Bug#1071172: libc6-dev omits the bits directory
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Wed, 2024-05-15 at 22:10 +1000, Joris van der Geer wrote: > package:libc6-dev > version: 2.36 There's no such version of the package. However, assuming you mean the package in bookworm (2.36-9+deb12u5), > Libc6 omits thr ‘bits’ directory, rendering glibc inoperable this is incorrect: adam@darzee:~$ dpkg -S libc-header-start.h libc6-dev:amd64: /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/libc-header-start.h Regards, Adam
Bug#1070490: libc6: Unpacking libc6:amd64 2.28-10+deb10u3 over 2.28-10+deb10u2 breaks system
On Mon, 2024-05-06 at 13:02 +0200, Jan Krčmář wrote: > Package: libc6 > Version: 2.28-10+deb10u3 > > Upgrading the system (Debian 10/Buster) causes corrupted system, > ending with kernel panic and unbootable system. > [...] > The following packages will be upgraded: > apt apt-transport-https apt-utils base-files ca-certificates The fact that APT is being upgraded here seems strange - APT hasn't changed in buster for 3 years. What's your base system? > [...] > Unpacking libc6:amd64 (2.28-10+deb10u3) over (2.28-10+deb10u2) ... > Replaced by files in installed package libcrypt1:amd64 (1:4.4.18-4) > ... This, on the other hand, looks like you've done something odd to your system. libcrypt1 doesn't exist until bullseye, so at some point you have partially upgraded your base system. In conjunction with your pre- upgrade system apparently having an APT version that's /older/ than the one in buster, this feels odd. Regards, Adam
Re: Upcoming stable point release (12.6)
On Fri, 2024-02-16 at 17:35 +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > The next point release for "bookworm" (12.6) is scheduled for > Saturday, April 6th. Processing of new uploads into bookworm- > proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceeding weekend. Due to recent events, the point release has been postponed. A new date will be announced when possible. Regards, Adam
Upcoming oldstable point release (11.9)
Hi, The next point release for "bullseye" (11.9) is scheduled for Saturday, February 10th. Processing of new uploads into bullseye-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (12.5)
Hi, The next point release for "bookworm" (12.5) is scheduled for Saturday, February 10th. Processing of new uploads into bookworm-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (12.3)
Hi, The next point release for "bookworm" (12.3) is scheduled for Saturday, December 9th. Processing of new uploads into bookworm-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (11.7)
Hi, The next point release for "bullseye" (11.7) is scheduled for Saturday, April 29th. Processing of new uploads into bullseye-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (11.6)
Hi, The next point release for "bullseye" (11.6) is scheduled for Saturday, December 17th. Processing of new uploads into bullseye-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming oldstable point release (10.13)
Hi, The next - and final - point release for "buster" (10.13) is scheduled for Saturday, September 10th. Processing of new uploads into buster- proposed-updates will be frozen during the weekend of August 27th. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (11.5)
Hi, The next point release for "bullseye" (11.5) is scheduled for Saturday, September 10th. Processing of new uploads into bullseye-proposed- updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (11.4)
Hi, The next point release for "bullseye" (11.4) is scheduled for Saturday, July 9th. Processing of new uploads into bullseye-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming oldstable point release (10.12)
Hi, The next point release for "buster" (10.12) is scheduled for Saturday, March 26th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (11.3)
Hi, The next point release for "bullseye" (11.3) is scheduled for Saturday, March 26th. Processing of new uploads into bullseye-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (11.2)
Hi, The next point release for "bullseye" (11.2) is scheduled for Saturday, December 18th. Processing of new uploads into bullseye-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (11.1)`
Hi, The first point release for "bullseye" (11.1) is scheduled for Saturday, October 9th. Processing of new uploads into bullseye- proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming oldstable point release (10.11)
Hi, The next point release for "buster" (10.11) is scheduled for Saturday, October 9th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (10.10)
Hi, The next point release for "buster" (10.10) is scheduled for Saturday June 19th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (10.9)
Hi, The next point release for "buster" (10.9) is scheduled for Saturday March 27th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (10.8)
Hi, The next point release for "buster" (10.8) is scheduled for Saturday February 6th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (10.7)
Hi, The next point release for "buster" (10.7) is scheduled for Saturday December 5th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (10.6)
Hi, The next point release for "buster" (10.6) is scheduled for Saturday September 26th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Re: Upcoming stable point release (10.5)
Hi, On Sun, 2020-07-12 at 15:37 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 14:35 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > The next point release for "buster" (10.5) is scheduled for > > Saturday July 18th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed- > > updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. > > Unfortunately this has had to be delayed slightly. > > A new date will be announced soon. This will now be Saturday August 1st. Regards, Adam
Re: Upcoming stable point release (10.5)
Hi, On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 14:35 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > The next point release for "buster" (10.5) is scheduled for Saturday > July 18th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates > will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Unfortunately this has had to be delayed slightly. A new date will be announced soon. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (10.5)
Hi, The next point release for "buster" (10.5) is scheduled for Saturday July 18th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming oldstable point release (9.13)
Hi, The next - and final - point release for "stretch" (9.13) is scheduled for Saturday, July 18th. Processing of new uploads into stretch- proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (10.4)
Hi, The next point release for "buster" (10.4) is scheduled for Saturday, May 9th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming oldstable point release (9.12)
Hi, The next point release for "stretch" (9.12) is scheduled for Saturday, February 8th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (10.3)
Hi, The next point release for "buster" (10.3) is scheduled for Saturday, February 8th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (10.2)
Hi, The next point release for "buster" (10.2) is scheduled for Saturday, November 16th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (10.1)
Hi, The first point release for "buster" (10.1) is scheduled for Saturday, September 7th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming oldstable point release (9.10)
Hi, The next point release for "stretch" (9.10) is scheduled for Saturday, September 7th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (9.9)
