Bug#1026700: reassign 1026652 to ruby-asciidoctor-pdf, affects 1026652, closing 1026652 ..., affects 1026700 ...
reassign 1026652 ruby-asciidoctor-pdf 2.3.4-2 affects 1026652 src:nickle close 1026652 2.3.4-3 reassign 1026700 ruby-asciidoctor-pdf 2.3.4-2 affects 1026700 src:snek close 1026700 2.3.4-3 thanks
Processed: reassign 1026652 to ruby-asciidoctor-pdf, affects 1026652, closing 1026652 ..., affects 1026700 ...
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 1026652 ruby-asciidoctor-pdf 2.3.4-2
Bug #1026652 {Done: Keith Packard } [src:nickle] nickle:
FTBFS: make[4]: *** [Makefile:490: nickle-tutorial.pdf] Error 1
Bug reassigned from package 'src:nickle' to 'ruby-asciidoctor-pdf'.
No longer marked as found in versions nickle/2.91.
No longer marked as fixed in versions ruby-asciidoctor-pdf/2.3.4-3.
Bug #1026652 {Done: Keith Packard } [ruby-asciidoctor-pdf]
nickle: FTBFS: make[4]: *** [Makefile:490: nickle-tutorial.pdf] Error 1
Marked as found in versions ruby-asciidoctor-pdf/2.3.4-2.
> affects 1026652 src:nickle
Bug #1026652 {Done: Keith Packard } [ruby-asciidoctor-pdf]
nickle: FTBFS: make[4]: *** [Makefile:490: nickle-tutorial.pdf] Error 1
Added indication that 1026652 affects src:nickle
> close 1026652 2.3.4-3
Bug #1026652 {Done: Keith Packard } [ruby-asciidoctor-pdf]
nickle: FTBFS: make[4]: *** [Makefile:490: nickle-tutorial.pdf] Error 1
Marked as fixed in versions ruby-asciidoctor-pdf/2.3.4-3.
Bug #1026652 {Done: Keith Packard } [ruby-asciidoctor-pdf]
nickle: FTBFS: make[4]: *** [Makefile:490: nickle-tutorial.pdf] Error 1
Bug 1026652 is already marked as done; not doing anything.
> reassign 1026700 ruby-asciidoctor-pdf 2.3.4-2
Bug #1026700 {Done: Keith Packard } [src:snek] snek: FTBFS:
make[4]: *** [Makefile:73: lesson-4-washing-machine.pdf] Error 1
Bug reassigned from package 'src:snek' to 'ruby-asciidoctor-pdf'.
No longer marked as found in versions snek/1.8-4.
No longer marked as fixed in versions ruby-asciidoctor-pdf/2.3.4-3.
Bug #1026700 {Done: Keith Packard } [ruby-asciidoctor-pdf]
snek: FTBFS: make[4]: *** [Makefile:73: lesson-4-washing-machine.pdf] Error 1
Marked as found in versions ruby-asciidoctor-pdf/2.3.4-2.
> affects 1026700 src:snek
Bug #1026700 {Done: Keith Packard } [ruby-asciidoctor-pdf]
snek: FTBFS: make[4]: *** [Makefile:73: lesson-4-washing-machine.pdf] Error 1
Added indication that 1026700 affects src:snek
> close 1026700 2.3.4-3
Bug #1026700 {Done: Keith Packard } [ruby-asciidoctor-pdf]
snek: FTBFS: make[4]: *** [Makefile:73: lesson-4-washing-machine.pdf] Error 1
Marked as fixed in versions ruby-asciidoctor-pdf/2.3.4-3.
Bug #1026700 {Done: Keith Packard } [ruby-asciidoctor-pdf]
snek: FTBFS: make[4]: *** [Makefile:73: lesson-4-washing-machine.pdf] Error 1
Bug 1026700 is already marked as done; not doing anything.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
1026652: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026652
1026700: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026700
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1026020: closing 1026020
close 1026020 0.12.0-2 thanks
Processed: closing 1026020
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> close 1026020 0.12.0-2
Bug #1026020 {Done: Sandro Tosi } [ormar] python3-starlette:
starlette.testclient requires module httpx
There is no source info for the package 'ormar' at version '0.12.0-2' with
architecture ''
Unable to make a source version for version '0.12.0-2'
Marked as fixed in versions 0.12.0-2.
Bug #1026020 {Done: Sandro Tosi } [ormar] python3-starlette:
starlette.testclient requires module httpx
Bug 1026020 is already marked as done; not doing anything.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
1026020: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026020
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: RC bug #1026497: Forwarded to proposed fix
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > # This fix was adopted in Fedora: > # > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-kafka/c/8c19be70ae51e7?branch=rawhide > forwarded 1026497 https://github.com/dpkp/kafka-python/pull/2318 Bug #1026497 [src:python-kafka] python-kafka: FTBFS: failed tests Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 'https://github.com/dpkp/kafka-python/pull/2318'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1026497: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026497 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1025757: marked as done (dyssol FTBFS with sundials 6.4.1)
Your message dated Thu, 29 Dec 2022 07:20:27 + with message-id and subject line Bug#1025757: fixed in dyssol 1.1.0+ds1-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #1025757, regarding dyssol FTBFS with sundials 6.4.1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1025757: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1025757 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Source: dyssol Version: 1.0.2+ds2-1 Severity: serious Tags: ftbfs https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=dyssol=1.0.2%2Bds2-1%2Bb1 ... /<>/EquationSolvers/DAESolver.cpp: In member function ‘bool CDAESolver::SetModel(CDAEModel*)’: /<>/EquationSolvers/DAESolver.cpp:56:30: error: too few arguments to function ‘void* IDACreate(SUNContext)’ 56 | m_pIDAmem = IDACreate(); | ~^~ In file included from /<>/EquationSolvers/DAESolver.cpp:4: /usr/include/ida/ida.h:107:23: note: declared here 107 | SUNDIALS_EXPORT void *IDACreate(SUNContext sunctx); | ^ /<>/EquationSolvers/DAESolver.cpp:71:38: error: too few arguments to function ‘_generic_N_Vector* N_VNew_Serial(sunindextype, SUNContext)’ 71 | m_vectorVars = N_VNew_Serial(nVarsCnt); | ~^~ In file included from /<>/EquationSolvers/DAESolver.cpp:7: /usr/include/nvector/nvector_serial.h:85:26: note: declared here 85 | SUNDIALS_EXPORT N_Vector N_VNew_Serial(sunindextype vec_length, SUNContext sunctx); | ^ /<>/EquationSolvers/DAESolver.cpp:72:38: error: too few arguments to function ‘_generic_N_Vector* N_VNew_Serial(sunindextype, SUNContext)’ 72 | m_vectorDers = N_VNew_Serial(nVarsCnt); | ~^~ /usr/include/nvector/nvector_serial.h:85:26: note: declared here 85 | SUNDIALS_EXPORT N_Vector N_VNew_Serial(sunindextype vec_length, SUNContext sunctx); | ^ /<>/EquationSolvers/DAESolver.cpp:73:38: error: too few arguments to function ‘_generic_N_Vector* N_VNew_Serial(sunindextype, SUNContext)’ 73 | m_vectorATols = N_VNew_Serial(nVarsCnt); | ~^~ /usr/include/nvector/nvector_serial.h:85:26: note: declared here 85 | SUNDIALS_EXPORT N_Vector N_VNew_Serial(sunindextype vec_length, SUNContext sunctx); | ^ /<>/EquationSolvers/DAESolver.cpp:74:38: error: too few arguments to function ‘_generic_N_Vector* N_VNew_Serial(sunindextype, SUNContext)’ 74 | m_vectorId= N_VNew_Serial(nVarsCnt); | ~^~ /usr/include/nvector/nvector_serial.h:85:26: note: declared here 85 | SUNDIALS_EXPORT N_Vector N_VNew_Serial(sunindextype vec_length, SUNContext sunctx); | ^ /<>/EquationSolvers/DAESolver.cpp:96:45: error: too few arguments to function ‘_generic_N_Vector* N_VNew_Serial(sunindextype, SUNContext)’ 96 | N_Vector vConstrVars = N_VNew_Serial(nVarsCnt); |~^~ /usr/include/nvector/nvector_serial.h:85:26: note: declared here 85 | SUNDIALS_EXPORT N_Vector N_VNew_Serial(sunindextype vec_length, SUNContext sunctx); | ^ /<>/EquationSolvers/DAESolver.cpp:129:29: error: too few arguments to function ‘_generic_SUNMatrix* SUNDenseMatrix(sunindextype, sunindextype, SUNContext)’ 129 | m_A = SUNDenseMatrix(nVarsCnt, nVarsCnt); | ~~^~~~ In file included from /usr/include/sunlinsol/sunlinsol_dense.h:36, from /<>/EquationSolvers/DAESolver.cpp:6: /usr/include/sunmatrix/sunmatrix_dense.h:79:27: note: declared here 79 | SUNDIALS_EXPORT SUNMatrix SUNDenseMatrix(sunindextype M, sunindextype N, SUNContext sunctx); | ^~ /<>/EquationSolvers/DAESolver.cpp:131:31: error: too few arguments to function ‘_generic_SUNLinearSolver* SUNLinSol_Dense(N_Vector, SUNMatrix, SUNContext)’ 131 | m_LS = SUNLinSol_Dense(m_vectorVars, m_A); |~~~^~~ /usr/include/sunlinsol/sunlinsol_dense.h:58:33: note: declared here 58 | SUNDIALS_EXPORT SUNLinearSolver SUNLinSol_Dense(N_Vector y, SUNMatrix A, SUNContext sunctx); | ^~~ /<>/EquationSolvers/DAESolver.cpp: In member function ‘bool
Processed: reassign 1026020 to ormar
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 1026020 ormar 0.12.0-1
Bug #1026020 {Done: Sandro Tosi } [python3-starlette]
python3-starlette: starlette.testclient requires module httpx
Bug reassigned from package 'python3-starlette' to 'ormar'.
No longer marked as found in versions starlette/0.23.1-1.
No longer marked as fixed in versions ormar/0.12.0-2.
