Processed: Re: Bug#880951: transition: armadillo
Processing control commands: > tags -1 confirmed Bug #880951 [release.debian.org] transition: armadillo Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 880951: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=880951 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#880951: transition: armadillo
Control: tags -1 confirmed On 06/11/17 00:37, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > Dear Release Team, > > Please help me effect a transision of armadillo to unstable. All > reverse dependencies should build fine, based on my tests. Please go ahead and upload armadillo to unstable. Cheers, Emilio
Bug#877168: transition: ldc
Hi! 2017-10-04 13:36 GMT+02:00 Matthias Klumpp: > 2017-10-04 9:39 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort : >> [...] > Thank you! > Both issues are reported upstream: > ppc64el: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/2356 > sambamba assert: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/2357 Just a quick heads up: There is a new version of LDC soon in unstable that will fix at least the Sambamba issue, and maybe (hopefully?) also the ppc64el issue. This will restart this transition though - unstable ABIs are a lot of fun... Cheers, Matthias -- I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/
Bug#880355: transition: libva
On 2017-11-04 11:55:24, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > On 2017-10-31 14:06:06, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > Control: tags -1 confirmed > > > > On 30/10/17 15:21, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > > Package: release.debian.org > > > Severity: normal > > > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > > > Usertags: transition > > > Control: forwarded -1 > > > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libva.html > > > Control: block -1 by 879064 > > > > > > libva 2.0 was released and it bumped its SONAME, so it needs a > > > transition. Note > > > that somme reverse dependencies need sourceful uploads coordinated with > > > the > > > start of the transition: libva-utils and intel-vaapi-driver. > > > > > > mesa (#879064) needs to be fixed. A rebuild will correctly rebuild > > > against libva > > > 2.0, but it has an hard-coded dependency on libva1 which could be avoided > > > by > > > using dh_libva from libva-dev. > > > > > > libyami currently fails to build (no bug, since I maintain that), but has > > > a fix > > > available upstream. I'll upload a fixed version together with libva. > > > > > > All other reverse dependencies build fine. > > > > mesa is fixed now. Please go ahead. > > Thanks. libva, libva-utils and intel-vaapi-driver uploaded. I'll handle > libyami > on Monday. I've also uploaded libyami and filed for the failed binNMUs of nageru and ring. Please also binNMU mesa and vdpau-video so that their libva-driver-abi-X.Y dependencies get updated to libva-driver-abi-1.0. Since the start of the transition, qtav also entered the archive and uses hardcoded library dependencies (#880884). Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Processed: nageru: FTBFS on armel
Processing control commands: > block 880355 by -1 Bug #880355 [release.debian.org] transition: libva 880355 was blocked by: 879064 880996 880355 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 880355: 880997 -- 880355: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=880355 880997: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=880997 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: ring: FTBFS on mips64el
Processing control commands: > block 880355 by -1 Bug #880355 [release.debian.org] transition: libva 880355 was blocked by: 879064 880355 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 880355: 880996 -- 880355: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=880355 880996: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=880996 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#871469: Status of llvm-toolchain-3.8?
On 30/10/2017 10:39, Stéphane Glondu wrote: Is there any plans to fix llvm-toolchain-3.8? I wish we could removed it but it is far from ready (we were blocked by the ocaml transition but I dropped the ocaml support to mitigate that) I will try to fix that in the next few days. Sorry about that I saw that you removed the OCaml bindings (libllvm-3.8-ocaml-dev) from llvm-toolchain-3.8, but there is still libllvm-ocaml-dev (from llvm-defaults) that depends on libllvm-3.8-ocaml-dev. I think you need to remove libllvm-ocaml-dev from llvm-defaults to disentangle LLVM and OCaml. llvm-toolchain-3.8 FTBFS on armel and armhf, so it cannot migrate to testing. This situation blocks ocaml. My attempts to find a solution to this were not very satisfactory... I think that changing llvm-defaults meta-packages to llvm > 3.8 (a version that does not FTBFS, so >= 4.0) can help. Cheers, -- Stéphane