sudo-ldap: chown: cannot access '/etc/sudoers': No such file or directory

Christian Kastner deb...@kvr.at writes: Bdale, once such a confirmation (or another fix) is in, how would you like to proceed? I could help with the RT communication again Sure. I'm willing to merge a patch and do uploads, but need to know which path they want me to use since the sudo in

Bug#731583: sudo FQDN issue: How can I help?

Christian Kastner deb...@kvr.at writes: Hi, with a patch now available for the versions in testing and in unstable, I believe what still needs to be done is: 1. Negotiate with RT which version they'd be willing to accept 2. Prepare a package including the application patch version

Bug#760961: Update

C. Scott Ananian csc...@cscott.net writes: FWIW, manually running update-openrocket after install seemed to work fine: Thanks for your bug report, and I'm glad you were able to get it working. It sounds like there may have been a transient problem with the upstream website that hosts the .jar

Bug#757269: [3dprinter-general] Bug#757269: slic3r fails to run on sid

Chow Loong Jin hyper...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 01:09:24PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote: Package: slic3r version: 1.1.7+dfsg-1 Severity: serious On an up-to-date system running sid: bdale@rover:~$ slic3r Running Slic3r under Perl = 5.16 is not supported nor recommended

Bug#757269: slic3r fails to run on sid

Package: slic3r version: 1.1.7+dfsg-1 Severity: serious On an up-to-date system running sid: bdale@rover:~$ slic3r Running Slic3r under Perl = 5.16 is not supported nor recommended Can't locate object method new via package Slic3r::Model at /usr/share/perl5/Slic3r/GUI/Plater.pm line 53.

Bug#753053: missing dependency on python-keybinder

Package: pithos Version: 0.3.17-2 Severity: grave Installing pithos on my notebook running xfce4 resulted in odd errors about gstreamer not finding resources. A quick web search led me to this bug report in launchpad: https://bugs.launchpad.net/pithos/+bug/1007065 Manually installing

Bug#741770: missing build-dep

Apparently python3.4 showed up since python-bcrypt was last uploaded. The result is that trying to build fails on the python3.4 pass due to the associated dev package not being pulled in by python3-dev. Adding python3-all-dev to the build-deps seems to fix the problem. I care because this

Bug#724922: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#724922: geda-gaf: FTBFS: dh_auto_test fork bombs

Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes: It seems that the last upload (1:1.8.2-2) killed at least 4 buildds. This includes amd64 (brahms), armhf (hoiby), armel (alwyn, ancina). I understand that some of them are still down because of it. That's unfortunate. What does killed mean here? I'd

Bug#724922: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#724922: Bug#724922: geda-gaf: FTBFS: dh_auto_test fork bombs

severity 724922 important thanks أحمد المحمودي aelmahmo...@sabily.org writes: In that case, maybe the bug severity should be reduced ? Sure, makes sense to me. Bdale pgp1n0W37J5qv.pgp Description: PGP signature

Bug#724922: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#724922: geda-gaf: FTBFS: dh_auto_test fork bombs

Daniel Schepler dschep...@gmail.com writes: At this point, the load average shoots through the roof, and top shows a large number of make and sh processes being created. I therefore have to interrupt the build. Which architecture and release are you trying this on? Bdale pgp6BbDSHszUd.pgp

Bug#724922: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#724922: Bug#724922: geda-gaf: FTBFS: dh_auto_test fork bombs

أحمد المحمودي aelmahmo...@sabily.org writes: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:19:04PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote: Daniel Schepler dschep...@gmail.com writes: At this point, the load average shoots through the roof, and top shows a large number of make and sh processes being created. I therefore

Bug#724064: tar-scripts and openafs-client: error when trying to install together

Ralf Treinen trei...@free.fr writes: Package: openafs-client,tar-scripts Version: openafs-client/1.6.5-1 Version: tar-scripts/1.26+dfsg-10 Severity: serious User: trei...@debian.org Usertags: edos-file-overwrite I'll fix this by having tar-scripts conflict with openafs-client. Bdale

Bug#724064: tar-scripts and openafs-client: error when trying to install together

Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: A conflict with openafs-client isn't really desireable, since that's a pretty widely installed package at sites that use AFS. Failing renaming, I'm inclined to split all the backup software off into a separate package that you can conflict with, since