Bug #1026020 {Done: Sandro Tosi } [ormar] python3-starlette:
starlette.testclient requires module httpx
There is no source info for the package 'ormar' at version '0.12.0-1' with
architecture ''
Unable to make a source version for version '0.12.0-1'
Marked as found in versions 0.12.0-1.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
1026020: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026020
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: src:cl-sql: fails to migrate to testing for too long: uploader built arch:all binaries
Processing control commands: > close -1 6.7.2-1 Bug #1027261 [src:cl-sql] src:cl-sql: fails to migrate to testing for too long: uploader built arch:all binaries Marked as fixed in versions cl-sql/6.7.2-1. Bug #1027261 [src:cl-sql] src:cl-sql: fails to migrate to testing for too long: uploader built arch:all binaries Marked Bug as done -- 1027261: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027261 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1027261: src:cl-sql: fails to migrate to testing for too long: uploader built arch:all binaries
Source: cl-sql Version: 6.7.1-3 Severity: serious Control: close -1 6.7.2-1 Tags: sid bookworm pending User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: out-of-sync Dear maintainer(s), The Release Team considers packages that are out-of-sync between testing and unstable for more than 60 days as having a Release Critical bug in testing [1]. Your package src:cl-sql has been trying to migrate for 61 days [2]. Hence, I am filing this bug. If a package is out of sync between unstable and testing for a longer period, this usually means that bugs in the package in testing cannot be fixed via unstable. Additionally, blocked packages can have impact on other packages, which makes preparing for the release more difficult. Finally, it often exposes issues with the package and/or its (reverse-)dependencies. We expect maintainers to fix issues that hamper the migration of their package in a timely manner. This bug will trigger auto-removal when appropriate. As with all new bugs, there will be at least 30 days before the package is auto-removed. I have immediately closed this bug with the version in unstable, so if that version or a later version migrates, this bug will no longer affect testing. I have also tagged this bug to only affect sid and bookworm, so it doesn't affect (old-)stable. Your package is only blocked because the arch:all binary package(s) aren't built on a buildd. Unfortunately the Debian infrastructure doesn't allow arch:all packages to be properly binNMU'ed. Hence, I will shortly do a no-changes source-only upload to DELAYED/15, closing this bug. Please let me know if I should delay or cancel that upload. Paul [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2020/02/msg5.html [2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=cl-sql OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1016963: Help with testing u-boot!
Hi. On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 03:21:05PM -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > > On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > >> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > >>> This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get > >>> tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and > >>> reporting the status: > >>> > >>> https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! That Ordoid N2 board that I had was damaged about year ago. I have not procured a replacement to it since then. So I cannot test u-boot on Odroid N2 in the foreseeable future. Reco
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for sheevaplug mx6cuboxi
Sadly, my sheevaplug was not revivable. I have a couple of OpenRD boxes and a couple of CUBox-i boxes I can test for you, as well as a RaspberryPi-4B and a couple of Orange-Pi boxes that can also be tested. I'll send results as I get to them. BTW, are there directions for installing and configuring the debian packages into firmware for these boxes? On the few I've looked at, the firmware doesn't seem to have kept up with the installed .deb packages for some reason. Thanks for all your hard work! Rick On Wed, Dec 28, 2022, at 4:33 PM, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get > tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and > reporting the status: > > https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status >> >> I have not received many test results for current or even remotely >> recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from >> migration to testing partly because of this. >> >> As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! >> >> If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing >> u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable >> (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental >> (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying >> to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... >> >> ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* >> packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. > > sheevaplug > mx6cuboxi > > live well, > vagrant > > Attachments: > * signature.asc
Bug#1016963: Help with testing u-boot!
Here's another Cubox-i. This one's running Bookworm. shows a surprising number of u-boot- packages installed, ( = exynos, imx, omap, sunxi) as well as plain "u-boot". All of them are version 2022.04+dfsg-2+b1. Rebooting while watching the serial console output says "U-Boot SPL 2016.05-rc2+dfsg0~20160423~1-1 (Apr 24 2016 - 04:24:21)" So the firmware does not correspond to what aptitude says. Should I try installing the "22.04" version in the firmware? If so, are there directions for doing that available somewhere? HTH Rick On Wed, Dec 28, 2022, at 3:21 PM, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. > > # arm64 > khadas-vim > khadas-vim2 > libretech-cc > nanopi-k2 > odroid-c2 > odroid-n2 > mvebu_espressobin-88f3720 > dragonboard410c > dragonboard820c > firefly-rk3399 > nanopc-t4-rk3399 > nanopi-neo4-rk3399 > pinebook-pro-rk3399 > puma-rk3399 > roc-pc-rk3399 > rock-pi-4-rk3399 > rock-pi-e-rk3328 > rock64-rk3328 > rockpro64-rk3399 > rpi_3 > rpi_4 > rpi_arm64 > a64-olinuxino > a64-olinuxino-emmc > nanopi_neo2 > nanopi_neo_plus2 > orangepi_one_plus > orangepi_zero_plus2 > pine64-lts > pine64_plus > pinebook > pinephone > pinetab > sopine_baseboard > teres_i > p2371-2180 > > # armel > dockstar > dreamplug > guruplug > sheevaplug > rpi > rpi_0_w > > # armhf > arndale > odroid > odroid-xu3 > colibri_imx6 > dh_imx6 > mx53loco > mx6cuboxi > mx6qsabrelite > nitrogen6q > novena > novena-rawsd > udoo > usbarmory > wandboard > am335x_boneblack > am335x_evm > am57xx_evm > dra7xx_evm > igep00x0 > nokia_rx51 > omap3_beagle > omap4_panda > firefly-rk3288 > rpi_2 > rpi_3_32b > rpi_4_32b > stm32mp157c-dk2 > A10-OLinuXino-Lime > A10s-OLinuXino-M > A20-OLinuXino-Lime > A20-OLinuXino-Lime2 > A20-OLinuXino-Lime2-eMMC > A20-OLinuXino_MICRO > A20-OLinuXino_MICRO-eMMC > A20-Olimex-SOM-EVB > Bananapi > Bananapi_M2_Ultra > Bananapro > CHIP > Cubieboard > Cubieboard2 > Cubieboard4 > Cubietruck > Cubietruck_plus > Lamobo_R1 > Linksprite_pcDuino > Linksprite_pcDuino3 > Mini-X > Sinovoip_BPI_M3 > bananapi_m2_berry > nanopi_neo > nanopi_neo_air > orangepi_plus > orangepi_zero > jetson-tk1 > > > Thanks! > > > live well, > vagrant > > Attachments: > * signature.asc
Bug#1016963: Help with testing u-boot!
A Cubox-i running Debian bullseye (11.6). According to It has "u-boot-tools" (version 2021.01+dfsg-5) installed, but none of the u-boot- packages installed. If I reboot it and watch the serial console, I see it showing "U-boot 2021.01-dfsg-5" so that version must have gotten into the firmware somehow without telling Linux about it... Other info that might be helpful that shows with the reboot is CPU: Freescale i.MX6Q rev 1.3 Board: MX6 Cubox-i HTH, Rick On Wed, Dec 28, 2022, at 3:21 PM, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. > > # arm64 > khadas-vim > khadas-vim2 > libretech-cc > nanopi-k2 > odroid-c2 > odroid-n2 > mvebu_espressobin-88f3720 > dragonboard410c > dragonboard820c > firefly-rk3399 > nanopc-t4-rk3399 > nanopi-neo4-rk3399 > pinebook-pro-rk3399 > puma-rk3399 > roc-pc-rk3399 > rock-pi-4-rk3399 > rock-pi-e-rk3328 > rock64-rk3328 > rockpro64-rk3399 > rpi_3 > rpi_4 > rpi_arm64 > a64-olinuxino > a64-olinuxino-emmc > nanopi_neo2 > nanopi_neo_plus2 > orangepi_one_plus > orangepi_zero_plus2 > pine64-lts > pine64_plus > pinebook > pinephone > pinetab > sopine_baseboard > teres_i > p2371-2180 > > # armel > dockstar > dreamplug > guruplug > sheevaplug > rpi > rpi_0_w > > # armhf > arndale > odroid > odroid-xu3 > colibri_imx6 > dh_imx6 > mx53loco > mx6cuboxi > mx6qsabrelite > nitrogen6q > novena > novena-rawsd > udoo > usbarmory > wandboard > am335x_boneblack > am335x_evm > am57xx_evm > dra7xx_evm > igep00x0 > nokia_rx51 > omap3_beagle > omap4_panda > firefly-rk3288 > rpi_2 > rpi_3_32b > rpi_4_32b > stm32mp157c-dk2 > A10-OLinuXino-Lime > A10s-OLinuXino-M > A20-OLinuXino-Lime > A20-OLinuXino-Lime2 > A20-OLinuXino-Lime2-eMMC > A20-OLinuXino_MICRO > A20-OLinuXino_MICRO-eMMC > A20-Olimex-SOM-EVB > Bananapi > Bananapi_M2_Ultra > Bananapro > CHIP > Cubieboard > Cubieboard2 > Cubieboard4 > Cubietruck > Cubietruck_plus > Lamobo_R1 > Linksprite_pcDuino > Linksprite_pcDuino3 > Mini-X > Sinovoip_BPI_M3 > bananapi_m2_berry > nanopi_neo > nanopi_neo_air > orangepi_plus > orangepi_zero > jetson-tk1 > > > Thanks! > > > live well, > vagrant > > Attachments: > * signature.asc
Bug#1016963: Help with testing u-boot!