Hi, The next point release for "stretch" (9.9) is scheduled for Saturday, April 27th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (9.8)
Hi, The next point release for "stretch" (9.8) is scheduled for Saturday, February 16th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (9.6)
Hi, The next point release for "stretch" (9.6) is scheduled for Saturday, November 10th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 11:44 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: [...] > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Adam D. Barratt > wrote: > > > > what is the reason why that package is not moving forward? > > > > I assume you're referring to the dpkg upload that's in proposed- > > updates > > waiting for the point release in two weeks time? > > i don't know: i'm an outsider who doesn't have the information in > short-term memory, which is why i cc'd the debian-riscv team as they > have current facts and knowledge foremost in their minds. which is > why i included them. It would have been wiser to do so *before* stating that nothing was happening as if it were a fact. > > I'm also getting very tired of the repeated vilification of SRM > > over > > this, and if there were any doubt can assure you that it is not > > increasing at least my inclination to spend my already limited free > > time on Debian activity. > > ah. so what you're saying is, you could really do with some extra > help? I don't think that's ever been in dispute for basically any core team in Debian. That doesn't change the fact that the atmosphere around the change in question has made me feel very uncomfortable and unenthused about SRM work. (I realise that this is somewhat of a self-feeding energy monster.) Regards, Adam
Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 10:20 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: [...] > debian-riscv has been repeatedly asking for a single zero-impact > line > to be included in *one* file in *one* dpkg-related package which > would > allow riscv to stop being a NMU architecture and become part of > debian/unstable (and quickly beyond), for at least six months, now. > cc'ing the debian-riscv list because they will know the details about > this. it's really quite ridiculous that a single one-line change > having absolutely no effect on any other architecture whatsover is > not > being actioned and is holding debian-riscv back because of that. > > what is the reason why that package is not moving forward? I assume you're referring to the dpkg upload that's in proposed-updates waiting for the point release in two weeks time? Please check your facts before ranting, particularly with such a wide cross-posting. Also, ttbomk, the dpkg change landing in stable is not likely to magically lead to the architecture being added to unstable - a decision which is not the release team's to make or block. Again, please ensure you've actually done your research. I'm also getting very tired of the repeated vilification of SRM over this, and if there were any doubt can assure you that it is not increasing at least my inclination to spend my already limited free time on Debian activity. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (9.5)
Hi, The next point release for "stretch" (9.5) is scheduled for Saturday, July 14th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (9.4)
Hi, The next point release for "stretch" (9.4) is scheduled for Saturday, March 10th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Re: Bug#882158: stretch-pu: package glibc/2.24-11+deb9u2
Control: tags -1 + pending On Sun, 2018-01-14 at 11:52 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2018-01-13 17:26, Julien Cristau wrote: > > Control: tag -1 confirmed > > > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 14:22:45 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > > > Unfortunately it didn't make in 9.3 due to the regression > > > introduced wrt > > > /etc/ld.so.nohwcap (see bug#883394). The issue is due to the > > > conversion > > > of libc6-i686 into a transitional package between jessie and > > > stretch, and > > > dropping the postinst and postrm script handling the removal of > > > /etc/ld.so.nohwcap after the upgrade. The problem always existed > > > in > > > stretch, but the probability for it to happen has been greatly > > > increased > > > by the fix for #882272. The issue doesn't affect buster/sid as > > > the > > > transitional package has been removed. > > > > > > I have fixed the issue in version 2.24-11+deb9u3 by reintroducing > > > the > > > postinst and postrm scripts in the transitional package. You will > > > find > > > below the corresponding patch. > > > > > > Thanks for considering it for 9.4. > > > > > > > Assuming that's been tested in all the various scenarios, please go > > ahead. > > Thanks, I have just uploaded it. Note that the issue with the nvidia > drivers has been found (providing the default version of the > libraries > without TLS) and has already been fixed in sid. Flagged for acceptance; sorry for the delay. Regards, Adam
Re: Bug#882158: stretch-pu: package glibc/2.24-11+deb9u2
Control: tags -1 + pending On Fri, 2017-12-01 at 21:15 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2017-12-01 19:49, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> (2017-11-24): > > > This looks OK to me, but will need a KiBi-ack; CCing. > > > > lgtm; apologies for the delay. > > Thanks, I have just uploaded it. Flagged for acceptance. Regards, Adam
Re: Bug#882158: stretch-pu: package glibc/2.24-11+deb9u2
Control: tags -1 + confirmed d-i On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 18:02 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2017-11-19 18:36, Aurelien Jarno wrote: [...] > > I would like to upload a new glibc package for the next stretch > > release. > > It mostly consists in pulling the release/2.24/master upstream > > branch. [...] > > I would also like to add the attached an additional patch to fix a > critical bug which has been filled recently, breaking some systems > during jessie to stretch upgrades (see bug#882272). This looks OK to me, but will need a KiBi-ack; CCing. Regards, Adam
Upcoming oldstable point release
Hi, The next point release for "jessie" (8.10) is scheduled for Saturday, December 9th. Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release
Hi, The next point release for "stretch" (9.3) is scheduled for Saturday, December 9th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (9.1)
Hi, The first point release for "stretch" (9.1) is scheduled for Saturday, July 22nd. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming oldstable point release (8.9)
Hi, The next point release for "jessie" (8.9) is scheduled for Saturday, July 22nd. Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (8.8)
Hi, The next point release for "jessie" (8.8) is scheduled for Saturday, May 6th. Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Bug#845721: Cannot install libc6:i386 -- Breaks: libc6:i386 (!= 2.24-7) but -7 does not exist
On Sat, 2016-11-26 at 01:02 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > cli-common : Depends: perl but it is not going to be installed > libc6 : Breaks: libc6:i386 (!= 2.24-7) but 2.24-5 is to be installed > libc6:i386 : Breaks: libc6 (!= 2.24-5) but 2.24-7 is to be installed > [...] That normally means that apt is seeing libc6 2.24-7 as available on amd64 and 2.24-5 as available on i386 and is refusing to install the combination, as they're different versions and libc6 is marked Multi-Arch:same. > I don't know how to make sense of these "breaks" versions. libc6 > doesn't even have a revision -7. Should both of those be > "breaks ... != 2.24-6"? -7 was uploaded a little over 10 hours ago. Looking at the dak log that would make sense in terms of what you're seeing - the amd64 build of -7 made it into the 0152UTC dinstall by a few minutes, so would have been available on mirrors when you filed this report, with the i386 build being part of the subsequent 0752 dinstall. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (8.6)
