Bug#704291: unblock: openjdk-7/7u3-2.1.7-1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: important User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock please unblock openjdk-7/7u3-2.1.7-1, new minor upstream version including two security issues: openjdk-7 (7u3-2.1.7-1) unstable; urgency=high * IcedTea7 2.1.7 release: * Security fixes: - S8007014, CVE-2013-0809: Improve image handling. - S8007675, CVE-2013-1493: Improve color conversion. * Backports: - S8002344: Krb5LoginModule config class does not return proper KDC list from DNS. - S8004344: Fix a crash in ToolkitErrorHandler() in XlibWrapper.c. - S8006179: JSR292 MethodHandles lookup with interface using findVirtual(). - S8006882: Proxy generated classes in sun.proxy package breaks JMockit. * Bug fixes: - PR1303: Correct #ifdef to #if - Stop libraries being stripped in the OpenJDK build. - PR1340: Simplify the rhino class rewriter to avoid use of concurrency. - Revert 7017193 and add the missing free call, until a better fix is ready. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5157fd15.8070...@ubuntu.com
Bug#704297: unblock: dput/0.9.6.3+nmu2
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Hi, Please unblock package dput. This is an update to 0.9.6.3+nmu1 which tries to prevent uploads to the wrong archive. The changes in nmu1 were correct at the time of going to press, but recently the backports archive was integrated into the main archive and this change now works against us for bpo. unblock dput/0.9.6.3+nmu2 Thanks, Thijs -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.0 APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=nl_NL.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=nl_NL.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash diff -Nru dput-0.9.6.3+nmu1/debian/changelog dput-0.9.6.3+nmu2/debian/changelog --- dput-0.9.6.3+nmu1/debian/changelog 2012-10-14 17:22:48.0 +0200 +++ dput-0.9.6.3+nmu2/debian/changelog 2013-03-31 13:12:35.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +dput (0.9.6.3+nmu2) unstable; urgency=low + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * Update dput.cf to deal with backports.org being integrated into +the main archive (Closes: #704228). + + -- Thijs Kinkhorst th...@debian.org Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:09:54 +0200 + dput (0.9.6.3+nmu1) unstable; urgency=low * Non-maintainer upload. diff -Nru dput-0.9.6.3+nmu1/dput.cf dput-0.9.6.3+nmu2/dput.cf --- dput-0.9.6.3+nmu1/dput.cf 2012-10-14 14:54:17.0 +0200 +++ dput-0.9.6.3+nmu2/dput.cf 2013-03-31 13:11:49.0 +0200 @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ method = ftp # Please, upload your package to the proper archive # http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#bug-security-upload -allowed_distributions = (?!UNRELEASED|.*-security|.*-backports) +allowed_distributions = (?!UNRELEASED|.*-security) # http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/05/msg00036.html [ftp-eu] @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ allow_dcut = 1 # Please, upload your package to the proper archive # http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#bug-security-upload -allowed_distributions = (?!UNRELEASED|.*-security|.*-backports) +allowed_distributions = (?!UNRELEASED|.*-security) # http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/09/msg7.html [ssh-upload] @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ allow_dcut = 1 # Please, upload your package to the proper archive # http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#bug-security-upload -allowed_distributions = (?!UNRELEASED|.*-security|.*-backports) +allowed_distributions = (?!UNRELEASED|.*-security) # And if you want to override one of the defaults, add it here. # For example, comment out the next line @@ -81,13 +81,6 @@ incoming = /pub/Incoming/upload login = anonymous -[backports] -fqdn = backports-master.debian.org -method = ftp -incoming = /pub/UploadQueue/ -login = anonymous -allow_dcut = 1 - [ubuntu] fqdn = upload.ubuntu.com method = ftp
Re: Fixing lucky 13 CVE-2013-0169 in gnutls28
On 2013-03-20 Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org wrote: On 2013-03-19 Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org wrote: [...] Find attached a proposed patch. Its rather obvious downside is that it will break on ports, due to using a negative list (all except) where possible and a positive list else: [...] Having slept over it I realize this is no problem at all. - Ports (which are not listed in the positive list) will simply build the guile but will not generate a guile-gnutls package containing these additional files. Could you please remove gnutls28 3.0.22-3 from *unstable* to make it possible to start testing the transition? thanks, cu andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130331123556.ga3...@downhill.g.la
Bug#698381: unblock: ifupdown/0.7.7
Control: retitle -1 unblock: ifupdown/0.7.7 Hi, On 25/03/13 10:42, Julien Cristau wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 19:58:31 +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote: Please unblock package ifupdown. This release fixes some important issues with ifupdown, and also brings upstart support up to date. Sorry for the delay here. I've unblocked 0.7.6, which afaict leaves us with the dhclient -1 question. That did not have time to migrate :( meanwhile the maintainer removed the dhclient -1 flag in a new upload. I'm not on the Release Team but this change sounds scary to me; it changes behaviour from what we've had in the entire wheezy freeze period. Even while a tryonce option was implemented in sid it defaulted to 'yes'. (The rationale for this was bug #694541.) Releasing DHCPv6 has also been reverted due to a regression. Attaching a new debdiff, which seems quite big, but partly due to sections of in-line code documentation. debian/changelog | 30 ++--- debian/control |2 debian/testbuild-linux | 12 - ifupdown.nw| 108 - interfaces.5.pre | 21 + 5 files changed, 145 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) Thanks, Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org ifupdown_0.7.5+nmu1_0.7.7.debdiff.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data
