More information please
What type of artist are you? What do you specialize in? Please let me know a link to your online gallery where you display your art, I would very much like to have a look at more of what you have. Thank you. Kristos
Bug#706798: transition: Libav 9
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 21:46:04 +, Steven Chamberlain wrote: Also,,, package sox doesn't show good/bad status. But it depends on an older libav matching /lib(avcodec52|avformat52|avutil50)/ See http://packages.debian.org/sid/libsox-fmt-ffmpeg Was it missed during a previous soname transition? Could/should the libav9 tracker be updated to match on this as Bad? That package is not in sid. The above page only lists it for hppa on debian-ports. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#706798: transition: Libav 9
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 21:41:01 +, Steven Chamberlain wrote: Hi, The tracker for this transition[0] doesn't show either good or bad status for package aqualung. In fact it still uses the old libav and requires an NMU, but it will FTBFS with the new version. [I plan to prepare an NMU fixing this and another RC bug]. [0]: http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/libav9.html aqualung's dependencies refer to packages matching /lib(avcodec-extra-53|avformat-extra-53|avutil-extra-51)/ is that bad/unexpected? Could other packages have been missed? aqualung's dependencies don't match that as far as I can tell. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#730870: pu: unifont -- RoM; NMU Version in Stable Undoes Ubuntu Fix
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 19:13 -0800, Paul Hardy wrote: On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 07:59 -0700, unifoun...@unifoundry.com wrote: I am requesting that the version of package Unifont in Testing, unifont 1:5.1.20080914-4, be included in the upcoming Wheezy point release primarily to align with Colin Watson's wishes for Ubuntu. What are the problems with the package in stable which this update would resolve? Aligning with Ubuntu's packaging is not a suitable reason for an update. From a Debian perspective, I would list these changes as most relevant: * debian/copyright reflects revised licensing for the Wen Quan Yi glyphs incorporated into Unifont. So long as the package in stable is distributable, we've generally treated updates / clarifications to the license information in unstable as being good enough to cover stable as well. * debian/control entries had incorrect Section fields because of revised policy (x11 instead of the new font section); now they are correct. That might be okay as part of an update, it's not enough on its own. * debian/control entries needed changes in dependencies to conform to new Debian Policy requirements. See below. * I removed vestigial defoma artifacts from the package. Are said artefacts actually causing any problems? [...] The Debian NMU of Unifont made its way to Ubuntu and did not incorporate Colin's fix, so the upload had the effect of removing his fix from Ubuntu. That's unfortunate, but again in no way justifies an update to stable. Yes, most unfortunate, and I was asking for the change for Ubuntu's sake. I'm confused by this statement. To the best of my knowledge, when Ubuntu synchronise packages they do so from unstable; the content of the package in stable has no bearing on what ends up in Ubuntu. [...] * Updated packaging to conform to the policy version suitable for Wheezy Stable (3.9.4), notably for the revised font handling requirements. No, the version of Policy applicable to wheezy is 3.9.3. Okay. I built the package running the current Stable distribution with automatic updates, and that configuration uses Policy 3.9.4. I'm not sure what you mean by uses Policy 3.9.4, but: $ dak ls debian-policy -s stable debian-policy | 3.9.3.1 | stable | source, all The release announcement for 3.9.4 explicitly said Since this is during freeze, two major caveats. First, none of the changes in Policy 3.9.4 are release-critical for wheezy (except for things that were already release-critical before being documented) and should in general not result in uploads targeting wheezy [...] However, there are things in the Stable version that do not comply with changes made by version 3.9.3 in regards to font handling. As far as I can tell, 3.9.3 makes exactly 0 changes in regards to font handling. Please be more explicit. * Added hardening to debian/rules. That is very much not a suitable change to be making in a stable update. I added this to remove lintian warnings because it was simple, before realizing the problem with the removal of Colin's fix from Ubuntu. At the time I started, I was just planning to improve the packaging in preparation for the next release of upstream. That's fine for unstable; as I said though, it's not appropriate for an update to stable. I also realize that updating the Policy number is frowned upon for changes to Stable, but in this case the Stable version used an outdated Policy version that did not reflect mandatory changes in how Debian now handles fonts. Could you point to which changes you're referring to? I may just need more coffee, but checking through the upgrading checklist and changelog isn't highlighting anything obvious since policy 3.5.5 (or maybe 3.7.0 at a push). In any case, whilst the xfonts-utils dependencies are technically required, it is also in practice unlikely for their absence to be an issue, due to e.g. xorg and xutils depending on the package. Please produce a full source debdiff of the changes you're proposing to make, based on the current package in stable; we will not ack updates based on a changelog. I've attached a debdiff. I think these changes are small. In contrast, the next upload I make will be significantly different; I've switched to dh and have made extensive upstream changes to Makefiles and other structural changes to the upstream sources. While I consider the version now in Testing to be very robust, there could be problems I didn't anticipate in
Bug#706798: transition: Libav 9