Hi, The next point release for "jessie" (8.6) is scheduled for Saturday, September 17th. Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (8.4)
Hi, The next point release for "jessie" (8.4) is scheduled for Saturday, April 2nd. Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming oldstable point release (7.10)
Hi, The next point release for "wheezy" (7.10) is scheduled for Saturday, April 2nd. Processing of new uploads into wheezy-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming stable point release (8.3)
Hi, The next point release for "jessie" (8.3) is scheduled for Saturday, January 23rd. Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam
Upcoming oldstable point release (7.9)
Hi, The next point release for wheezy (7.9) is scheduled for Saturday, September 5th. Processing of new uploads into wheezy-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Upcoming stable point release (8.2)
Hi, The next point release for jessie (8.2) is scheduled for Saturday, September 5th. Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Upcoming stable point release (8.1)
Hi, The first point release for jessie (8.1) is scheduled for Saturday, June 6th. Stable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Upcoming stable point release (7.8)
Hi, The next point release for wheezy (7.8) is scheduled for Saturday, January 10th. Stable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Upcoming stable point release (7.7)
Hi, The next point release for wheezy (7.7) is scheduled for Saturday, October 18th. Stable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1411585956.15708.2.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Upcoming stable point release (7.6)
Hi, The next point release for wheezy (7.6) is scheduled for Saturday, July 12th. Stable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend. As usual, base-files can be uploaded at any point before the freeze. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1402513678.4620.13.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Upcoming oldstable point release (6.0.10)
Hi, The next (and final) point release for squeeze (6.0.10) is scheduled for Saturday, July 19th. Oldstable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend. As usual, base-files can be uploaded at any point before the freeze. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1402513777.4620.15.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Upcoming stable point release (7.5)
Hi, The next point release for wheezy (7.5) is scheduled for Saturday, April 26th. Stable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend. As usual, base-files can be uploaded at any point before the freeze. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1395609622.12119.11.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Upcoming stable point release (7.4)
Hi, The next point release for wheezy (7.4) is scheduled for Saturday February 8th. Stable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend. As usual, base-files can be uploaded at any point before the freeze. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1390507736.6444.23.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Upcoming oldstable point release (6.0.9)
Hi, The next point release for squeeze (6.0.9) is scheduled for Saturday February 15th. Stable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend. As usual, base-files can be uploaded at any point before the freeze. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1390507759.6444.24.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Bug#699818: pre-approval for pu: eglibc - timer_settime broken on kfreebsd-amd64
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 19:00 +0100, intrigeri wrote: Julien Cristau wrote (04 Dec 2013 14:00:10 GMT) : On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 16:44:41 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: [...] If someone puts together a debdiff including them, I'm more than happy to look at that and we can make a call from there. (Bearing in mind that the window for 7.2 closes over the coming weekend.) Any news here? We're now nearing the end of the window for 7.3. Ping? The next point-release is coming soon. I suspect all of the changes made it in to the 2.13-38+deb7u1 upload, but confirmation of that would be appreciated. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1390330351.15719.16.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Bug#699818: pre-approval for pu: eglibc - timer_settime broken on kfreebsd-amd64
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 12:23 -0700, Adam Conrad wrote: On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 06:52:31PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: I suspect all of the changes made it in to the 2.13-38+deb7u1 upload, but confirmation of that would be appreciated. Yeah, I'm inclined to say that upload covered everything that mattered. I believe all that was culled was Hurd stuff, and the Hurd guys tend to not care terribly much about stables anyway and focus entirely on sid, so that works. In which case, let's go with #731512 to cover the changes. Cheers, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1390334018.15719.18.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Bug#699818: pre-approval for pu: eglibc - timer_settime broken on kfreebsd-amd64
On 2013-10-02 16:14, Adam Conrad wrote: On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:23:22PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: That looks okay. In terms of the other suggested updates, as a non-release architecture for wheezy, hurd-specific patches aren't really appropriate for a stable update. Perhaps not appropriate to upload just for Hurd, but hurd-specific patches that don't touch other arches also seem harmless. I'm happy to back them out, though, if it's a sticking point. Well, they don't really meet the definition of minimal changes. :-) If someone puts together a debdiff including them, I'm more than happy to look at that and we can make a call from there. (Bearing in mind that the window for 7.2 closes over the coming weekend.) * debian/testsuite-checking/compare.sh: Disable failing the build on test regressions to ease the pain of ongoing stable/security maintenance. This has historically always been done for stable releases. I'm not going to argue if that's right or wrong, just history. Indeed, I plead senility. Well, that and for squeeze the change was made before the release; the initial release shipped with tests disabled, so we didn't then have to do it in a stable update. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/a6fabaf14c879179987357d831b63...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Re: Bug#699818: pre-approval for pu: eglibc - timer_settime broken on kfreebsd-amd64