Processed: Re: Bug#698381: unblock: ifupdown/0.7.7
Processing control commands: retitle -1 unblock: ifupdown/0.7.7 Bug #698381 [release.debian.org] unblock: ifupdown/0.7.6 Changed Bug title to 'unblock: ifupdown/0.7.7' from 'unblock: ifupdown/0.7.6' -- 698381: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=698381 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b698381.13647376349405.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#698381: unblock: ifupdown/0.7.7
Hello, On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 14:46:59 +0100 Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org wrote: Control: retitle -1 unblock: ifupdown/0.7.7 Steven, thanks for updating the unblock request; I should've done that myself and forgot to. I'm not on the Release Team but this change sounds scary to me; it changes behaviour from what we've had in the entire wheezy freeze period. Even while a tryonce option was implemented in sid it defaulted to 'yes'. (The rationale for this was bug #694541.) However, we had it without -1 for at least one release before; actually, neither variant solves all the issues, so it seems the best thing to do now is to stick to what we've had in squeeze. Releasing DHCPv6 has also been reverted due to a regression. Yes, and it seems it may be dhclient's fault, or may be not, but that needs more investigation. -- WBR, Andrew signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
CC list trimmed and -release added On 31.03.2013 17:45, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: A new major release R 3.0.0 will come out on Wednesday April 3rd, as usual according the the release plan and announcements [1]. It contains major internal changes [2] and requires rebuilds of all R packages. [...] As for unstable, we have an issue as essentially all reverse-dependencies that are R packages will need to be rebuilt [5]. On testing, I get for 158 packages from `apt-cache rdepends r-base-core | grep -c r-cran-`. [...] and I am CCing everybody now to see if they could please rebuild the packages within a week or so. Come next weekend we'll review and switch to direct email pings. Comments, suggestions, ... most welcome. Please CC me on replies as I am no longer subscribed to debian-devel. Aside from the lack of pre-discussion, co-ordination etc., the last few weeks of a freeze _really_ isn't the right time to be starting a large (or indeed small) transition in unstable. We now have at least 87 (based on this morning's britney run) packages which won't be able to receive updates via unstable should they turn out to have lately discovered RC bugs. If any of those packages are then involved in dependency chains, the same could be true of packages outside of the R module packages. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/c39a508e527b09e93c834b1b4ca2e...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On 31 March 2013 at 18:18, Adam D. Barratt wrote: | Aside from the lack of pre-discussion, co-ordination etc., the last few | weeks of a freeze _really_ isn't the right time to be starting a large | (or indeed small) transition in unstable. We now have at least 87 (based | on this morning's britney run) packages which won't be able to receive | updates via unstable should they turn out to have lately discovered RC | bugs. If any of those packages are then involved in dependency chains, | the same could be true of packages outside of the R module packages. In the grand scheme of things, R is a rather peripheral package. Please just put a block on r-base-core to prevent it from migrating to testing. All these dependencies will be held too. I cannot influence the R release cycle which happens within our freeze. As have a few previous R releases, and none of those created any trouble. Dirk -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20824.29562.409641.732...@max.nulle.part
Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:33:46PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: On 31 March 2013 at 18:18, Adam D. Barratt wrote: | Aside from the lack of pre-discussion, co-ordination etc., the last few | weeks of a freeze _really_ isn't the right time to be starting a large | (or indeed small) transition in unstable. We now have at least 87 (based | on this morning's britney run) packages which won't be able to receive | updates via unstable should they turn out to have lately discovered RC | bugs. If any of those packages are then involved in dependency chains, | the same could be true of packages outside of the R module packages. In the grand scheme of things, R is a rather peripheral package. A peripheral package can still cause extra work for the release team. Please just put a block on r-base-core to prevent it from migrating to testing. All these dependencies will be held too. The freeze already guarantees the these new R packages won't be entering wheezy. That is not