Raspberry Pi 4B (8GB) running bullseye, but does not seem to have any version of u-boot installed. Weird? Running tells me that the following (among lots of others) versions are available. Should I install one of them and see what happens? Package u-boot-rpi: p 2021.01+dfsg-5 stable 500 Package u-boot-rpi:armhf: p 2021.01+dfsg-5 stable 500 HTH Rick
Processed: retitle 1026469 to metakernel: FTBFS: FAILED metakernel/magics/tests/test_parallel_magic.py::test_parallel_magic
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 1026469 metakernel: FTBFS: FAILED > metakernel/magics/tests/test_parallel_magic.py::test_parallel_magic Bug #1026469 [src:metakernel] metakernel: FTBFS: mkdir: cannot create directory ‘/<>/.pytest-cache’: File exists Changed Bug title to 'metakernel: FTBFS: FAILED metakernel/magics/tests/test_parallel_magic.py::test_parallel_magic' from 'metakernel: FTBFS: mkdir: cannot create directory ‘/<>/.pytest-cache’: File exists'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1026469: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026469 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1027186: Acknowledgement (Need to insist on policy query for tainted objects check)
Processing control commands: > notfound -1 dgit/10.2 Bug #1027186 [dgit] Need to insist on policy query for tainted objects check Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #1027186 to the same values previously set > fixed -1 dgit/10.2 Bug #1027186 [dgit] Need to insist on policy query for tainted objects check Marked as fixed in versions dgit/10.2. -- 1027186: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027186 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1027186: Acknowledgement (Need to insist on policy query for tainted objects check)
Control: notfound -1 dgit/10.2 Control: fixed -1 dgit/10.2 -- Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own. Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Processed: Re: Bug#1027186: Acknowledgement (Need to insist on policy query for tainted objects check)
Processing control commands: > severity -1 serious Bug #1027186 [dgit] Need to insist on policy query for tainted objects check Severity set to 'serious' from 'normal' > found -1 dgit/10.3 Bug #1027186 [dgit] Need to insist on policy query for tainted objects check The source dgit and version 10.3 do not appear to match any binary packages Marked as found in versions dgit/10.3. > block 944855 by -1 Bug #944855 [dgit] want early check for server-side tainting 944855 was not blocked by any bugs. 944855 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 944855: 1027186 -- 1027186: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027186 944855: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=944855 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for nanopi_neo
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. nanopi_neo live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for orangepi_zero
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. orangepi_zero live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for nanopi_neo_air
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. nanopi_neo_air live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for Linksprite_pcDuino3
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. Linksprite_pcDuino3 live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for Mini-X
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. Mini-X live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for Linksprite_pcDuino
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. Linksprite_pcDuino live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for Bananapi_M2_Ultra Sinovoip_BPI_M3
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. Bananapi_M2_Ultra Sinovoip_BPI_M3 live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for A20-OLinuXino_MICRO-eMMC
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. A20-OLinuXino_MICRO-eMMC live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for A20-OLinuXino_MICRO
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. A20-OLinuXino_MICRO live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for A20-OLinuXino-Lime2-eMMC
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. A20-OLinuXino-Lime2-eMMC live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for A20-OLinuXino-Lime2 A20-Olimex-SOM-EVB Bananapro Cubieboard2 Cubietruck
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. A20-OLinuXino-Lime2 A20-Olimex-SOM-EVB Bananapro Cubieboard2 Cubietruck live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for A10s-OLinuXino-M
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. A10s-OLinuXino-M live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for A10-OLinuXino-Lime A20-OLinuXino-Lime
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. A10-OLinuXino-Lime A20-OLinuXino-Lime live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for am335x_boneblack am335x_evm
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. am335x_boneblack am335x_evm live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for udoo
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. udoo live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for nitrogen6q sifive_unleashed
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. nitrogen6q sifive_unleashed I'm able to test sifive_unmatched myself, but more people testing the better. live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for mx6cuboxi
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. mx6cuboxi live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for mx6cuboxi
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. mx6cuboxi live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for mx53loco wandboard igep00x0 omap3_beagle omap4_panda Cubietruck
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. mx53loco wandboard igep00x0 omap3_beagle omap4_panda Cubietruck live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1027115: marked as done (gobgp: FTBFS: unknown error)
Your message dated Thu, 29 Dec 2022 00:34:43 + with message-id and subject line Bug#1027115: fixed in gobgp 3.9.0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #1027115, regarding gobgp: FTBFS: unknown error to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1027115: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027115 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Source: gobgp Version: 2.34.0-1 Severity: serious Tags: ftbfs Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past) X-Debbugs-Cc: sramac...@debian.org https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=gobgp=amd64=2.34.0-1%2Bb4=1672114096=0 /<>/obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/src/google.golang.org/protobuf/types/known/timestamppb (from $GOPATH) dh_auto_build: error: cd obj-x86_64-linux-gnu && go install -trimpath -v -p 4 github.com/osrg/gobgp/api github.com/osrg/gobgp/cmd/gobgp github.com/osrg/gobgp/cmd/gobgpd github.com/osrg/gobgp/internal/pkg/apiutil github.com/osrg/gobgp/internal/pkg/config github.com/osrg/gobgp/internal/pkg/table github.com/osrg/gobgp/internal/pkg/version github.com/osrg/gobgp/internal/pkg/zebra github.com/osrg/gobgp/pkg/config github.com/osrg/gobgp/pkg/packet/bgp github.com/osrg/gobgp/pkg/packet/bmp github.com/osrg/gobgp/pkg/packet/mrt github.com/osrg/gobgp/pkg/packet/rtr github.com/osrg/gobgp/pkg/server returned exit code 1 make: *** [debian/rules:8: binary-arch] Error 25 Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: gobgp Source-Version: 3.9.0-1 Done: Mathias Gibbens We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of gobgp, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 1027...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Mathias Gibbens (supplier of updated gobgp package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 23:45:51 + Source: gobgp Architecture: source Version: 3.9.0-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Go Packaging Team Changed-By: Mathias Gibbens Closes: 1026137 1027115 Changes: gobgp (3.9.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium . [ Mathias Gibbens ] * New upstream version (Closes: #1026137, #1027115) * d/control: - Update my email address - Bump Standards-Version (no changes needed) - Mark golang-github-osrg-gobgp-dev as Multi-Arch: foreign - Add Breaks for lxd (<< 5.0.1-3) * Refresh d/copyright . [ Shengjing Zhu ] * Update Depends for new version * Add patch to build with go-grpc 1.32 * Temporarily disabled pb.go regeneration Checksums-Sha1: 1887e8c266461487398e9130fd5ae2d73497273c 2813 gobgp_3.9.0-1.dsc d85db649eb8550682efbd87e4c15aca561c68dac 911576 gobgp_3.9.0.orig.tar.xz 6cf6cc64b70cd026abc74cb473ee7d940bbe8f41 5264 gobgp_3.9.0-1.debian.tar.xz 36c3fea61fd6a567324715a066114b380b28e820 9720 gobgp_3.9.0-1_amd64.buildinfo Checksums-Sha256: 64930a06a5f51debaacbd649e729dde92c27c78aa95e7b57760dd930f21d8013 2813 gobgp_3.9.0-1.dsc f58f746c85ccd2672249c79fa429bd31209efa5db46f5e7f8414564b80125059 911576 gobgp_3.9.0.orig.tar.xz 2edfbd22093a44f80098d00788d66758f297c8eaba015fa9863a7471ccae6143 5264 gobgp_3.9.0-1.debian.tar.xz c3b14eeb38307dc6345f96b57558a7ee53707cb7a8c89155c5bedd54c86b77ee 9720 gobgp_3.9.0-1_amd64.buildinfo Files: a85e1ee8b02e51f88272538fd34783b6 2813 net optional gobgp_3.9.0-1.dsc 22471f9d67032eee8e3d36aa72adb5c6 911576 net optional gobgp_3.9.0.orig.tar.xz 421513f1721fe95f406e0e90b69f02e4 5264 net optional gobgp_3.9.0-1.debian.tar.xz d5fe00073c4a5e8062911637e3df9bb4 9720 net optional gobgp_3.9.0-1_amd64.buildinfo -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQJGBAEBCgAwFiEE1Bp60H32xfynSJ8cKe7i1uz0QvkFAmOs26USHGdpYm1hdEBk ZWJpYW4ub3JnAAoJECnu4tbs9EL5dbwP/AsajTg1Hj6Wy9qIvhJWp8Mx0rjZtPq1 P81/rrZyicxcv63TaEsziY795n0emBeC/VRIc9g9J4lJ/e0kUTh1KKC1NHsALVUM X6PALqwvaV6uJCWB2GCFHuu0mpEHFBhP9Qos0SfYanGJdvhchDUwDojQOHwaCDED CCJS92SLckT++2kzakb4ibhVHBFwdA62XTEbV+GvxfeKalZaic9tHzeSBm6/nG5X hFnrUe3Z1vbbOcz03c2nLhOw+r3mac05dY2Tj4Yeido9z0h78w3RPJl3h+i1biXx pdLVT+0imHE9xaGlrv+bciljoZzFPBlOJdZQoZ2uFzC8R/GImJKMA1FJ37HE7nlh
Bug#1026137: marked as done (gobgp: switch B-D to golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-5-dev)
Your message dated Thu, 29 Dec 2022 00:34:43 + with message-id and subject line Bug#1026137: fixed in gobgp 3.9.0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #1026137, regarding gobgp: switch B-D to golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-5-dev to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1026137: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026137 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Source: gobgp Version: 3.1.0-1~exp1 Severity: serious gobgp/experimental has a B-D: golang-goprotobuf-dev (>= 1.5.2) which is no longer available but has been superseded by golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-5-dev. Andreas --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: gobgp Source-Version: 3.9.0-1 Done: Mathias Gibbens We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of gobgp, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 1026...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Mathias Gibbens (supplier of updated gobgp package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 23:45:51 + Source: gobgp Architecture: source Version: 3.9.0-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Go Packaging Team Changed-By: Mathias Gibbens Closes: 1026137 1027115 Changes: gobgp (3.9.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium . [ Mathias Gibbens ] * New upstream version (Closes: #1026137, #1027115) * d/control: - Update my email address - Bump Standards-Version (no changes needed) - Mark golang-github-osrg-gobgp-dev as Multi-Arch: foreign - Add Breaks for lxd (<< 5.0.1-3) * Refresh d/copyright . [ Shengjing Zhu ] * Update Depends for new version * Add patch to build with go-grpc 1.32 * Temporarily disabled pb.go regeneration Checksums-Sha1: 1887e8c266461487398e9130fd5ae2d73497273c 2813 gobgp_3.9.0-1.dsc d85db649eb8550682efbd87e4c15aca561c68dac 911576 gobgp_3.9.0.orig.tar.xz 6cf6cc64b70cd026abc74cb473ee7d940bbe8f41 5264 gobgp_3.9.0-1.debian.tar.xz 36c3fea61fd6a567324715a066114b380b28e820 9720 gobgp_3.9.0-1_amd64.buildinfo Checksums-Sha256: 64930a06a5f51debaacbd649e729dde92c27c78aa95e7b57760dd930f21d8013 2813 gobgp_3.9.0-1.dsc f58f746c85ccd2672249c79fa429bd31209efa5db46f5e7f8414564b80125059 911576 gobgp_3.9.0.orig.tar.xz 2edfbd22093a44f80098d00788d66758f297c8eaba015fa9863a7471ccae6143 5264 gobgp_3.9.0-1.debian.tar.xz c3b14eeb38307dc6345f96b57558a7ee53707cb7a8c89155c5bedd54c86b77ee 9720 gobgp_3.9.0-1_amd64.buildinfo Files: a85e1ee8b02e51f88272538fd34783b6 2813 net optional gobgp_3.9.0-1.dsc 22471f9d67032eee8e3d36aa72adb5c6 911576 net optional gobgp_3.9.0.orig.tar.xz 421513f1721fe95f406e0e90b69f02e4 5264 net optional gobgp_3.9.0-1.debian.tar.xz d5fe00073c4a5e8062911637e3df9bb4 9720 net optional gobgp_3.9.0-1_amd64.buildinfo -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQJGBAEBCgAwFiEE1Bp60H32xfynSJ8cKe7i1uz0QvkFAmOs26USHGdpYm1hdEBk ZWJpYW4ub3JnAAoJECnu4tbs9EL5dbwP/AsajTg1Hj6Wy9qIvhJWp8Mx0rjZtPq1 P81/rrZyicxcv63TaEsziY795n0emBeC/VRIc9g9J4lJ/e0kUTh1KKC1NHsALVUM X6PALqwvaV6uJCWB2GCFHuu0mpEHFBhP9Qos0SfYanGJdvhchDUwDojQOHwaCDED CCJS92SLckT++2kzakb4ibhVHBFwdA62XTEbV+GvxfeKalZaic9tHzeSBm6/nG5X hFnrUe3Z1vbbOcz03c2nLhOw+r3mac05dY2Tj4Yeido9z0h78w3RPJl3h+i1biXx pdLVT+0imHE9xaGlrv+bciljoZzFPBlOJdZQoZ2uFzC8R/GImJKMA1FJ37HE7nlh Q/QCcDgh1uq4KG5OlMvRxOOh9ErqRwBLxHwQFL1AEY9rxBxTFuAC0/OA/CiR4oLN v1X9xQvQkjc7U9iTuPDO9kJTgoStW5NMY+Q6W3GW2dDj3cmLjU6OhjLajnWoIQ0t vBh1JBDNx7WKQ0SSz5U5Jedt/TTgX3I8wL8/lS/0J8VZ+3ArA96iZeyysIK2QK8f WIeJpKDiFb9WejrUcvioNKhCKgJ0nrmrcOP2xjBbxNAXSEkiobleKQ7Y+ipFFlo3 ZflYZhwyHwDu5jVDQpohb3kpBMikkUJjt7ytYCHzyuItA42CXMIlgOtntNnGLokc 6oBlUdehvM7C =j7Rq -END PGP SIGNATURE End Message ---
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for dh_imx6
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. dh_imx6 live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for colibri_imx6
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. colibri_imx6 live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for odroid
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. odroid live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for rpi_0_w
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. rpi_0_w live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for sheevaplug mx6cuboxi
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. sheevaplug mx6cuboxi live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for guruplug sheevaplug
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. guruplug sheevaplug live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for dreamplug jetson-tk1 Bananapi Cubieboard2 Cubietruck
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. dreamplug jetson-tk1 Bananapi Cubieboard2 Cubietruck live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for teres_i
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. teres_i live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for sopine_baseboard
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. sopine_baseboard live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for orangepi_one_plus
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. orangepi_one_plus live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for pinephone
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. pinephone live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for pine64-lts
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. pine64-lts live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Help with testing u-boot!