Hi, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you about this. On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 14:15 +0200, Petr Salinger wrote: One more problem popped up - #712196 The fix is one-liner: --- kfreebsd/syscalls.list +++ kfreebsd/syscalls.list -sys_ktimer_settime - ktimer_settime i:ip __syscall_ktimer_settime +sys_ktimer_settime - ktimer_settime i:iipp __syscall_ktimer_settime That looks okay. In terms of the other suggested updates, as a non-release architecture for wheezy, hurd-specific patches aren't really appropriate for a stable update. * debian/testsuite-checking/compare.sh: Disable failing the build on test regressions to ease the pain of ongoing stable/security maintenance. It does slightly worry me here that real regressions might get missed, as the chances of anyone combing through the build logs are small. I do realise that the change has been in unstable and testing for a while now. * debian/debhelper.in/libc.preinst: Remove ld.so's aux-cache on upgrades. This looks reasonable enough. In any case, if someone would still like to take this forward, please could we have a debdiff for the proposed upload. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1380662602.5700.24.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#724692: tzdata-java: tzdata version 2013d-0wheezy1 breaks tzdata-java 2013c-0wheezy1
On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 12:31 -0500, Matthew P Zagrabelny wrote: It looks like tzdata was updated in wheezy/updates from 2013c-0wheezy1 to 2013d-0wheezy1. This looks to break tzdata-java: (Small but important point - you mean wheezy-updates; wheezy/updates would be part of a security.d.o path.) $ dpkg-deb -f /var/cache/apt/archives/tzdata-java_2013c-0wheezy1_all.deb depends tzdata (= 2013c-0wheezy1) as tzdata-java has a hard dependency on version 2013c-0wheezy1 of tzdata. I suppose tzdata-java should get updated for wheezy/updates. It already has been, as part of the update you refer to above (it's built from the tzdata source package): tzdata-java | 2013d-0wheezy1 | wheezy-updates | all So you should already have the new tzdata-java available to you for a couple of weeks now. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1380219078.11131.12.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: tzdata stable/testing update
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 19:04 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 05:06:15PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On 19.10.2012 15:43, Aurelien Jarno wrote: I have uploaded a new version of tzdata to both wheezy (2012g-1) and squeeze (2012g-0squeeze1). This upload has been triggered by a DST change this week-end in some parts of Brazil (see bug#690606), but I have realized at the same occasion that both squeeze and wheezy are quite outdated. [...] and the stable package to reach squeeze-proposed-update? I'm guessing that given the timing this could also do with going via squeeze-updates? (rather than just p-u.) Yes, it's actually what I meant, but typed it wrong. For the record, that was released last night as SUA 28-1. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1350725677.8831.19.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: tzdata stable/testing update
On 19.10.2012 15:43, Aurelien Jarno wrote: I have uploaded a new version of tzdata to both wheezy (2012g-1) and squeeze (2012g-0squeeze1). This upload has been triggered by a DST change this week-end in some parts of Brazil (see bug#690606), but I have realized at the same occasion that both squeeze and wheezy are quite outdated. Would it be possible to allow the sid version to enter testing Unblocked and aged. and the stable package to reach squeeze-proposed-update? I'm guessing that given the timing this could also do with going via squeeze-updates? (rather than just p-u.) There has been no change to the packaging, the changes only concerns the timezones definitions. Well, there's the new makefile. I realise it's upstream, but it's not technically just a defintion change. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/91ac7110a3d9e6cc653618c0908a3...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Bug#669858: eglibc FTBFS on mips and mipsel, Encountered regressions that don't match expected failures:
reassign 669858 src:eglibc tags 669858 + wheezy sid found 669858 2.13-30 thanks On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 13:07 +0100, peter green wrote: Package: eglibc Severity: serious Thanks for filing this and other FTBFS reports recently. A couple of comments / requests: Please include version information in bug reports; this issue doesn't affect every upload of eglibc ever made. It's also conventional to file bugs that relate to package build issues against the source package and tag them wheezy sid when one can be sure they don't affect the version of the package in stable (where the versions differ between stable and testing/unstable then version tracking will also dtrt but including the tags won't hurt). Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1335029135.26539.25.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: transition status
On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 12:20 +, Robert Millan wrote: 660403: cdparanoia: FTFBS on kfreebsd-* - Unless there's further activity I recommend removing of kfreebsd-* binaries from testing. See http://bugs.debian.org./cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660403#12 That doesn't work. The choices would be removing the kfreebsd-* binaries from unstable, and letting that propagate, or removing the entire package from testing. 660397: qpxtool: FTBFS on kfreebsd-* 660401: dvd+rw-tools: FTBFS on kfreebsd-* - (eglibc bug) Tagged pending by maintainer since 20th Feb. Should it be NMUed? CCing maintainer. That's still less than a week. Aurelien, are there any plans for an upload in the near future? 660396: sane-backends: FTBFS on kfreebsd-* - (kfreebsd-kernel-headers bug) Fixed today in 0.75. BinNMU? They were already binNMUed, that's how I discovered the bug. ;-p I'll give them back with a dependency on the new k-k-h. btw, http://bugs.debian.org/src:kfreebsd-kernel-headers still lists two outstanding RC bugs. You need to use versioned -done mails, not just add fixed versions. There's also mednafen and xine-lib, which I think have transitive dependencies via libsdl1.2? The latter still seems to be FTBFS on kfreebsd-amd64, despite the patch from #659615 being applied. I've just given it back for one last try. fwiw, there's a possibility that vlc might be a blocker, given that the new upstream version is FTBFS on multiple architectures (including kfreebsd-*). Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1330177567.27081.51.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#658171: Bug#658424: pu: package eglibc/2.11.3-3
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 12:54 +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk [120212 22:06]: As I mentioned previously: Bernhard, JBK (and anyone else affected and watching the bugs) - once the package is available for your architecture via proposed-updates, please test it and let us know whether it resolves the issue for you. As far as I can tell from a short testing, it seems to work. Thanks. I've pushed the package to squeeze-updates, so it will start hit mirrors with the next dinstall. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1329419367.17190.7.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#658171: Bug#658424: pu: package eglibc/2.11.3-3
tag 658424 + pending thanks On Sun, 2012-02-12 at 20:38 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:09:49AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: That's unfortunate, but I'm not sure we should let it block getting the fix to stable users any further. Please go ahead with the upload. I have just done the upload. As told on IRC, it also includes fixes for the gai.conf manpage. Thanks. I've flagged it for acceptance. As I mentioned previously: Bernhard, JBK (and anyone else affected and watching the bugs) - once the package is available for your architecture via proposed-updates, please test it and let us know whether it resolves the issue for you. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1329080754.27786.72.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#658171: Bug#658424: pu: package eglibc/2.11.3-3