the problem. The problem is that since you uploaded, to unstable, packages that cannot enter wheezy, any bug fixes _in_wheezy_ now have to go via testing-proposed-uploads, which is more work for everyone, including the release team. Because of the complicated dependencies between packages in Debian, this then cause _other_ packages to suffer the same fate. This is not a new thing, and it has been said repeatedly by the release team on debian-devel-announce. I cannot influence the R release cycle which happens within our freeze. As have a few previous R releases, and none of those created any trouble. You can, however, avoid uploading the new R packages to Debian unstable during a Debian release freeze, and you should have done so. You could have uploaded them to experimental instead. This would have avoided all the potential problems for the Debian release process. -- http://www.cafepress.com/trunktees -- geeky funny T-shirts http://gtdfh.branchable.com/ -- GTD for hackers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130331175510.gh4...@havelock.liw.fi
Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:33:46PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: In the grand scheme of things, R is a rather peripheral package. Not sure where you get that idea, but given that you insist on that: | pkern@franck ~ % dak rm -nR -s testing r-base | Working... done. […] | Checking reverse dependencies... | # Broken Depends: [ 175 lines ] | | # Broken Build-Depends: [ 181 lines ] | | Dependency problem found. I realize that you wrote the list already in your first mail, but that's absolutely not peripheral. Please just put a block on r-base-core to prevent it from migrating to testing. All these dependencies will be held too. Blocking RC bug fixes in any of the packages build-depending (even indirectly) on r-base. Well done. I cannot influence the R release cycle which happens within our freeze. As have a few previous R releases, and none of those created any trouble. Thanks for trading the R release cycle with Debian's and for delaying the release. The harm has already been done, so somebody should probably go and create a transition tracker for it? Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Fixing lucky 13 CVE-2013-0169 in gnutls28
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 14:35:56 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: Could you please remove gnutls28 3.0.22-3 from *unstable* to make it possible to start testing the transition? We don't handle unstable. You'll have to file a bug against ftp.debian.org for that. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#704159: unblock (pre-approval) : clang/1:3.0-6.2
Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: I'd rather not have the DEP-3 boilerplate in your first patch; with that removed, please go ahead with an upload to unstable and ping this bug when it is ready. Done. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5158ba2c.8000...@p10link.net
Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On 31 March 2013 at 22:14, Philipp Kern wrote: | On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:33:46PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | In the grand scheme of things, R is a rather peripheral package. | | Not sure where you get that idea, but given that you insist on that: | | | pkern@franck ~ % dak rm -nR -s testing r-base | | Working... done. | […] | | Checking reverse dependencies... | | # Broken Depends: | [ 175 lines ] | | | | # Broken Build-Depends: | [ 181 lines ] | | | | Dependency problem found. | | I realize that you wrote the list already in your first mail, but that's | absolutely not peripheral. When I said peripheral I meant in the sense that none of the Depends are used by anything else beyond R. I know it is not small -- there are now 4400 R packages on CRAN, and we have about 150 of those in Debian. | Please just put a block on r-base-core to prevent it from migrating to | testing. All these dependencies will be held too. | | Blocking RC bug fixes in any of the packages build-depending (even indirectly) | on r-base. Well done. Damn. I did probably blow the possible migration of Rcpp 0.10.3 (for which I half of upstream) into testing. It's RC, though, is a two-line patch for *BSD compilation of one source file. Maybe we can deal with that separately? | I cannot influence the R release cycle which happens within our freeze. As | have a few previous R releases, and none of those created any trouble. | | Thanks for trading the R release cycle with Debian's and for delaying the | release. The harm has already been done, so somebody should probably go | and create a transition tracker for it? I didn't mean to create extra work. We had two such transitions for R before in the last five years, and they just worked. I assumed it would just work again. I should have asked here, and didn't. My bad. Dirk -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20824.47881.965269.50...@max.nulle.part
Bug#704297: marked as done (unblock: dput/0.9.6.3+nmu2)