On 01/12/13 10:46, Julien Cristau wrote: aqualung's dependencies don't match that as far as I can tell. Okay thanks. I'm misinterpreting the PTS: dep: libavcodec52 (= 4:0.5.1-1) [hppa] Libav codec library or libavcodec-extra-52 (= 4:0.5.1-1) Package not available I assumed the libavcodec-extra-52 dependency was the one for [not hppa]. In fact the aqualung binary package has no libav dependency in sid, since choking on the last libav transition. The build system didn't fail on this, and produced a package without libav functionality. So it is really not affected by the latest libav9 transition. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#704032: Transition to boost 1.54
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 14:59:24 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Boost 1.54 is now in sid on all architectures, so we should transition to that. Hi Steve, The build log at https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libzeeparch=sparcver=3.0.2-1%2Bb1stamp=1377947044 seems to point at a boost issue. Can you take a look? Thanks, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#704032: Transition to boost 1.54
On December 1, 2013 03:57:10 PM Julien Cristau wrote: On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 14:59:24 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Boost 1.54 is now in sid on all architectures, so we should transition to that. Hi Steve, The build log at https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libzeeparch=sparcver=3.0.2- 1%2Bb1stamp=1377947044 seems to point at a boost issue. Can you take a look? I agree. It's been reported as #723115. No fix yet, I'm afraid. -Steve signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Processed: block 704032 with 726863 725626 731064 731066 731067 728580 731058 711950 729270
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: block 704032 with 726863 725626 731064 731066 731067 728580 731058 711950 729270 Bug #704032 [release.debian.org] transition: boost-defaults 1.54 704032 was blocked by: 710083 709576 708802 710082 721544 699575 709577 709570 710081 709579 709578 701336 709251 704045 709248 709861 709254 709575 709574 721577 715474 701360 706648 701288 704032 was blocking: 695826 707376 708109 708439 708443 708445 708446 708448 Added blocking bug(s) of 704032: 731067, 731066, 725626, 711950, 731064, 731058, 729270, 728580, and 726863 thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 704032: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=704032 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.138591089523013.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#704032: Transition to boost 1.54
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 14:59:24 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Boost 1.54 is now in sid on all architectures, so we should transition to that. Quick status update on this. boost1.49 is being kept in testing by: - crrcsim; binNMUs scheduled - enblend-enfuse; binNMUs scheduled - gnuradio #729270 - gpsshogi #725626. removal candidate - libcmis; binNMUs scheduled - libkolabxml; binNMUs scheduled - libmpikmeans; binNMUs scheduled - libpwiz #731064 - libzeep; FTBFS on sparc due to boost bug - licq/amd64; binNMU scheduled - mapnik; missing builds on mipsen - mcrl2 #731067 - miaviewit; binNMUed today - minieigen; should sort itself soon - mongodb #728580 - ogre; removal candidate - openscad #709861 - pdns #726863; has patch - quantlib; should sort itself soon - supercollider; should sort itself soon - vmware-view-open-client #731058; contrib - witty; binNMUs scheduled - xsd #711950; nmu in delayed - yade; given back today, let's see... boost1.53 is being kept in testing by: - guitarix #731020, should fix itself soon - smc #731018, unfixed. no reverse deps, so will be removal candidate - cegui-mk2 #731019, unfixed. reverse deps mmpong and crystalspace. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#717923: transition: tiff 4.x (libtiff5)
Hi Jay, first, sorry for not handling this sooner. On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:33:03 -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: Rationale for not keeping libtiff4-dev: * tiff 3.x does not support pkg-config. We can't install libtiff4 dev files in a standard path since they will then conflict with libtiff-dev. Therefore, source packages that must have libtiff4-dev will have to make changes to their builds anyway to change include and library paths; simple binary NMU for this case is not possible. Forcing them to change the build dependency to libtiff4-alt-dev makes it easier to track which packages need attention and which packages have already been updated. Basically everyone with libtiff4-dev in their build dependency list will either have to replace it with libtiff-dev or replace it with libtiff4-alt-dev and update include and library paths. So I think your plan sounds good, but I would really prefer to have as few packages as possible build-depending on libtiff4-dev before we flip the switch. Either that, or make the libtiff-dev built from the tiff 4.x source package temporarily build a transitional libtiff4-dev package depending on libtiff-dev and libtiff5, do the mass bug filing, and give people a couple months to change their build-deps (or less, if there are volunteers for an aggressive NMU campaign). I count about 70 such source packages right now, and making them all FTBFS would be annoying. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#729531: transition: icu
Control: tags -1 confirmed On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 16:41:58 -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition I'd like to upgrade the version of ICU from 4.8 to 52. They changed their version numbering scheme essentially multiplying everything by 10. We skipped a few versions (49, 50, 51) because of the freeze before wheezy. This is the first major version to be released since Wheezy. (A major ICU version is released every six months.) ICU 52 should be source compatible but not binary compile with ICU 4.8. Many bugs have been fixed since ICU 4.8. I have basically done a library transition approximately every other ICU version, and they have all gone smoothly up to this point. The dev package name is versionless (libicu-dev) so this transition should be able to be done with just a forced rebuild of ICU's reverse dependencies. Please go ahead, and let us know when icu 52 is installed on all archs so we can start the rebuilds. Thanks, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#729531: transition: icu