tag 658424 + confirmed squeeze thanks On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 22:48 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:45:12PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 23:11 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: eglibc 2.11.3-2 shipped in Debian Squeeze 6.0.4 suffers from a regression in the resolver code with broken DNS server not answering correctly to requests. It causes the first or sometimes more DNS resolving requests to fail. See bug#658171 for more details. [...] Has there been any feedback as a result of the sid upload, whether positive or otherwise? Nothing so far :-( That's unfortunate, but I'm not sure we should let it block getting the fix to stable users any further. Please go ahead with the upload. Bernhard, JBK - once the package is available for your architecture via proposed-updates, please test it and let us know whether it resolves the issue for you. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1328958589.27786.16.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?
On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 07:54 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 06:41:54PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 17:55 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Would it be possible to upload this, and do a call for test for people wanting to test it before the actual point release? That would also help people having problems due the bugs mentioned above. Ack, please go ahead. Thanks, I have just done the upload. Thanks; I've marked the package for acceptance at the next dinstall. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1323891654.427.2.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?
On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 17:55 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: I have attached a new version of what we plan to upload. It includes a few more fixes backported from the unstable version (look at the end of the changelog), and also a few more fixes from upstream (no new stable version have been released, but the stable branch has still evolved a bit). I am using this version (actually this one minus the two last commits) for a few weeks at home and on a dozen of computers at work, so it's already a bit tested. Would it be possible to upload this, and do a call for test for people wanting to test it before the actual point release? That would also help people having problems due the bugs mentioned above. Ack, please go ahead. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1323801715.12813.1.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?
On Sun, 2011-10-30 at 19:27 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 05:36:27PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Did the 2.11.4 release happen? I'm conscious of the fact that we're now a little way past 6.0.3; apologies for not following up again sooner. I have asked for it, but I have no answer so far. That said everything is already committed in the upstream git/svn, the only difference with version 2.11.4 will be the version number. Maybe we should just upload the current version without waiting so that it is widely tested, and later upload the final 2.11.4 if released in time. Ugh, I hadn't realised this was so long ago. :-( Last time we discussed this on IRC, iirc you mentioned that there were a few more commits you were planning on including? If you're happy to include the patch for #640922 in the upstream stable branch then feel free to also include it in a stable upload. Ok, will include it. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1323731030.28289.23.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: tzdata 2011n uploaded to lenny-volatile and squeeze
On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 00:10 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
As part of the weekly tzdata upload (well I hope things will slow down
soon), I have just uploaded tzdata 2011n to both lenny-volatile and
squeeze. It includes DST fixes for:
- Cuba.
- Fidji.
- Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.
The first and last changes are already effective.
For the record, a changelog/.changes urgency disconnect meant that 2011n
also hit testing yesterday. For (old)stable, Phil released the {S,V}UAs
yesterday.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/1320259958.6262.2.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?
On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 22:53 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: The status is that glibc 2.11.4 will be released when Debian feels it is ready, as we are the main testers here. I am planning to do some more testing of the current SVN on more machines, and everything seems fine around the release of 6.0.3, I'll ask around for the release of 2.11.4. I can then upload it to stable just after the release of 6.0.3, which should give us sufficient additional testing before the release of 6.0.4. Did the 2.11.4 release happen? I'm conscious of the fact that we're now a little way past 6.0.3; apologies for not following up again sooner. If you're happy to include the patch for #640922 in the upstream stable branch then feel free to also include it in a stable upload. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1319996187.26970.18.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: tzdata 2011m uploaded to lenny-volatile and squeeze
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:22:57 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 21:27 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 07:22:37PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 05:39 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: I have just uploaded tzdata 2011m to both lenny-volatile and squeeze. [...] squeeze, it appears that the ever-helpful queued on ftp-master ate the upload, as the .orig.tar.gz was still in unchecked from the unstable upload - it's not there now, so please could you re-upload? I have just reuploaded it. Thanks. Everything went okay that time and the package is in p-u-NEW. Unfortunately the timing means that the earliest we can accept it is now the 01:52 dinstall and squeeze-updates then requires a further dinstall. I'll aim to send the announcement mail before work tomorrow morning, and get the package pushed to mirrors with the 07:52 dinstall. This happened as planned, with the release of SUA 18-1. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/219cd3a8b2170270f72b117a93439...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Re: tzdata 2011m uploaded to lenny-volatile and squeeze
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 05:39 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: I have just uploaded tzdata 2011m to both lenny-volatile and squeeze. Thanks. fwiw, it's also transitioned to testing. (although I'm not convinced that it justified urgency=critical, with four days before the new changes take effect :P) It includes the following changes: * New upstream version, fix DST for: - Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. - Ukraine (Closes: #645783). - Bahia, Brazil. Drop debian/patches/bahia.diff. The two first changes will happen on the night from Saturday to Sunday. I'm hoping to get the VUA for lenny released later tonight. For squeeze, it appears that the ever-helpful queued on ftp-master ate the upload, as the .orig.tar.gz was still in unchecked from the unstable upload - it's not there now, so please could you re-upload? Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1319566957.26526.5.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: tzdata 2011m uploaded to lenny-volatile and squeeze