Bug#720917: upgrade failure

St��phane Glondu glo...@debian.org writes: dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/gzip_1.6-2_armel.deb (--unpack): trying to overwrite '/usr/share/info/dir.gz', which is also in package ed 1.9-2 Must be a toolchain issue? It doesn't happen on any architecture I have

Bug#716727: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#716727: geda-gaf: unbuildable on ia64 due to missing guile-2.0

Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes: It doesn't look like guile-2.0 has managed to build on ia64 in the couple of years it's been in the archive; maintainers (CCed) - is there any likelihood that it will? I'm pretty much out of the loop on ia64 development at this point, but I

Bug#716727: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#716727: geda-gaf: unbuildable on ia64 due to missing guile-2.0

Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes: Source: geda-gaf Version: 1:1.8.0-1 Severity: serious Tags: jessie sid Hi, geda-gaf added guile-2.0 as a build-dependency, but that package does not exist on ia64; geda-gaf is therefore no longer buildable on that architecture. Hrm.

Bug#676739: altos: FTBFS caused by sdcc

Thijs Kinkhorst th...@debian.org writes: Hi Bdale, On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:27:12AM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote: Thanks for the report. The problem is that sdcc 3.X introduces new compiler features that are big problems for 8051, and sdcc is a build dep for altos. Are you aware

Bug#701838: nmu for security issues

Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org writes: I uploaded an nmu fixing the recent security issues. Please see attached patch. Thanks. Bdale pgpE51sJkyUcl.pgp Description: PGP signature

Bug#694015: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#694015: geda-gaf: diff for NMU version 1:1.6.2-4.3

gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org writes: I see; this also sounds a bit like it's not worth releasing wheezy with 1.6? [shrug] At least gschem is used to produce data for many things other than pcb, so no, I don't really agree that it would be better to have no geda-gaf than to have 1.6 in

Bug#694015: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#694015: Bug#694015: geda-gaf: diff for NMU version 1:1.6.2-4.3

أحمد المحمودي aelmahmo...@sabily.org writes: Bdale, I've added gregoa's patch pushed to git. Please upload. Done. debian/1.8.1-2 uploaded, tagged, and pushed. Bdale pgpfZ7yxc2dKO.pgp Description: PGP signature

Bug#658896: bug is apparently actually in libgcrypt11

reassign 658896 libgcrypt11 thanks I don't use LDAP, and so don't have an easy way to test this, but since Martijn van Brummelen reports that patching libgcrypt11 the way Ubuntu has fixes this problem, I'm reassigning the bug to libgcrypt11 for resolution in Debian. Regards, Bdale

Bug#694015: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#694015: geda-gaf: diff for NMU version 1:1.6.2-4.3

gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org writes: I've prepared an NMU for geda-gaf (versioned as 1:1.6.2-4.3) and uploaded it to DELAYED/2. Please feel free to tell me if I should delay it longer. Be aware that 1.8.1-1 has been uploaded to unstable and is awaiting NEW processing. Bdale

Bug#694015: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#694015: geda-gaf: diff for NMU version 1:1.6.2-4.3

gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org writes: Thanks, I've noted the version in NEW but for some reason I assumed it was targetting experimental. Having it in unstable now would be unfortunate (with or without this fix) since a new upstream version would most probably not migrate to testing,

Bug#695803: tar: includes non-free documentation (GFDL with unmodifiable sections)

Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes: However, the doc/ directory does include the non-free GFDL documentation It appears that the package was built against the full upstream tarball and not the elided one. My bad. FWIW, the binary package for tar does not include the GFDL documents, this

Bug#685186: IA64 (Itanium) Wheezy, ELILO installation failed, patch proposal

Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes: 'iocharset=iso8859-1' is actually the default; you would need to override the default by specifying 'iocharset=utf8'. Ah, right. Yes, in that case I agree we can just lose the explicit iocharset setting in elilo.sh. I can reassign this to elilo and

Bug#687348: yforth has non-free copyright file (does not pass dfsg)

Grant H. sirgr...@member.fsf.org writes: After reviewing the copyright file[1] for the package yforth[2] I thought that it did not qualify as free software. Why do you say this? The intent of the author was clearly to be fully permissive as long as attribution is retained. For a fairly

Bug#687348: yforth has non-free copyright file (does not pass dfsg)

Grant H. sirgr...@member.fsf.org writes: A couple things, intent and what actually happens are two different things. Of course I understand that. But what bothers me in this and other cases is that you're asserting that it fails the DFSG without explaining *how* you think it fails the DFSG.