On Thursday, 29 December 2022 00:21:05 CET Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > debian stable (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) > and experimental (2023.01-rc*) > > # arm64 > ... > rock64-rk3328 I don't recall ever having issues with u-boot on my Rock64's, so for me 2022.04 - 2022.10 surely work. I'll try the experimental version soon. I generate my own images for Rock64 and that uses 'dd ... seek=' of idbloader.img and u-boot.itb from the u-boot-rockchip package. I have been doing that since 2021-03, so it's very likely that I haven't seen an issue since then. HTH, Diederik signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for orangepi_one_plus
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. orangepi_one_plus live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for nanopi_neo2
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. nanopi_neo2 live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for a64-olinuxino-emmc
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. a64-olinuxino-emmc live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for a64-olinuxino
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. a64-olinuxino live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for rpi_4 rpi_4_32b
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. rpi_4 rpi_4_32b live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for rpi_4 bananapi_m2_berry rpi_4_32b
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. rpi_4 bananapi_m2_berry rpi_4_32b signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for rpi_3 rpi_3_32b
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. rpi_3 rpi_3_32b live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for mx6qsabrelite
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. mx6qsabrelite live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for pinephone pinetab stm32mp157c-dk2
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. pinephone pinetab stm32mp157c-dk2 live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for orangepi_zero_plus2
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. orangepi_zero_plus2 live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test with helping rpi_arm64
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. rpi_arm64 live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for rock-pi-4-rk3399
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. rock-pi-4-rk3399 live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: please test u-boot for roc-pc-rk3399 rock-pi-e-rk3328
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. roc-pc-rk3399 rock-pi-e-rk3328 live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1027119: marked as done (yara: FTBFS: FAIL: test-magic)
Your message dated Thu, 29 Dec 2022 00:16:10 +0100
with message-id <871qojnmpx@msgid.hilluzination.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#1027119: yara: FTBFS: FAIL: test-magic
has caused the Debian Bug report #1027119,
regarding yara: FTBFS: FAIL: test-magic
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
1027119: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027119
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: yara
Version: 4.2.3-2
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
X-Debbugs-Cc: sramac...@debian.org
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=yara=amd64=4.2.3-2=1672148217=0
FAIL: test-magic
failed to compile rule << import "magic" rule test { condition:
magic.type() contains "PE32+ executable" and ( magic.mime_type() ==
"application/x-dosexec" or magic.mime_type() ==
"application/vnd.microsoft.portable-executable" } >>: line 1: syntax error
FAIL test-magic (exit status: 1)
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
control: fixed -1 4.2.3-3--- End Message ---
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for nanopc-t4-rk3399 nanopi-neo4-rk3399 nanopi_neo_plus2
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. nanopc-t4-rk3399 nanopi-neo4-rk3399 nanopi_neo_plus2 live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1025659: libgl1-mesa-dri: mesa causes xorg segfault; regression against 22.2.0-1
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 14:53:02 +0100 Fabio Pedretti wrote: > Is this still an issue with 22.3.1-1? If that helps, I have one Intel laptop with Haswell GPU and it works fine with Mesa 22.3.1 (KDE Plasma). Shmerl.
Bug#1016963: Please test u-boot for dragonboard410c and dragonboard820c
On 2022-12-28, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and reporting the status: https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status > > I have not received many test results for current or even remotely > recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from > migration to testing partly because of this. > > As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! > > If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing > u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable > (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental > (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying > to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... > > ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* > packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. dragonboard410c dragonboard820c live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1016963: Help with testing u-boot!
On 2022-12-22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-08-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> On 2022-08-10, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> This bug is just to delay migration to testing while more platforms get >>> tested. If you have a relevent board, please consider testing and >>> reporting the status: >>> >>> https://wiki.debian.org/U-boot/Status I have not received many test results for current or even remotely recent u-boot platforms in Debian, and u-boot has been blocked from migration to testing partly because of this. As the bookworm freeze approaches, this is getting to be... worrysome! If you have access to any of these boards, please consider testing u-boot versions as packaged in debian for versions from debian stable (2021.01*), testing (2022.04*), unstable (2022.10*) and experimental (2023.01-rc*) and updating the wiki page if successful and/or replying to 1016...@bugs.debian.org with a positive confirmation... ...and if not successful, filing bugs against the relevent u-boot-* packages and marking them as blocking 1016963. # arm64 khadas-vim khadas-vim2 libretech-cc nanopi-k2 odroid-c2 odroid-n2 mvebu_espressobin-88f3720 dragonboard410c dragonboard820c firefly-rk3399 nanopc-t4-rk3399 nanopi-neo4-rk3399 pinebook-pro-rk3399 puma-rk3399 roc-pc-rk3399 rock-pi-4-rk3399 rock-pi-e-rk3328 rock64-rk3328 rockpro64-rk3399 rpi_3 rpi_4 rpi_arm64 a64-olinuxino a64-olinuxino-emmc nanopi_neo2 nanopi_neo_plus2 orangepi_one_plus orangepi_zero_plus2 pine64-lts pine64_plus pinebook pinephone pinetab sopine_baseboard teres_i p2371-2180 # armel dockstar dreamplug guruplug sheevaplug rpi rpi_0_w # armhf arndale odroid odroid-xu3 colibri_imx6 dh_imx6 mx53loco mx6cuboxi mx6qsabrelite nitrogen6q novena novena-rawsd udoo usbarmory wandboard am335x_boneblack am335x_evm am57xx_evm dra7xx_evm igep00x0 nokia_rx51 omap3_beagle omap4_panda firefly-rk3288 rpi_2 rpi_3_32b rpi_4_32b stm32mp157c-dk2 A10-OLinuXino-Lime A10s-OLinuXino-M A20-OLinuXino-Lime A20-OLinuXino-Lime2 A20-OLinuXino-Lime2-eMMC A20-OLinuXino_MICRO A20-OLinuXino_MICRO-eMMC A20-Olimex-SOM-EVB Bananapi Bananapi_M2_Ultra Bananapro CHIP Cubieboard Cubieboard2 Cubieboard4 Cubietruck Cubietruck_plus Lamobo_R1 Linksprite_pcDuino Linksprite_pcDuino3 Mini-X Sinovoip_BPI_M3 bananapi_m2_berry nanopi_neo nanopi_neo_air orangepi_plus orangepi_zero jetson-tk1 Thanks! live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1026705: python-pecan: FTBFS: E AttributeError: 'code' object has no attribute 'co_endlinetable'
Control: reassign 1026705 src:python-kajiki 0.9.1-1
Control: affects 1026705 src:python-pecan
* Lucas Nussbaum [2022-12-20 18:42]:
=== FAILURES ===
___ TestEngines.test_kajiki
self =
@unittest.skipIf('kajiki' not in builtin_renderers, 'Kajiki not installed')
def test_kajiki(self):
class RootController(object):
@expose('kajiki:kajiki.html')
def index(self, name='Jonathan'):
return dict(name=name)
app = TestApp(
Pecan(RootController(), template_path=self.template_path)
)
> r = app.get('/')
pecan/tests/test_base.py:1859:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/webtest/app.py:324: in get
return self.do_request(req, status=status,
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/webtest/app.py:620: in do_request
res = req.get_response(app, catch_exc_info=True)
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/webob/request.py:1309: in send
status, headers, app_iter, exc_info = self.call_application(
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/webob/request.py:1278: in call_application
app_iter = application(self.environ, start_response)
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/webtest/lint.py:196: in lint_app
iterator = application(environ, start_response_wrapper)
pecan/core.py:852: in __call__
return super(Pecan, self).__call__(environ, start_response)
pecan/core.py:693: in __call__
self.invoke_controller(controller, args, kwargs, state)
pecan/core.py:614: in invoke_controller
result = self.render(template, result)
pecan/core.py:425: in render
return renderer.render(template, namespace)
pecan/templating.py:131: in render
Template = self.loader.import_(template_path)
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/kajiki/loader.py:83: in import_
return super().import_(name, *args, **kwargs)
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/kajiki/loader.py:17: in import_
mod = self._load(name, *args, **kwargs)
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/kajiki/loader.py:113: in _load
return self.extension_map[ext](
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/kajiki/loader.py:66: in
html=lambda *a, **kw: XMLTemplate(mode="html", *a, **kw),
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/kajiki/xml_template.py:62: in XMLTemplate
t = template.from_ir(ir_, base_globals=base_globals)
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/kajiki/template.py:336: in from_ir
tpl.annotate_lnotab(py_linenos)
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/kajiki/template.py:267: in annotate_lnotab
meth.annotate_lnotab(cls.filename, py_to_tpl, dict(py_to_tpl))
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/kajiki/template.py:397: in annotate_lnotab
new_code = patch_code_file_lines(code, filename, new_firstlineno,
new_lnotab)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
code = ", line 2>
filename = '/<>/pecan/tests/templates/kajiki.html'
firstlineno = 0
lnotab = b'\x00\x00\x06\x01\x08\x03B\x00L\x00B\x00\x08\x04B\x00L\x00B\x00'
def patch_code_file_lines(code, filename, firstlineno, lnotab):
code_args = (
code.co_argcount,
code.co_posonlyargcount if version_info >= (3, 8) else "REMOVE",
code.co_kwonlyargcount,
code.co_nlocals,
code.co_stacksize,
code.co_flags,
code.co_code,
code.co_consts,
code.co_names,
code.co_varnames,
filename,
code.co_name,
code.co_qualname if version_info >= (3, 11) else "REMOVE",
firstlineno,
lnotab,
> code.co_endlinetable if version_info >= (3, 11) else "REMOVE",
code.co_columntable if version_info >= (3, 11) else "REMOVE",
code.co_exceptiontable if version_info >= (3, 11) else "REMOVE",
code.co_freevars,
code.co_cellvars,
)
E AttributeError: 'code' object has no attribute 'co_endlinetable'
This bug comes from python3-kajiki and is fixed in the latest
upstream release 0.9.2
Cheers
Timo
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ╭╮
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ │ Timo Röhling │
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ │ 9B03 EBB9 8300 DF97 C2B1 23BF CC8C 6BDD 1403 F4CA │
⠈⠳⣄ ╰╯
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Processed: Re: Bug#1026705: python-pecan: FTBFS: E AttributeError: 'code' object has no attribute 'co_endlinetable'
Processing control commands: > reassign 1026705 src:python-kajiki 0.9.1-1 Bug #1026705 [src:python-pecan] python-pecan: FTBFS: E AttributeError: 'code' object has no attribute 'co_endlinetable' Bug reassigned from package 'src:python-pecan' to 'src:python-kajiki'. No longer marked as found in versions python-pecan/1.4.1-1. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1026705 to the same values previously set Bug #1026705 [src:python-kajiki] python-pecan: FTBFS: E AttributeError: 'code' object has no attribute 'co_endlinetable' Marked as found in versions python-kajiki/0.9.1-1. > affects 1026705 src:python-pecan Bug #1026705 [src:python-kajiki] python-pecan: FTBFS: E AttributeError: 'code' object has no attribute 'co_endlinetable' Added indication that 1026705 affects src:python-pecan -- 1026705: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026705 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1026523: mir: FTBFS: make[5]: *** [CMakeFiles/ptest.dir/build.make:73: CMakeFiles/ptest] Error 1
Processing control commands:
> close -1
Bug #1026523 [src:mir] mir: FTBFS: make[5]: ***
[CMakeFiles/ptest.dir/build.make:73: CMakeFiles/ptest] Error 1
Marked Bug as done
> fixed -1 1.8.2+dfsg-5
Bug #1026523 {Done: Mike Gabriel } [src:mir]
mir: FTBFS: make[5]: *** [CMakeFiles/ptest.dir/build.make:73: CMakeFiles/ptest]
Error 1
Marked as fixed in versions mir/1.8.2+dfsg-5.