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 21:27 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 07:22:37PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 05:39 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: I have just uploaded tzdata 2011m to both lenny-volatile and squeeze. [...] I'm hoping to get the VUA for lenny released later tonight. For Thanks. As you may have noticed, this has now been done, as VUA 83-1. squeeze, it appears that the ever-helpful queued on ftp-master ate the upload, as the .orig.tar.gz was still in unchecked from the unstable upload - it's not there now, so please could you re-upload? I have just reuploaded it. Thanks. Everything went okay that time and the package is in p-u-NEW. Unfortunately the timing means that the earliest we can accept it is now the 01:52 dinstall and squeeze-updates then requires a further dinstall. I'll aim to send the announcement mail before work tomorrow morning, and get the package pushed to mirrors with the 07:52 dinstall. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1319574177.26526.38.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#645638: tzdata update for (old)stable and lenny-volatile
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 09:04 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 07:49:50AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:17:48 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Due to change in one of the Brazilian timezone last week-end, I have uploaded version 2011l-0squeeze1 of tzdata to stable-proposed-updates. [...] Please go ahead. As dicussed on IRC, it probably makes more sense to just target volatile for now, if there's going to be a 2011m in the near future. I have just uploaded tzdata_2011l-0lenny1 to lenny-volatile. VUA 82-1 has just been released for this; thanks. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1319222550.9165.8.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#645638: tzdata update for (old)stable and lenny-volatile
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:17:48 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Due to change in one of the Brazilian timezone last week-end, I have uploaded version 2011l-0squeeze1 of tzdata to stable-proposed-updates. For the record, I pushed this via squeeze-updates overnight (see SUA17-1). Technically only a patch was needed, but I preferred to upload a new version so that we don't need a later upload for Asia/Hebron and Pacific/Fiji. I have also changed the debian/copyright and debian/watch files as they pointed to inexistant URL / email following the current lawsuit. IANA is the new upstream. Please find the diff below. If you are fine with all these changes, I'll do the same for oldstable and lenny-volatile Please go ahead. As dicussed on IRC, it probably makes more sense to just target volatile for now, if there's going to be a 2011m in the near future. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/08d945542a4b74288afe4172b554c...@adsl153.funky-badger.org
Re: Bug#637664: Re: Bug#637664: pu: package tzdata/2011h-0squeeze1
On Sun, 2011-09-18 at 23:52 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On my side can only confirm that upgrading from 2011d to 2011h indeed changes the Egyptian timezone. So maybe we can simply push it to proposed-updates. Assuming squeeze-updates, I'll have a look at that in the next day or so. Anyway for the current status, 2011h is in s-p-u, while sid has 2011j, bringing DST changes for Samoa, New Foundland and creating a South Soudan entry. 2011k is going to be released on September 26th, bringing changes to Palestine and Belarus. So it looks like we can already upload 2011i for Lenny, and push 2011j to volatile just after. For Squeeze we can go directly to 2011j. 2011k? Can I already start with the upload to o-s-p-u or should I open a bug for that? Feel free to upload if you wish. fwiw, although uploads for 5.0.9 officially close over the weekend, I'd be minded to make an exception for a tzdata upload if it could made as early in the week as reasonably possible. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1316801187.2091.9.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Bug#637664: Re: Bug#637664: pu: package tzdata/2011h-0squeeze1
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 16:40 +0200, Youssef Eldakar wrote: On 01/-10/-28163 09:59 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 17:23 +0400, Eugene Barbashin wrote: [Russian law changes on October 30th] For the record, after some discussion with the maintainers on IRC and as the next point releases for both stable and oldstable are due to occur before mid-October, we've decided not to push an update earlier. There may be an update to either package before the point release in order to incorporate any further changes. Well, in Egypt, as of the last Friday of April 2011, a Squeeze installation has incorrect time. I believe pushing an update is worth reconsidering. If it's broken for more than four months now, why has nobody mentioned the issue before? tzdata maintainers - any thoughts here? I know Aurelien mentioned that there was probably another update for lenny/squeeze appearing before the point releases in any case, but I'm not sure what the status is there. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1316282221.21594.98.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 20:27 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 22:53:15 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: The status is that glibc 2.11.4 will be released when Debian feels it is ready, as we are the main testers here. I am planning to do some more testing of the current SVN on more machines, and everything seems fine around the release of 6.0.3, I'll ask around for the release of 2.11.4. I can then upload it to stable just after the release of 6.0.3, which should give us sufficient additional testing before the release of 6.0.4. How does it sound to you? Seems reasonable to me fwiw. Me too; thanks. (and I assume others will yell if they disagree...) Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1315852308.7688.7.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Bug#637664: pu: package tzdata/2011h-0squeeze1
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 17:23 +0400, Eugene Barbashin wrote: I don't think there is a real need to push to to -updates. Nobody requested about this changes in lenny or squeeze, so I guess they are not that important. It's very important update for everyone using debian in Russia, so please, consider to push it to -updates and include in oldstable. Our law on this matter become effective next week (September, 7) and all systems where patch will not be installed on October, 30 will have incorrect time. For the record, after some discussion with the maintainers on IRC and as the next point releases for both stable and oldstable are due to occur before mid-October, we've decided not to push an update earlier. There may be an update to either package before the point release in order to incorporate any further changes. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1315855713.7688.17.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?