Your message dated Mon, 1 Apr 2013 00:30:23 +0100 with message-id 20130331233023.ga11...@ernie.home.powdarrmonkey.net and subject line Re: Bug#704297: unblock: dput/0.9.6.3+nmu2 has caused the Debian Bug report #704297, regarding unblock: dput/0.9.6.3+nmu2 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.) -- 704297: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=704297 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Hi, Please unblock package dput. This is an update to 0.9.6.3+nmu1 which tries to prevent uploads to the wrong archive. The changes in nmu1 were correct at the time of going to press, but recently the backports archive was integrated into the main archive and this change now works against us for bpo. unblock dput/0.9.6.3+nmu2 Thanks, Thijs -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.0 APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=nl_NL.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=nl_NL.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash diff -Nru dput-0.9.6.3+nmu1/debian/changelog dput-0.9.6.3+nmu2/debian/changelog --- dput-0.9.6.3+nmu1/debian/changelog 2012-10-14 17:22:48.0 +0200 +++ dput-0.9.6.3+nmu2/debian/changelog 2013-03-31 13:12:35.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +dput (0.9.6.3+nmu2) unstable; urgency=low + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * Update dput.cf to deal with backports.org being integrated into +the main archive (Closes: #704228). + + -- Thijs Kinkhorst th...@debian.org Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:09:54 +0200 + dput (0.9.6.3+nmu1) unstable; urgency=low * Non-maintainer upload. diff -Nru dput-0.9.6.3+nmu1/dput.cf dput-0.9.6.3+nmu2/dput.cf --- dput-0.9.6.3+nmu1/dput.cf 2012-10-14 14:54:17.0 +0200 +++ dput-0.9.6.3+nmu2/dput.cf 2013-03-31 13:11:49.0 +0200 @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ method = ftp # Please, upload your package to the proper archive # http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#bug-security-upload -allowed_distributions = (?!UNRELEASED|.*-security|.*-backports) +allowed_distributions = (?!UNRELEASED|.*-security) # http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/05/msg00036.html [ftp-eu] @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ allow_dcut = 1 # Please, upload your package to the proper archive # http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#bug-security-upload -allowed_distributions = (?!UNRELEASED|.*-security|.*-backports) +allowed_distributions = (?!UNRELEASED|.*-security) # http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/09/msg7.html [ssh-upload] @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ allow_dcut = 1 # Please, upload your package to the proper archive # http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#bug-security-upload -allowed_distributions = (?!UNRELEASED|.*-security|.*-backports) +allowed_distributions = (?!UNRELEASED|.*-security) # And if you want to override one of the defaults, add it here. # For example, comment out the next line @@ -81,13 +81,6 @@ incoming = /pub/Incoming/upload login = anonymous -[backports] -fqdn = backports-master.debian.org -method = ftp -incoming = /pub/UploadQueue/ -login = anonymous -allow_dcut = 1 - [ubuntu] fqdn = upload.ubuntu.com method = ftp ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 01:35:48PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: Please unblock package dput. This is an update to 0.9.6.3+nmu1 which tries to prevent uploads to the wrong archive. The changes in nmu1 were correct at the time of going to press, but recently the backports archive was integrated into the main archive and this change now works against us for bpo. Thanks, unblocked. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 directhex i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from 8-10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits layered on top of bonghits signature.asc Description: Digital signature ---End Message---
Processed: Re: Bug#703818: tpu: fonts-vlgothic/20120629-2
Processing control commands: tag -1 + confirmed Bug #703818 [release.debian.org] tpu: fonts-vlgothic/20120629-2 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 703818: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=703818 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b703818.136477352129418.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#703818: tpu: fonts-vlgothic/20120629-2
Control: tag -1 + confirmed On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 02:02:58PM +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote: Please approve fonts-vlgothic-20120629-2 upload to testing-proposed-updates. Its fix is tiny as below, and same fix for fonts-ipafont/ipaexfont which is permitted to introduce wheezy before. Please go ahead and ping this bug when it is uploaded. Thanks, -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 directhex i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from 8-10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits layered on top of bonghits signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: tagging 696564
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 696564 + moreinfo Bug #696564 [release.debian.org] unblock: fusioninventory-agent/2.2.3-5 Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #696564 to the same tags previously set thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 696564: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=696564 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.136477360230278.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#703818: tpu: fonts-vlgothic/20120629-2
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 00:45:04 +0100 Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org wrote: Please go ahead and ping this bug when it is uploaded. Thanks! uploaded it. -- Regards, Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/org http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130401091641.5729ff251c10bd8b52fd6...@debian.or.jp