--
1026523: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026523
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1025063: marked as done (gnomekiss FTBFS: Makefile:262: *** missing separator. Stop.)
Your message dated Thu, 29 Dec 2022 00:29:02 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#1025063: gnomekiss FTBFS: Makefile:262: *** missing separator. Stop. has caused the Debian Bug report #1025063, regarding gnomekiss FTBFS: Makefile:262: *** missing separator. Stop. to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1025063: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1025063 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Source: gnomekiss Version: 2.0-6.1 Severity: serious Tags: ftbfs gnomekiss fails to build from source in unstable. A build now ends as follows: |dh_auto_build | make -j8 | make[1]: Entering directory '/<>' | Makefile:262: *** missing separator. Stop. | make[1]: Leaving directory '/<>' | dh_auto_build: error: make -j8 returned exit code 2 | make: *** [debian/rules:15: build] Error 25 | dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build subprocess returned exit status 2 Helmut --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 07:19:32AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Source: gnomekiss > Version: 2.0-6.1 > Severity: serious > Tags: ftbfs > > gnomekiss fails to build from source in unstable. A build now ends as > follows: > > |dh_auto_build > | make -j8 > | make[1]: Entering directory '/<>' > | Makefile:262: *** missing separator. Stop. > | make[1]: Leaving directory '/<>' > | dh_auto_build: error: make -j8 returned exit code 2 > | make: *** [debian/rules:15: build] Error 25 > | dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build subprocess returned exit > status 2 Whatever caused this seems to be fixed now: https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/history/gnomekiss.html > Helmut cu Adrian--- End Message ---
Bug#1026675: marked as done (jabref: FTBFS: make: *** [debian/rules:6: binary] Error 25)
Your message dated Wed, 28 Dec 2022 22:20:25 + with message-id and subject line Bug#1026675: fixed in jabref 3.8.2+ds-17 has caused the Debian Bug report #1026675, regarding jabref: FTBFS: make: *** [debian/rules:6: binary] Error 25 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1026675: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026675 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Source: jabref Version: 3.8.2+ds-16 Severity: serious Justification: FTBFS Tags: bookworm sid ftbfs User: lu...@debian.org Usertags: ftbfs-20221220 ftbfs-bookworm Hi, During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on amd64. Relevant part (hopefully): > debian/rules binary > dh binary --buildsystem=gradle >dh_update_autotools_config -O--buildsystem=gradle >dh_autoreconf -O--buildsystem=gradle >dh_auto_configure -O--buildsystem=gradle >dh_auto_build -O--buildsystem=gradle > mkdir -p .gradle/init.d > cp /usr/share/gradle-debian-helper/init.gradle .gradle/init.d/ > gradle --info --console plain --offline --stacktrace --no-daemon > --refresh-dependencies --gradle-user-home .gradle -Duser.home=. > -Duser.name=debian -Ddebian.package=jabref -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 --parallel > --max-workers=8 jar > OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM warning: Ignoring option --illegal-access=permit; > support was removed in 17.0 > Initialized native services in: /<>/.gradle/native > To honour the JVM settings for this build a new JVM will be forked. Please > consider using the daemon: > https://docs.gradle.org/4.4.1/userguide/gradle_daemon.html. > Starting process 'Gradle build daemon'. Working directory: > /<>/.gradle/daemon/4.4.1 Command: > /usr/lib/jvm/java-17-openjdk-amd64/bin/java > -Xbootclasspath/a:/usr/share/java/gradle-helper-hook.jar:/usr/share/java/maven-repo-helper.jar > --add-opens java.base/java.lang=ALL-UNNAMED -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 > -Duser.country -Duser.language=en -Duser.variant -cp > /usr/share/gradle/lib/gradle-launcher-4.4.1.jar > org.gradle.launcher.daemon.bootstrap.GradleDaemon 4.4.1 > Successfully started process 'Gradle build daemon' > An attempt to start the daemon took 0.91 secs. > The client will now receive all logging from the daemon (pid: 1123889). The > daemon log file: /<>/.gradle/daemon/4.4.1/daemon-1123889.out.log > Daemon will be stopped at the end of the build stopping after processing > Closing daemon's stdin at end of input. > The daemon will no longer process any standard input. > Using 8 worker leases. > Creating new cache for fileHashes, path > /<>/.gradle/caches/4.4.1/fileHashes/fileHashes.bin, access > org.gradle.cache.internal.DefaultCacheAccess@2330d380 > Creating new cache for resourceHashesCache, path > /<>/.gradle/caches/4.4.1/fileHashes/resourceHashesCache.bin, > access org.gradle.cache.internal.DefaultCacheAccess@2330d380 > Creating new cache for fileHashes, path > /<>/.gradle/4.4.1/fileHashes/fileHashes.bin, access > org.gradle.cache.internal.DefaultCacheAccess@688dee70 > Starting Build > Compiling initialization script '/<>/.gradle/init.d/init.gradle' > using SubsetScriptTransformer. > Creating new cache for metadata-1.1/results, path > /<>/.gradle/caches/transforms-1/metadata-1.1/results.bin, access > org.gradle.cache.internal.DefaultCacheAccess@19a51d7b > Compiling initialization script '/<>/.gradle/init.d/init.gradle' > using BuildScriptTransformer. > Compiling settings file '/<>/settings.gradle' using > SubsetScriptTransformer. > Compiling settings file '/<>/settings.gradle' using > BuildScriptTransformer. > Settings evaluated using settings file '/<>/settings.gradle'. > Projects loaded. Root project using build file > '/<>/build.gradle'. > Included projects: [root project 'JabRef'] > Keep-alive timer started > Adding Debian repository to project 'JabRef' > Parallel execution is an incubating feature. > Evaluating root project 'JabRef' using build file > '/<>/build.gradle'. > Compiling build file '/<>/build.gradle' using > SubsetScriptTransformer. > Compiling build file '/<>/build.gradle' using > BuildScriptTransformer. > Compiling script '/<>/xjc.gradle' using SubsetScriptTransformer. > Compiling script '/<>/xjc.gradle' using BuildScriptTransformer. > Adding Maven pom generation to project 'JabRef' > Linking the generated javadoc to the system JDK API documentation > All projects evaluated. > Selected primary task 'jar' from project : > Creating new cache for annotation-processors, path > /<>/.gradle/4.4.1/fileContent/annotation-processors.bin, access >
Bug#831835: We are looking to buy anonymized clickstream data.