On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 23:30 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:30:41PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 14:47 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:48:51AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Given the timescales of the upcoming 6.0.2 and the larger-than-usual size of the diff, we'd prefer to look at getting this uploaded early in the 6.0.3 cycle, to give us a longer period with the updated version available for testing. We're now rather late in the 6.0.3 cycle - in fact, the point release should already have happened (there's been a small amount of scheduling fail). Does it mean we should consider it for the 6.0.4 cycle instead? That might be a better idea, but possibly depends on when the 6.0.3 release ends up being, which is somewhat up in the air still; sorry for messing you around on this. Hopefully we'll have more of a plan soon. Unfortunately the 2.11.4 release never happened upstream, it's seems to be blocked currently. Is there any hint as to whether that's likely to be a short-term issue, or to persist for some time? Given I haven't got any answer to the mails I sent to the call for testing thread, I don't expect this issue will be fixed soon. That is rather unfortunate, indeed. :-( Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1314911082.15526.5.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?
On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 14:47 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:48:51AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: [...] Thanks. From what I've seen, I'd be interested in seeing the fixes applied to p-u. Given the timescales of the upcoming 6.0.2 and the larger-than-usual size of the diff, we'd prefer to look at getting this uploaded early in the 6.0.3 cycle, to give us a longer period with the updated version available for testing. We're now rather late in the 6.0.3 cycle - in fact, the point release should already have happened (there's been a small amount of scheduling fail). Unfortunately the 2.11.4 release never happened upstream, it's seems to be blocked currently. Is there any hint as to whether that's likely to be a short-term issue, or to persist for some time? Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1314631842.3574.23.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 21:27 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:12:57PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: Aurelien, On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 12:23:51PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: I am therefore thinking about uploading the next upstream stable version (2.11.4 is currently in test period, it will be released in the next days), similarly to what is currently done for the kernel. What's your opinion on that, is it something that you would allow? [3] and [4] look fine, I'd like to see the whole diff against Squeeze, though. Is it reviewable? (Added test cases also seem like a great idea, FWIW.) [..] If it is possible to upload such a version, I'll integrate that in the SVN and I'll provide a full diff of the debian/ directory for final review. We'll include some small other changes (e.g. support for kernel 3.0 in the preinst script). Thanks. From what I've seen, I'd be interested in seeing the fixes applied to p-u. Given the timescales of the upcoming 6.0.2 and the larger-than-usual size of the diff, we'd prefer to look at getting this uploaded early in the 6.0.3 cycle, to give us a longer period with the updated version available for testing. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1308304131.19409.12.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Fwd: tzdata-2011d in volatile
On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 19:31 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 01:26:41PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: we just received the following request for 2011d in lenny-volatile and squeeze-updates. Could you prepare the uploads? I should have a bit of time tonight to work on that, unless Clint does it before. I have already something ready (but currently a too bad connection to do something else than mail). Thanks. However I have to say I am a bit lost with volatile, updates and so on. If I understand correctly, we should have a new version in lenny-volatile and squeeze-updates, and in fine also in lenny and squeeze. What are the required uploads to reach this state, which suites to target and in which case should I include a .orig.tar.gz with the upload? Taking the easy one first :-) volatile Target either lenny-volatile or oldstable; the latter means you can re-use the upload for ftp-master. This should include the .orig.tar.gz ftp-master == lenny: Target lenny or oldstable. squeeze: Target squeeze or stable; SRM will then add it to squeeze-updates. As a general rule, when you're uploading the same upstream version to multiple distributions at the same time only one of them should include the .orig.tar.gz; otherwise queued on ftp-master will helpfully silently delete the second and subsequent uploads before they even reach dak. In this case I'd suggest including the .orig.tar.gz in the lenny upload, so that you can simply re-upload that to volatile. As an added note to the above, same time is potentially a period lasting several days. If, for example, you'd uploaded the unstable package yesterday, the .orig.tar.gz would still be visible on http://incoming.debian.org/ and should not be included. In summary for this upload: - volatile - lenny-volatile or oldstable, include .orig - lenny - lenny or oldstable, include .orig - squeeze - squeeze or stable, don't include .orig Hope that helped. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1300910099.8249.160.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#617331: Pushing tzdata updates to stable in time
On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 20:07 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Assuming everything goes according to plan (adding packages to squeeze-updates hasn't actually been tested yet) I'm planning on pushing the tzdata update in tomorrow morning. Unfortunately, that didn't happen yet. Adding packages to squeeze-updates appears to work now, but an issue with this morning's dinstall means we won't be able to add tzdata in until after the 13:52UTC dinstall has finished happily, so it won't start getting pushed out until during the 19:52UTC dinstall. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1299931744.22892.618.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#617331: Pushing tzdata updates to stable in time
On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 12:09 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 20:07 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Assuming everything goes according to plan (adding packages to squeeze-updates hasn't actually been tested yet) I'm planning on pushing the tzdata update in tomorrow morning. Unfortunately, that didn't happen yet. Adding packages to squeeze-updates appears to work now, but an issue with this morning's dinstall means we won't be able to add tzdata in until after the 13:52UTC dinstall has finished happily, so it won't start getting pushed out until during the 19:52UTC dinstall. Actually, thanks to ftp-master, it made the 1352 dinstall after all, so should start appearing on mirrors within a couple of hours or so. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1299941051.22892.1121.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#617331: Pushing tzdata updates to stable in time