Bug#676739: altos: FTBFS caused by sdcc

Ivo De Decker ivo.dedec...@ugent.be writes: Do you have time to upload a new version? I've been hoping to get altos 1.1 uploaded fixing this and some other bugs in the current code, but it just hasn't happened yet. If Keith and I don't get that done by the first week of September, I'll upload

Bug#681687: Call for votes on evince MIME entry

Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: I'm calling for votes on the following proposal. There are three options - two positive versions, and FD. In summary A. Do not overrule release team. It is too late for automation. B. Do not overrule release team. Defer to them on

Bug#681568: amanda-server: removal makes directory disappear: /var/log/amanda/

Andreas Beckmann deb...@abeckmann.de writes: Since this directory seems to be shared by several packages * all of them should ship it (probably empty) * none should create it manually * none should run 'rm -rf' on it (but only on the contents specific to the package) Thanks for the

Bug#669434: gzip: FTBFS: ../../lib/fchdir.c:149:15: error: storage size of 'statbuf' isn't known

Andrey Rahmatullin w...@wrar.name writes: Also note that 1.5 was released two days ago which contains the updated gnulib. Thanks for mentioning this, as I hadn't noticed yet! Bdale pgpukqEdsVJxF.pgp Description: PGP signature

Bug#676739: sdcc's fault

Thanks for the report. The problem is that sdcc 3.X introduces new compiler features that are big problems for 8051, and sdcc is a build dep for altos. To fix this FTBFS, I've upload 'cc', which is a forked sdcc 2.9 built specifically for the flavor of 8051 targets needed in altos. An

Bug#665461: makedev: GNU/kFreeBSD needs ttyv[0-9]*.

#part sign=pgpmime On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:35:15 +0200, Mats Erik Andersson mats.anders...@gisladisker.se wrote: The package is assigned to the Debian QA group, so the glibc-bsd group or Bdale Garbee are most likely to act on this. I do not intend to work on the makedev package any more

Bug#661702: amanda-client: please relax Build-Depends to allow building on kFreeBSD

#part sign=pgpmime severity 661702 important tags 661702 +pending thanks On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:40:47 +0100, Emmanuel Kasper emmanuel.kas...@openforce.com wrote: Package: amanda-client Version: 1:3.3.0-1~bpo60+1 Severity: serious Justification: fails to build from source A failure to build

Bug#607368: Call for Vote: Kernel ABI numbering policy

#part sign=pgpmime On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:04:55 -0800, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote: I call for a vote on the kernel ABI numbering policy bug with the following ballot: A) The technical committee declines to override the kernel maintenance team's ABI numbering policy. B) Further

Bug#660594: sudo: prompting due to modified conffiles which where not modified by the user

#part sign=pgpmime severity 660594 wishlist thanks On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:37:55 +0100, Andreas Beckmann deb...@abeckmann.de wrote: during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed the piuparts upgrade test because dpkg detected a conffile as being modified and then prompted the user

Bug#658341: Conclusion: upload multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:16:34 -0700, Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com wrote: I therefore call for an immediate vote on the following ballot. With votes from 7 of 8 committee members, all ranking A as their first preference, the outcome of this ballot is no longer in doubt, and we have met the required

Bug#658341: Conclusion: upload multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:18:46 -0800, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: Do we have a past precedent for how we handle publicizing tech-ctte decisions? Not really. A note from the package maintainers calling for help testing would seem most appropriate to me, actually. Bdale

Bug#658341: Conclusion: upload multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:44:49 -0800, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com writes: On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:18:46 -0800, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: Do we have a past precedent for how we handle publicizing tech-ctte decisions? Not really. A note from

Bug#658341: Call for Vote: upload of multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:08:13 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli lea...@debian.org wrote: I hereby submit to your attention the dpkg multi-arch conflict. I believe the issue is well-known, so I describe it only briefly below; I also believe we've had sufficient discussion about this issue, and I

Bug#658341: Call for Vote: upload of multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:16:34 -0700, Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com wrote: I also believe we've had sufficient discussion about this issue, and I therefore call for an immediate vote on the following ballot. And my vote is ACB. Bdale pgpkaXSeffFJc.pgp Description: PGP signature

Bug#657985: sudo: 1.8 Format String Vulnerability

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:27:17 +0200, Henri Salo he...@nerv.fi wrote: A full-disclosure user reported issue in sudo. Please verify: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2012/Jan/590 I hope the version information is correct in this bug-report. Please contact me if you need testing and I can help!