Wow, for once an email from Bugs.Debian mailing list was sorted to the correct folder! > We will assist and supply the code to run on your side. Why not just send off a message to the Konqueror Development lists to pull a Google on that browser, but, also nail Desktop/device integration? Kind Regards, Adam B. Dodson From: aalber...@adspy.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 4:14 PM To: 831...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#831835: We are looking to buy anonymized clickstream data. Hello, We are looking to buy anonymized clickstream data from one of the social networking websites. We are interested in specific AJAX requests and HTML. All data will be pre-processed on your side to exclude personal information. We will assist and supply the code to run on your side. We are using this data for market research. Please let us know if you are interested. Kind regards, Anton Alberico AdSpy CIO
Bug#1026675: marked as pending in jabref
Control: tag -1 pending Hello, Bug #1026675 in jabref reported by you has been fixed in the Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit message below and you can check the diff of the fix at: https://salsa.debian.org/java-team/jabref/-/commit/60c9f47d74f2404009cda98801c24d858333abe5 debian/maven.rules: update antlr* rules after the antlr3 3.5.2 -> 3.5.3 update. Thanks: Lucas Nussbaum for the bug report. Closes: #1026675 (this message was generated automatically) -- Greetings https://bugs.debian.org/1026675
Processed: Bug#1026675 marked as pending in jabref
Processing control commands: > tag -1 pending Bug #1026675 [src:jabref] jabref: FTBFS: make: *** [debian/rules:6: binary] Error 25 Added tag(s) pending. -- 1026675: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026675 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1012016: libapache-poi-java breaks octave-io autopkgtest: assert (size (d) == [1001, 2]) failed
Processing control commands: > retitle -1 libapache-poi-java needs updates for newer xmlbeans Bug #1012016 [libapache-poi-java] libapache-poi-java breaks octave-io autopkgtest: assert (size (d) == [1001, 2]) failed Changed Bug title to 'libapache-poi-java needs updates for newer xmlbeans' from 'libapache-poi-java breaks octave-io autopkgtest: assert (size (d) == [1001, 2]) failed'. -- 1012016: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1012016 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1012016: libapache-poi-java breaks octave-io autopkgtest: assert (size (d) == [1001, 2]) failed
Control: retitle -1 libapache-poi-java needs updates for newer xmlbeans On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 09:54:32 +0200 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien?= Villemot wrote: octave-io’s upstream thinks that the problem comes from an incorrect combination of versions between libapache-poi-java and xmlbeans. That seems confirmed by the minimal test case that I attached to my previous email (which used to work but no longer does, without any indication that the API used therein is deprecated). So, let's give this bug a (hopefully) better title such that it's potentially a bit clearer during RC bug triaging for bookworm. Would the new upstream version solve the issue? Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1011689: libspring-java: FTBFS: XmlBeansMarshaller.java:33: error: cannot find symbol
Hi, On Thu, 26 May 2022 08:40:07 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Source: libspring-java Version: 4.3.30-1 During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on amd64. This seems related to the new upstream version of xmlbeans earlier this year. It seems to me that also libspring-java has a new upstream version. Did somebody already check if that can fix the FTBFS? bookworm is nearly freezing. Having this bug fixed would be appreciated. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1010608: openldap: Flaky test test063-delta-multiprovider
Hi Ryan, On Fri, 6 May 2022 13:04:54 -0700 Ryan Tandy wrote: However I'm not comfortable proposing changes to the script if I can't validate them. Then not running the script at all is an improvement over the current situation. Flaky tests are bad. Until a better solution is found, how about skipping the test? Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1026760: marked as done (libhttp-daemon-ssl-perl: FTBFS: dh_auto_test: error: make -j8 test TEST_VERBOSE=1 returned exit code 2)
Your message dated Wed, 28 Dec 2022 21:22:21 + with message-id and subject line Bug#1026760: fixed in libhttp-daemon-ssl-perl 1.05-01-4 has caused the Debian Bug report #1026760, regarding libhttp-daemon-ssl-perl: FTBFS: dh_auto_test: error: make -j8 test TEST_VERBOSE=1 returned exit code 2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1026760: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026760 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Source: libhttp-daemon-ssl-perl Version: 1.05-01-3 Severity: serious Justification: FTBFS Tags: bookworm sid ftbfs User: lu...@debian.org Usertags: ftbfs-20221220 ftbfs-bookworm Hi, During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on amd64. Relevant part (hopefully): > make[2]: Entering directory '/<>' > PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 "/usr/bin/perl" "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-MTest::Harness" > "-e" "undef *Test::Harness::Switches; test_harness(1, 'blib/lib', > 'blib/arch')" t/*.t > t/loadmodule.t .. > 1..3 > ok 1 > ok 2 > ok 3 > ok > t/pod.t . skipped: Test::Pod 1.00 required for testing POD > Can't call method "get_request" on an undefined value at t/testmodule.t line > 130. > t/testmodule.t .. > 1..14 > ok #authority certificate generated 1 > ok #server certificate generated 2 > ok #authority certificate saved 3 > ok #server certificate saved 4 > ok #server key saved 5 > ok #server init port=37009 6 > ok #server fileno 7 > ok #server url test 8 > ok #bad request handled 9 > ok #client bad connection test 7 > not ok #client failure > not ok 9 # valid request did not return a socket > Dubious, test returned 255 (wstat 65280, 0xff00) > Failed 4/14 subtests > t/testpost.t > 1..20 > ok - made test server > ok - server init port=42647 > ok - server fileno > ok - accepted first post > ok - got request object > ok - method is POST > ok - content matches > ok - posted small request > ok - accepted second 66k post > ok - got request object > ok - method is POST > ok - posted 66k request > ok - accepted third 67k post > ok - got request object > ok - method is POST > ok - posted 67k request > ok - accepted third 500k post > ok - got request object > ok - method is POST > ok - posted 500k request > ok > > Test Summary Report > --- > t/testmodule.t (Wstat: 65280 (exited 255) Tests: 12 Failed: 2) > Failed tests: 9, 11 > Non-zero exit status: 255 > Parse errors: Tests out of sequence. Found (9) but expected (12) > Bad plan. You planned 14 tests but ran 12. > Files=4, Tests=35, 3 wallclock secs ( 0.04 usr 0.00 sys + 2.47 cusr 0.14 > csys = 2.65 CPU) > Result: FAIL > Failed 1/4 test programs. 2/35 subtests failed. > make[2]: *** [Makefile:830: test_dynamic] Error 255 > make[2]: Leaving directory '/<>' > dh_auto_test: error: make -j8 test TEST_VERBOSE=1 returned exit code 2 The full build log is available from: http://qa-logs.debian.net/2022/12/20/libhttp-daemon-ssl-perl_1.05-01-3_unstable.log All bugs filed during this archive rebuild are listed at: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-20221220;users=lu...@debian.org or: https://udd.debian.org/bugs/?release=na=ign=7=7=only=ftbfs-20221220=lu...@debian.org=1=1=1=1#results A list of current common problems and possible solutions is available at http://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/FTBFS . You're welcome to contribute! If you reassign this bug to another package, please mark it as 'affects'-ing this package. See https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#affects If you fail to reproduce this, please provide a build log and diff it with mine so that we can identify if something relevant changed in the meantime. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: libhttp-daemon-ssl-perl Source-Version: 1.05-01-4 Done: gregor herrmann We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of libhttp-daemon-ssl-perl, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 1026...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. gregor herrmann (supplier of updated libhttp-daemon-ssl-perl package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED
Processed: Re: ruby-turbolinks-source: FTBFS: Failed to load /dev/null because it doesn't contain valid YAML hash
Processing control commands: > tags -1 patch pending Bug #1005628 [src:ruby-turbolinks-source] ruby-turbolinks-source: FTBFS: installing symlink lib/assets/javascripts/turbolinks.js pointing to parent path /usr/share/javascript/turbolinks/turbolinks.js ... is not allowed Added tag(s) patch and pending. -- 1005628: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1005628 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1005628: ruby-turbolinks-source: FTBFS: Failed to load /dev/null because it doesn't contain valid YAML hash
Control: tags -1 patch pending On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 09:00:06 +0100 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on amd64. I have uploaded a workaround to DELAYED/5. The upload is available at https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-turbolinks-source/-/merge_requests/1 Please let me know if I should delay further or cancel. I don't think this is the final solution, somebody more intimate with ruby and its build system can probably find a nicer solution, but this should get this RC bug out of the way for bookworm. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Processed: u-boot-amlogic: broken non-EFI boot on odroid-c2
Processing control commands: > block 1016963 by -1 Bug #1016963 [src:u-boot] u-boot: delay migration to testing to test more platforms 1016963 was not blocked by any bugs. 1016963 was blocking: 1021559 Added blocking bug(s) of 1016963: 1027176 -- 1016963: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1016963 1027176: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027176 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: found 1027166 in 247.3-7+deb11u1, found 1027166 in 220-4
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > found 1027166 247.3-7+deb11u1 Bug #1027166 [systemd] rc.local should NOT depend on network-online or anything else Marked as found in versions systemd/247.3-7+deb11u1. > found 1027166 220-4 Bug #1027166 [systemd] rc.local should NOT depend on network-online or anything else Marked as found in versions systemd/220-4. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1027166: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027166 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1027063: marked as done (python3-ormar uninstallable with current sqlalchemy in unstable)
Your message dated Wed, 28 Dec 2022 20:41:30 + with message-id and subject line Bug#1027063: fixed in ormar 0.12.0-3 has caused the Debian Bug report #1027063, regarding python3-ormar uninstallable with current sqlalchemy in unstable to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1027063: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027063 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: python3-ormar Version: 0.12.0-1 Severity: serious X-Debbugs-Cc: edw...@4angle.com Hi, The pyproject.toml of ormar declares a strictly less than dep for sqlalchemy <1.4.42 but the current sqlalchemy version in unstable is 1.4.45, and hence it is uninstallable at the moment. -- System Information: Debian Release: bookworm/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 6.0.0-6-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU threads; PREEMPT) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages python3-ormar depends on: ii python3 3.10.6-1 pn python3-databases ii python3-importlib-metadata 4.12.0-1 pn python3-pydantic pn python3-sqlalchemy python3-ormar recommends no packages. python3-ormar suggests no packages. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: ormar Source-Version: 0.12.0-3 Done: Edward Betts We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of ormar, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 1027...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Edward Betts (supplier of updated ormar package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 14:40:50 + Source: ormar Architecture: source Version: 0.12.0-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Python Team Changed-By: Edward Betts Closes: 1027063 Changes: ormar (0.12.0-3) unstable; urgency=medium . * Patch pyproject.toml to allow SQLAlchemy newer than 1.4.42. (Closes: #1027063) * debian/tests/control: Add Depends for python3-httpx. This is a new dependency of python3-starlette, but it is only used for the starlette test client, so has not been added as a dependency of that package. Checksums-Sha1: a0bda57f4c457051c6921374f0447d1a9504a5c6 2700 ormar_0.12.0-3.dsc 0c8c65fa0677baf7f6b58dd1ae5a52e7051eafbc 4076 ormar_0.12.0-3.debian.tar.xz 0ceb0a6f2f237b27e53aac73af3b24fb078948d2 9226 ormar_0.12.0-3_source.buildinfo Checksums-Sha256: 270e9ef9c531750076f8fc4cc327fdaf44d499c1076bfa5c8af4339581a7fcf9 2700 ormar_0.12.0-3.dsc 03b4e5e19ab2928890ffd23b3c08bd65c9bfc2d6d755ec52927c411218483c0e 4076 ormar_0.12.0-3.debian.tar.xz 7e2ef45dd21dae94565efc342586e5c8d33b08397503a3c5eb728cfef87086f8 9226 ormar_0.12.0-3_source.buildinfo Files: 3c3657b2afb792e96e502aad71b62d66 2700 python optional ormar_0.12.0-3.dsc 86e795ea7c5d6248e4330e2ccacd 4076 python optional ormar_0.12.0-3.debian.tar.xz 1c2ea9995ea621889ee87a417fb06958 9226 python optional ormar_0.12.0-3_source.buildinfo -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE+4rPp4xyYInDitAmlgWhCYxjuSoFAmOsnbgACgkQlgWhCYxj uSoDzA//fU5+ndmeTGhZeXLwbccabC3vXCCgMrJHIF+z2FZJFKmU4w2k1htlU9mj l9aSvDrVPGxXHnv4qu0o0CfFHTqkfoG9jExwcR93cCYkyM8TVCkQC6/eOjzjpjdb b2g3Ethhl/XY9pzucgq4WO6kFea2wo/9wHBlwY0lsr2CPUcN8phDpZv0zRJsbByF AL6B53oiRnk+JA/414GbAdUQ3m9qdY5fZ3y7zBCTGmzZXr5e06280ffgcSPmkycT a1AvJJAKD5HOzwN6IH5Vb2POrCNtNBoduV3kxZp9EJPkIfcqO80C71o7U/b6Pa5w /B45gPOlJ6PTqWDPspXygdCnr8I6hK3oG+kdaW7IeEgRPK0/+LH6VtUNErlS830G 00CY4yVzaqWbd5RP1jYrYamLSTdNa7eNPowpJImHCKo43vFJC0nLjsbLtzy39uoh gkUOftkTwc43AJet0hG/Rw+zz6FF8Jx1UnBjulpXuFTdjVCN3jDIT1k5nPpctsso Z1/l2apn9d36F3mLcsT2cXkbTag5Eqxj+MI2iGBLlacocqWc3+BcZsWbeveg+9Vc yOavGzJ+wOVF9kaq3JwQ2t2qkuDDapLBcMzQ1/BNB3d0ocV4oAYM7uRR6dA69SwX Ksz6mrkL5XpSGl0+Npgr49Noo1eeNwE1L/NE1qPkqsXHfI6j5GI= =cwwv -END PGP SIGNATURE End Message ---
Bug#1025262: marked as done (mir FTBFS, symbols files issues.)