On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 16:54 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: On Fri Mar 11, 2011 at 13:11:52 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: Chile was supposed to leave the Summer daylight savings period this coming weekend, but it was pushed to April 2nd. The fixes have been accepted to the package in Sid, but many users will undoubtely appreciate it if it can be updated as well in stable-updates. [...] the correct way would be to ask the release team for a release of tzdata on stable-updates (formerly known as volatile) and get it updated in the next point release as well. [...] Is there a special process for this? or should we just make the DDs aware of the fact [by an email to d-d-a] that when one does a s-p-u upload which likely needs expedited handling, they should be very clear about that fact and email the stable release team ASAP? Those steps are backward, fwiw; the mail should come first for a p-u upload, not after the fact. I've made a note to mention stable-updates in an upcoming bits-from-SRM; now I just need to write one. :-) Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1299873562.24129.116.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#617331: Pushing tzdata updates to stable in time
On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 13:54 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: Martin Zobel-Helas dijo [Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 08:31:36PM +0100]: Chile was supposed to leave the Summer daylight savings period this coming weekend, but it was pushed to April 2nd. The fixes have been accepted to the package in Sid, but many users will undoubtely appreciate it if it can be updated as well in stable-updates. [...] the correct way would be to ask the release team for a release of tzdata on stable-updates (formerly known as volatile) and get it updated in the next point release as well. Yes - although that should be preceded with a suitable package built targetted at Squeeze, preferrably by the package maintainers, right? There's a tzdata package in the p-u-NEW queue which includes the change. Unfortunately it was uploaded slightly too late to make it in to the 1952 dinstall but I'll check the diff this evening and get it marked for acceptance in to p-u in the 0152. Assuming everything goes according to plan (adding packages to squeeze-updates hasn't actually been tested yet) I'm planning on pushing the tzdata update in tomorrow morning. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1299874042.24129.141.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#611629: libc6: fail to upgrade with Can't locate auto/Hash/Util/bootstpap.al in @INC
tag 611629 + moreinfo thanks On Mon, January 31, 2011 12:46, Teodor wrote: An almost up-to-date system upgraded last week cannot be upgraded today due to libc6 configuration errors: Looking at the log, it doesn't appear the errors are actually due to libc6, however. This section suggests a broken package; it would be interesting to narrow down which package caused it, so we can determine whether it is a local or mirror issue: | dpkg-deb (subprocess): data: internal bzip2 read error: 'DATA_ERROR' | dpkg-deb: subprocess decompress returned error exit status 2 | dpkg-deb (subprocess): failed in write on buffer copy for failed to write to pipe in copy: Broken pipe The appearance of this error also points towards a likely local problem: | Can't locate auto/Hash/Util/bootstpap.al in @INC (@INC contains: The copy of /usr/lib/perl/5.10/Hash/Util.pm shipped by perl-base 5.10.1-17 (the version in both squeeze and sid) has line 34 as: bootstrap Hash::Util $VERSION; rather than the bootstpap in your error log. /etc/perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.10.1 /usr/local/share/perl/5.10.1 /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.10 /usr/share/perl/5.10 /usr/local/lib/site_perl .) at /usr/lib/perl/5.10/Hash/Util.pm line 34 | Compilation failed in require at /usr/share/perl/5.10/fields.pm line 122. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5f3be00d8d848791c2e5b544d19490d0.squir...@adsl.funky-badger.org
Bug#611411: glibc-doc-reference: FTBFS: texi2dvi fails
user release.debian@packages.debian.org usertag 611411 + squeeze-can-defer tag 611411 + squeeze-ignore thanks On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 01:08 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: glibc-doc-reference FTBFS in a clean squeeze chroot. Tail of the build log: | texi2dvi --pdf libc.texinfo | make[1]: *** [libc.pdf] Error 1 | make[1]: Leaving directory `/build/sbuild-glibc-doc-reference_2.11.1-1-i386-6OZu9C/glibc-doc-reference-2.11.1/manual' | make: *** [build-stamp] Error 2 If texi2dvi weren't buggy (#611408), the error message would be: | This is pdfTeX, Version 3.1415926-1.40.10 (TeX Live 2009/Debian) | restricted \write18 enabled. | I can't find the format file `etex.fmt'! It's rather unlikely we're going to need to rebuild glibc-doc-reference in squeeze during its lifetime as a stable release and it's arch:all so this also won't affect autobuilding; marking as not a blocker. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1296297094.3206.263.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: squeeze upload for eglibc due to DSA-2122-2
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 21:35 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: I would like to make an upload of eglibc to address DSA-2122-2 (the first round of patches for the $ORIGIN/LD_AUDIT issue does not cover all corner cases, unfortunately). [...] Should I push this through testing-security, testing-proposed-updates or unstable? Have you got any preferences about version numbers? t-p-u won't work, as the versions in testing and unstable are currently in sync. As this will need fixing in unstable anyway and there don't seem to be any blockers, my preference would be to follow the normal unstable upload and migration route. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1294781195.24716.795.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#603921: tzdata tries to execute under /tmp during install
On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 15:31 +0100, Jan Rasche wrote: tzdata tries to execute stuff under /tmp during install. As lot of people used to mount /tmp noexec for security reasons this will raise errors. tzdata does no such thing. The culprit is clearly visible: [...] Can't exec /tmp/tzdata.config.308321: Keine Berechtigung at /usr/share/perl/5.10/IPC/Open3.pm line 168. open2: exec of /tmp/tzdata.config.308321 configure 2010j-0lenny1 failed at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/ConfModule.pm line 59 See debconf #223683 and the several other bugs merged with it. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1290123881.9499.143.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#550625: [Stable] Bug#550625: libc6: Realloc sometimes fails to copy all memory correctly
Hi, On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 11:10 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Would it be possible to do a stable upload to fix this problem (see below)? From the bug log I'd say this should indeed be fixed in stable. Please could you supply the proposed debdiff for confirmation? Thanks, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