Bug#648362: uninstallable on kfreebsd-amd64

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:27:40 +0100, Robert Millan r...@debian.org wrote: Package: gcpegg Severity: grave User: debian-...@lists.debian.org Usertags: kfreebsd Hi, This package is uninstallable on kfreebsd-amd64 because of its dependency on open package, which nowadays is a virtual

Bug#648362: uninstallable on kfreebsd-amd64

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:14:59 +0100, Robert Millan r...@debian.org wrote: 2011/11/10 Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com: Out of curiosity, how could this possibly lead you to believe that 'grave' is an appropriate severity for this bug report?  I would have thought 'minor' more appropriate

Bug#642276: Openrocket crashes on startup

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:33:22 -0500, John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote: I don't have time to work on it but it should be an easy fix. Thanks for letting me know! I keep forgetting to update the runtime deps, guess I'm just spoiled by how well that works with dh_shlibdeps for C apps, etc.

Bug#643923: as31: Example code has non-commercial clause

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 22:21:17 +0200, Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote: The file examples/paulmon1.asm has the following notice: Please distribute freely -- may not be sold, period. Restricting commercial distribution violates DFSG. Since it's by the same author as the overall

Bug#642716: gnuradio: FTBFS: gr_vmcircbuf_createfilemapping: createfilemapping is not available

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 20:24:46 +0200, Mònica Ramírez Arceda mon...@probeta.net wrote: During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on amd64. FYI. Work is now focused on trying to get gnuradio upstream 3.4 packaged. I do not expect to do any further work on the 3.2.2

Bug#642705: altos: FTBFS: altusmetrum.xsl:2483: element include: XInclude error : could not load release-notes-1.0.xsl, and no fallback was found

tag 642705 +pending thanks On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:47:29 +0200, Mònica Ramírez Arceda mon...@probeta.net wrote: warning: failed to load external entity release-notes-1.0.xsl Already found and fixed on 30 August in our git repo with commit e44f1ffb7104d70f5c9b9a90529ddbe1b75da074 which will

Bug#639178: tar: FTBFS(kfreebsd): 56: incremental dump when the parent directory is unreadable FAILED (listed03.at:25)

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:03:04 +0200 (CEST), Petr Salinger petr.salin...@seznam.cz wrote: just to make it clear. The tar works as expected, it just emits extra warning. Maybe a patch to this test that would allow it to succeed in the presence of the extra warning makes sense for now? I would

Bug#639520: FTBFS: event-model.xml not found, needed for altusmetrum.pdf

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 14:49:50 -0400, Aaron M. Ucko u...@debian.org wrote: Package: altos Version: 1.0.1 Severity: serious Justification: fails to build from source Automated builds with altos have run into errors when attempting to produce altusmetrum.pdf due to unresolved references to

Bug#639178: tar: FTBFS(kfreebsd): 56: incremental dump when the parent directory is unreadable FAILED (listed03.at:25)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:53:01 +0200, Christoph Egger christ...@debian.org wrote: 56: incremental dump when the parent directory is unreadable FAILED (listed03.at:25) Any idea why this test is now failing on kfreebsd but not on Linux? The source for this test is in tests/listed03.at, and

Bug#632986: hard-coded python version without dependency

Package: getmail4 Severity: serious Version: 4.20.2-1 The /usr/bin/getmail wrapper hard-codes /usr/bin/python2.5, but the package does not declare a dependency on a specific version of python. Since the wrapper has explicit code to check for a sufficiently recent version of python, I suggest

Bug#602148: still present?

Can you tell me whether this bug seems to be resolved in 3.2.0-1, please? Bdale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#603371: Please Reassign to Package tar

tags 603371 +upstream +sid thanks On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:59:30 -0600, Martin Gallant snowb...@goodbit.net wrote: The bug still exists in the latest version 1.25-2. It appears to be known by tar upstream that you can't use --one-file-system and --listed-incremental together, which is what amanda

  1   2   3   >