Your message dated Wed, 28 Dec 2022 20:40:02 + with message-id and subject line Bug#1025262: fixed in mir 1.8.2+dfsg-5 has caused the Debian Bug report #1025262, regarding mir FTBFS, symbols files issues. to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1025262: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1025262 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Source: mir Version: 1.8.2+dfsg-3 Severity: serious Tags: ftbfs mir FTBFS on all architectures with symbols files issues (there was previously a bug report for hppa, but since it now fails on release architectures I feel a seperate bug report is deserved). https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mir=amd64=1.8.2%2Bdfsg-4%2Bb1=1669159921=0 --- debian/libmirprotobuf3.symbols (libmirprotobuf3_1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1_amd64) +++ dpkg-gensymbolskixGS3 2022-11-22 23:31:49.399075926 + @@ -8,75 +8,85 @@ MIR_PROTOBUF_PROTOBUF_3.6.0@MIR_PROTOBUF_PROTOBUF_3.6.0 1.7 MIR_PROTOBUF_UBSAN@MIR_PROTOBUF_UBSAN 1.7 _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection12InternalSwapEPS1_@MIR_PROTOBUF_FEDORA 1.7 - _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection16default_instanceEv@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 +#MISSING: 1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1# _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection16default_instanceEv@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection21CheckTypeAndMergeFromERKN6google8protobuf11MessageLiteE@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection5ClearEv@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection8CopyFromERKS1_@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection9MergeFromERKS1_@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 - (arch=alpha amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 m68k mips64el mipsel powerpc ppc64 ppc64el riscv64 s390x sh4 sparc64 x32)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC1EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaE@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 +#MISSING: 1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1# (arch=alpha amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 m68k mips64el mipsel powerpc ppc64 ppc64el riscv64 s390x sh4 sparc64 x32)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC1EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaE@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 + _ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC1EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaEb@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1 _ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC1ERKS1_@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 (arch=hppa)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC1Ev@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 - (arch=alpha amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 m68k mips64el mipsel powerpc ppc64 ppc64el riscv64 s390x sh4 sparc64 x32)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC2EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaE@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 +#MISSING: 1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1# (arch=alpha amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 m68k mips64el mipsel powerpc ppc64 ppc64el riscv64 s390x sh4 sparc64 x32)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC2EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaE@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 + _ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC2EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaEb@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1 _ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC2ERKS1_@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 (arch=hppa)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC2Ev@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 and so on. I presume this is related to the new version of protobuf. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Source: mir Source-Version: 1.8.2+dfsg-5 Done: Mike Gabriel We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of mir, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is attached. Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you have further comments please address them to 1025...@bugs.debian.org, and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Mike Gabriel (supplier of updated mir package) (This message was generated automatically at their request; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2022 21:38:44 +0100 Source: mir Architecture: source Version: 1.8.2+dfsg-5 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Mir Team Changed-By: Mike Gabriel Closes: 1025262 Changes: mir (1.8.2+dfsg-5) unstable; urgency=medium . [ Anton Gladky ] * Add debian/.gitlab-ci.yml . [ Mike Gabriel ] * debian/libmirprotobuf3.symbols: + Update .symbols after upload of new protobuf library. (Closes: #1025262). Checksums-Sha1: 6df872340b0d561c0c704e330fa4f816c17e2cff 5884 mir_1.8.2+dfsg-5.dsc f905f281cefef8959fff90de745f6a2525516d23 69212 mir_1.8.2+dfsg-5.debian.tar.xz 184cfba5ffb38b97123a2683e4b56026da6d7896 15071 mir_1.8.2+dfsg-5_source.buildinfo Checksums-Sha256: bddcc0bcab3938cbc6c6ba82bb6f1b5e51a00a97e8c3eae53be4755da84cb1f7
Bug#999143: marked as done (dns-browse: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or build-indep)
Your message dated Wed, 28 Dec 2022 20:35:55 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#999143: fixed in dns-browse 1.9-8.2
has caused the Debian Bug report #999143,
regarding dns-browse: missing required debian/rules targets build-arch and/or
build-indep
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
999143: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=999143
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: dns-browse
Version: 1.9-8.1
Severity: important
Justification: Debian Policy section 4.9
Tags: bookworm sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: missing-build-arch-indep
Dear maintainer,
Your package does not include build-arch and/or build-indep targets in
debian/rules. This is required by Debian Policy section 4.9, since 2012.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules
Please note that this is also a sign that the packaging of this software
could benefit from a refresh. For example, packages using 'dh' cannot be
affected by this issue.
This mass bug filing was discussed on debian-devel@ in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/11/msg00052.html .
The severity of this bug will be changed to 'serious' after a month.
Best,
Lucas
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: dns-browse
Source-Version: 1.9-8.2
Done: Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu)
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
dns-browse, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to 999...@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) (supplier of updated dns-browse
package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 01:28:05 +0800
Source: dns-browse
Architecture: source
Version: 1.9-8.2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
Changed-By: Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu)
Closes: 965494 999143
Changes:
dns-browse (1.9-8.2) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Non-maintainer upload.
* Port to DebSrc3.0 (quilt)
* debian/rules: port to debhelper 12 and use dh (Closes: #999143)
- add debian/clean to clean generated manpages.
- add debian/dns-browse.manpages to install manpages.
- remove debian/compat
- debian/control: build-depends on debhelper-compat (Closes: #965494)
- add debian/dns-browse.docs to install README.
* debian/control: dns-browse depends on ${misc:Depends}
* debian/control: Priority: extra -> optional
Checksums-Sha1:
4aef6eeae7758be8b9511b92a01b8d062228a41f 1801 dns-browse_1.9-8.2.dsc
50c33def53ee6030eb870cdc40e9fec79f03009a 9036 dns-browse_1.9-8.2.debian.tar.xz
c9a0929ca56fdd6cd75ac665647924a3d15170cc 7959
dns-browse_1.9-8.2_source.buildinfo
Checksums-Sha256:
7fad26ba917307e9ba7a9659d3d3e77174744f654649d45da2d379d2358868b9 1801
dns-browse_1.9-8.2.dsc
dd999a9c0c1716be7645881874123e1b1c1467e89d41d890932ce85636567681 9036
dns-browse_1.9-8.2.debian.tar.xz
6578137ff3ab88e2096b141b6c0fe198862b3901ff75536954eed884ae3b6ff5 7959
dns-browse_1.9-8.2_source.buildinfo
Files:
70f78af549e40c61c0e2c3d999b0daff 1801 net optional dns-browse_1.9-8.2.dsc
2df9d2c679a97eb9aa0f8ca9cb044738 9036 net optional
dns-browse_1.9-8.2.debian.tar.xz
b0a562c0b18331d410c3bff7c856c191 7959 net optional
dns-browse_1.9-8.2_source.buildinfo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-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#965494: marked as done (dns-browse: Removal of obsolete debhelper compat 5 and 6 in bookworm)
Your message dated Wed, 28 Dec 2022 20:35:55 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#965494: fixed in dns-browse 1.9-8.2
has caused the Debian Bug report #965494,
regarding dns-browse: Removal of obsolete debhelper compat 5 and 6 in bookworm
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
965494: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=965494
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: dns-browse
Version: 1.9-8
Severity: normal
Usertags: compat-5-6-removal
Hi,
The package dns-browse uses debhelper with a compat level of 5 or 6,
which is deprecated and scheduled for removal[1].
Please bump the debhelper compat at your earliest convenience
/outside the freeze/!
* Compat 13 is recommended (supported in stable-backports)
* Compat 7 is the bare minimum
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT the release team *DOES NOT* accept uploads
with compat bumps during the freeze.
If there is any risk that the fix for this bug might not migrate to
testing before 2021-01-01[3] then please postpone the fix until after
the freeze.
At the time of filing this bug, compat 5 and 6 are expected to be
removed "some time during the development cycle of bookworm".
Thanks,
~Niels
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/07/msg00065.html
[2] https://release.debian.org/bullseye/FAQ.html
[3] The choice of 2021-01-01 as a "deadline" is set before the actual
freeze deadline to provide a safe cut off point for most people.
Mind you, it is still your responsibility to ensure that the upload
makes it into testing even if you upload before that date.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: dns-browse
Source-Version: 1.9-8.2
Done: Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu)
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
dns-browse, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to 965...@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) (supplier of updated dns-browse
package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 01:28:05 +0800
Source: dns-browse
Architecture: source
Version: 1.9-8.2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
Changed-By: Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu)
Closes: 965494 999143
Changes:
dns-browse (1.9-8.2) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Non-maintainer upload.
* Port to DebSrc3.0 (quilt)
* debian/rules: port to debhelper 12 and use dh (Closes: #999143)
- add debian/clean to clean generated manpages.
- add debian/dns-browse.manpages to install manpages.
- remove debian/compat
- debian/control: build-depends on debhelper-compat (Closes: #965494)
- add debian/dns-browse.docs to install README.
* debian/control: dns-browse depends on ${misc:Depends}
* debian/control: Priority: extra -> optional
Checksums-Sha1:
4aef6eeae7758be8b9511b92a01b8d062228a41f 1801 dns-browse_1.9-8.2.dsc
50c33def53ee6030eb870cdc40e9fec79f03009a 9036 dns-browse_1.9-8.2.debian.tar.xz
c9a0929ca56fdd6cd75ac665647924a3d15170cc 7959
dns-browse_1.9-8.2_source.buildinfo
Checksums-Sha256:
7fad26ba917307e9ba7a9659d3d3e77174744f654649d45da2d379d2358868b9 1801
dns-browse_1.9-8.2.dsc
dd999a9c0c1716be7645881874123e1b1c1467e89d41d890932ce85636567681 9036
dns-browse_1.9-8.2.debian.tar.xz
6578137ff3ab88e2096b141b6c0fe198862b3901ff75536954eed884ae3b6ff5 7959
dns-browse_1.9-8.2_source.buildinfo
Files:
70f78af549e40c61c0e2c3d999b0daff 1801 net optional dns-browse_1.9-8.2.dsc
2df9d2c679a97eb9aa0f8ca9cb044738 9036 net optional
dns-browse_1.9-8.2.debian.tar.xz
b0a562c0b18331d410c3bff7c856c191 7959 net optional
dns-browse_1.9-8.2_source.buildinfo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQJHBAEBCgAxFiEEo2h49GQQhoFgDLZIRBc/oT0FiIgFAmOfYSsTHHBhdWxsaXVA
ZGViaWFuLm9yZwAKCRBEFz+hPQWIiAjzD/4+acLfYC7L58VI9rFaqlbXCRPpPGnq
x5kIW8KPzoanMx5ZaQlrxuAiZgKT2qFZRo4djvsWDFEWBsdRxnS9Tr+nyJXKaWB9
K4N9U0uclKaYu8M0HheVAEcupVyjOK7k7ajpAwb3Va/YieG0KLHIHMjIZoYgzciK
fKFwHLDPVfcRxmr9lhM4P5RJsRz/cLQYFF1Fy8UmgMYSvtvOYYMp2KOhZ4UHC8Np
16aDOO85v/tbJMPYyMHzoX6nB2KLvTuvRfRXwZ0asmPgawJmh/QxxESHYs0jsWbv
Processed: retitle 1027143 to penimageio: CVE-2022-36354 CVE-2022-38143 CVE-2022-43592 CVE-2022-43593 CVE-2022-43594 CVE-2022-43595 CVE-2022-43596 CVE-2022-43597 CVE-2022-43598 CVE-2022-43599 CVE-2022
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 1027143 penimageio: CVE-2022-36354 CVE-2022-38143 CVE-2022-43592 > CVE-2022-43593 CVE-2022-43594 CVE-2022-43595 CVE-2022-43596 CVE-2022-43597 > CVE-2022-43598 CVE-2022-43599 CVE-2022-43600 CVE-2022-43601 CVE-2022-43602 > CVE-2022-41639 CVE-2022-41649 CVE-2022-41684 CVE-2022-41794 CVE-2022-41837 > CVE-2022-41838 CVE-2022-41977 CVE-2022-41981 CVE-2022-41988 Bug #1027143 [src:openimageio] openimageio: CVE-2022-43592 CVE-2022-43593 CVE-2022-43594 CVE-2022-43595 CVE-2022-43596 CVE-2022-43597 CVE-2022-43598 CVE-2022-43599 CVE-2022-43600 CVE-2022-43601 CVE-2022-43602 CVE-2022-41639 CVE-2022-41649 CVE-2022-41684 CVE-2022-41794 CVE-2022-41837 CVE-2022-41838 CVE-2022-41977 CVE-2022-41981 CVE-2022-41988 Changed Bug title to 'penimageio: CVE-2022-36354 CVE-2022-38143 CVE-2022-43592 CVE-2022-43593 CVE-2022-43594 CVE-2022-43595 CVE-2022-43596 CVE-2022-43597 CVE-2022-43598 CVE-2022-43599 CVE-2022-43600 CVE-2022-43601 CVE-2022-43602 CVE-2022-41639 CVE-2022-41649 CVE-2022-41684 CVE-2022-41794 CVE-2022-41837 CVE-2022-41838 CVE-2022-41977 CVE-2022-41981 CVE-2022-41988' from 'openimageio: CVE-2022-43592 CVE-2022-43593 CVE-2022-43594 CVE-2022-43595 CVE-2022-43596 CVE-2022-43597 CVE-2022-43598 CVE-2022-43599 CVE-2022-43600 CVE-2022-43601 CVE-2022-43602 CVE-2022-41639 CVE-2022-41649 CVE-2022-41684 CVE-2022-41794 CVE-2022-41837 CVE-2022-41838 CVE-2022-41977 CVE-2022-41981 CVE-2022-41988'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1027143: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027143 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1026760: marked as pending in libhttp-daemon-ssl-perl
Control: tag -1 pending Hello, Bug #1026760 in libhttp-daemon-ssl-perl reported by you has been fixed in the Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit message below and you can check the diff of the fix at: https://salsa.debian.org/perl-team/modules/packages/libhttp-daemon-ssl-perl/-/commit/dca724871ccc7be77fffc2a7a781b62b75e0903c Add patch to fix test with libio-socket-ssl-perl 2.078-1. Thanks: Lucas Nussbaum for the bug report. Closes: #1026760 (this message was generated automatically) -- Greetings https://bugs.debian.org/1026760
Processed: Bug#1026760 marked as pending in libhttp-daemon-ssl-perl
Processing control commands: > tag -1 pending Bug #1026760 [src:libhttp-daemon-ssl-perl] libhttp-daemon-ssl-perl: FTBFS: dh_auto_test: error: make -j8 test TEST_VERBOSE=1 returned exit code 2 Added tag(s) pending. -- 1026760: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026760 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1025262: marked as done (mir FTBFS, symbols files issues.)
Your message dated Wed, 28 Dec 2022 20:22:33 + with message-id <20221228202233.horde.wfkzmbb2zd8vcnkyu3ss...@mail.das-netzwerkteam.de> and subject line Resolved via 1.8.2+dfsg-5 has caused the Debian Bug report #1025262, regarding mir FTBFS, symbols files issues. to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1025262: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1025262 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Source: mir Version: 1.8.2+dfsg-3 Severity: serious Tags: ftbfs mir FTBFS on all architectures with symbols files issues (there was previously a bug report for hppa, but since it now fails on release architectures I feel a seperate bug report is deserved). https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mir=amd64=1.8.2%2Bdfsg-4%2Bb1=1669159921=0 --- debian/libmirprotobuf3.symbols (libmirprotobuf3_1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1_amd64) +++ dpkg-gensymbolskixGS3 2022-11-22 23:31:49.399075926 + @@ -8,75 +8,85 @@ MIR_PROTOBUF_PROTOBUF_3.6.0@MIR_PROTOBUF_PROTOBUF_3.6.0 1.7 MIR_PROTOBUF_UBSAN@MIR_PROTOBUF_UBSAN 1.7 _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection12InternalSwapEPS1_@MIR_PROTOBUF_FEDORA 1.7 - _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection16default_instanceEv@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 +#MISSING: 1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1# _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection16default_instanceEv@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection21CheckTypeAndMergeFromERKN6google8protobuf11MessageLiteE@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection5ClearEv@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection8CopyFromERKS1_@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection9MergeFromERKS1_@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 - (arch=alpha amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 m68k mips64el mipsel powerpc ppc64 ppc64el riscv64 s390x sh4 sparc64 x32)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC1EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaE@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 +#MISSING: 1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1# (arch=alpha amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 m68k mips64el mipsel powerpc ppc64 ppc64el riscv64 s390x sh4 sparc64 x32)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC1EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaE@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 + _ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC1EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaEb@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1 _ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC1ERKS1_@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 (arch=hppa)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC1Ev@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 - (arch=alpha amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 m68k mips64el mipsel powerpc ppc64 ppc64el riscv64 s390x sh4 sparc64 x32)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC2EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaE@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 +#MISSING: 1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1# (arch=alpha amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 m68k mips64el mipsel powerpc ppc64 ppc64el riscv64 s390x sh4 sparc64 x32)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC2EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaE@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 + _ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC2EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaEb@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1 _ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC2ERKS1_@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 (arch=hppa)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC2Ev@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 and so on. I presume this is related to the new version of protobuf. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Closing... Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM c\o Technik- und Ökologiezentrum Eckernförde Mike Gabriel, Marienthaler Str. 17, 24340 Eckernförde mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148 landline: +49 (4351) 850 8940 GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31 mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de pgpC_16NNg1zY.pgp Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur --- End Message ---
Bug#1027175: ceph: Missing adduser dependency for ceph-common and cephadm
Source: ceph Version: 16.2.10+ds-4 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 7.2. Binary Dependencies X-Debbugs-Cc: car...@debian.org Hi cephadm and ceph-common use adduser in postinst script but do not declare a Depends on adduser. There is as well a respective piuparts report uncovering this, cf. https://piuparts.debian.org/sid/fail/cephadm_16.2.10+ds-4.log . Regards, Salvatore
Bug#1025262: mir FTBFS, symbols files issues.
Control: fixed -1 1.8.2+dfsg-5 On Do 01 Dez 2022 18:12:16 CET, Peter Green wrote: Source: mir Version: 1.8.2+dfsg-3 Severity: serious Tags: ftbfs mir FTBFS on all architectures with symbols files issues (there was previously a bug report for hppa, but since it now fails on release architectures I feel a seperate bug report is deserved). https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mir=amd64=1.8.2%2Bdfsg-4%2Bb1=1669159921=0 --- debian/libmirprotobuf3.symbols (libmirprotobuf3_1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1_amd64) +++ dpkg-gensymbolskixGS3 2022-11-22 23:31:49.399075926 + @@ -8,75 +8,85 @@ MIR_PROTOBUF_PROTOBUF_3.6.0@MIR_PROTOBUF_PROTOBUF_3.6.0 1.7 MIR_PROTOBUF_UBSAN@MIR_PROTOBUF_UBSAN 1.7 _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection12InternalSwapEPS1_@MIR_PROTOBUF_FEDORA 1.7 - _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection16default_instanceEv@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 +#MISSING: 1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1# _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection16default_instanceEv@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection21CheckTypeAndMergeFromERKN6google8protobuf11MessageLiteE@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection5ClearEv@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection8CopyFromERKS1_@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 _ZN3mir8protobuf10Connection9MergeFromERKS1_@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 - (arch=alpha amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 m68k mips64el mipsel powerpc ppc64 ppc64el riscv64 s390x sh4 sparc64 x32)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC1EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaE@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 +#MISSING: 1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1# (arch=alpha amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 m68k mips64el mipsel powerpc ppc64 ppc64el riscv64 s390x sh4 sparc64 x32)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC1EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaE@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 + _ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC1EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaEb@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1 _ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC1ERKS1_@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.7 (arch=hppa)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC1Ev@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 - (arch=alpha amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 m68k mips64el mipsel powerpc ppc64 ppc64el riscv64 s390x sh4 sparc64 x32)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC2EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaE@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 +#MISSING: 1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1# (arch=alpha amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 m68k mips64el mipsel powerpc ppc64 ppc64el riscv64 s390x sh4 sparc64 x32)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC2EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaE@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 + _ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC2EPN6google8protobuf5ArenaEb@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.2+dfsg-4+b1 _ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC2ERKS1_@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 (arch=hppa)_ZN3mir8protobuf10ConnectionC2Ev@MIR_PROTOBUF_3 1.8.0+dfsg1 and so on. I presume this is related to the new version of protobuf. This issue should now be resolved. I fixed the issue in Git but forgot to upload. Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM c\o Technik- und Ökologiezentrum Eckernförde Mike Gabriel, Marienthaler Str. 17, 24340 Eckernförde mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148 landline: +49 (4351) 850 8940 GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31 mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de pgpBk8QgQwlEV.pgp Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur
Processed: Re: Bug#1025262: mir FTBFS, symbols files issues.
Processing control commands: > fixed -1 1.8.2+dfsg-5 Bug #1025262 [src:mir] mir FTBFS, symbols files issues. The source 'mir' and version '1.8.2+dfsg-5' do not appear to match any binary packages Marked as fixed in versions mir/1.8.2+dfsg-5. -- 1025262: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1025262 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: found 1027163 in 3.1.27-1, found 1027163 in 3.1.14-1
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > found 1027163 3.1.27-1 Bug #1027163 [src:python-git] python-git: CVE-2022-24439 Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #1027163 to the same values previously set > found 1027163 3.1.14-1 Bug #1027163 [src:python-git] python-git: CVE-2022-24439 Marked as found in versions python-git/3.1.14-1. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1027163: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027163 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: found 1027163 in 3.1.27-1
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > found 1027163 3.1.27-1 Bug #1027163 [src:python-git] python-git: CVE-2022-24439 Marked as found in versions python-git/3.1.27-1. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1027163: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027163 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