Processing control commands: tags -1 confirmed Bug #729531 [release.debian.org] transition: icu Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 729531: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=729531 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.b729531.13859137408738.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#730870: pu: unifont -- RoM; NMU Version in Stable Undoes Ubuntu Fix
Adam, On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.ukwrote: On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 19:13 -0800, Paul Hardy wrote: On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 07:59 -0700, unifoun...@unifoundry.com wrote: I am requesting that the version of package Unifont in Testing, unifont 1:5.1.20080914-4, be included in the upcoming Wheezy point release primarily to align with Colin Watson's wishes for Ubuntu. What are the problems with the package in stable which this update would resolve? Aligning with Ubuntu's packaging is not a suitable reason for an update. * debian/control entries had incorrect Section fields because of revised policy (x11 instead of the new font section); now they are correct. That might be okay as part of an update, it's not enough on its own. * debian/control entries needed changes in dependencies to conform to new Debian Policy requirements. See below. * I removed vestigial defoma artifacts from the package. Are said artefacts actually causing any problems? I don't know; I can only say that nobody has told me of any problems but their removal will make the potential issue moot. [...] * Updated packaging to conform to the policy version suitable for Wheezy Stable (3.9.4), notably for the revised font handling requirements. No, the version of Policy applicable to wheezy is 3.9.3. Okay. I built the package running the current Stable distribution with automatic updates, and that configuration uses Policy 3.9.4. I'm not sure what you mean by uses Policy 3.9.4, but: $ dak ls debian-policy -s stable debian-policy | 3.9.3.1 | stable | source, all Somehow I had debian-policy 3.9.4; my error. Now I've re-installed debian-policy from the distribution and dpkg -s debian-policy shows version 3.9.3.1. [...] However, there are things in the Stable version that do not comply with changes made by version 3.9.3 in regards to font handling. As far as I can tell, 3.9.3 makes exactly 0 changes in regards to font handling. Please be more explicit. [...] Could you point to which changes you're referring to? I may just need more coffee, but checking through the upgrading checklist and changelog isn't highlighting anything obvious since policy 3.5.5 (or maybe 3.7.0 at a push). The additional fonts section was added before the Wheezy freeze. Section 2.4 of the Policy Manual v3.9.3.1 lists the debian/control sections, and fonts is listed there. This new section should be used instead of the older x11 section as per my modifications in debian/control. The changelog for debian-policy doesn't mention when that section was added. It would have been in the Squeeze time frame. I had the exact announcement where the fonts section was introduced at one point, but can't find it now. The Stable debian/control Section assignments are overridden during building, so as long as those overrides operate as expected there shouldn't be a problem. In any case, whilst the xfonts-utils dependencies are technically required, it is also in practice unlikely for their absence to be an issue, due to e.g. xorg and xutils depending on the package. To be explicit, I'm currently likely to nack this proposed update, unless answers to the queries above reveal an issue I'm missing. Regards, Adam If build overrides because of outdated debian/control section assignments and safe violations of updated dependency requirements in Policy are okay for Stable, and if there are no problems with defoma remnants in the packaging, and licensing changes reflected in Unstable suffice, then I guess there's no need to update Stable. But there's a version in Testing now that I think introduces minor changes to address all of those issues (versus the major changes that the next upload will introduce). I at least wanted to let you know about its availability and have the opportunity to update Stable. In any case, thanks for taking the time to respond to this so quickly. Paul Hardy
Bug#730870: marked as done (pu: unifont -- RoM; NMU Version in Stable Undoes Ubuntu Fix)
Your message dated Sun, 1 Dec 2013 17:49:56 +0100
with message-id 20131201164956.gp4...@betterave.cristau.org
and subject line Re: Bug#730870: pu: unifont -- RoM; NMU Version in Stable
Undoes Ubuntu Fix
has caused the Debian Bug report #730870,
regarding pu: unifont -- RoM; NMU Version in Stable Undoes Ubuntu Fix
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.)
--
730870: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=730870
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
---BeginMessage---
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Tags: wheezy
Severity: normal
I am requesting that the version of package Unifont in Testing, unifont
1:5.1.20080914-4, be included in the upcoming Wheezy point release
primarily to align with Colin Watson's wishes for Ubuntu. Before the
NMU was uploaded to Debian this year, Colin made the following change in
the Unifont package on Ubuntu, for Ubuntu:
unifont (1:5.1.20080914-1.1ubuntu1) precise; urgency=low
* Use maintscript support in dh_installdeb rather than writing out
dpkg-maintscript-helper commands by hand. We now simply Pre-Depend
on a
new enough version of dpkg rather than using
'dpkg-maintscript-helper
supports' guards, leading to more predictable behaviour on upgrades.
-- Colin Watson email address hidden Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:43:00
+
The Debian NMU of Unifont made its way to Ubuntu and did not incorporate
Colin's fix, so the upload had the effect of removing his fix from
Ubuntu. The Unifont version in Testing does incorporate his fix, and
closed a bug that he filed on Debian (#659730) requesting this change.
These other significant changes were made in the version in Testing:
* Changed Section: to fonts for most debian/control entries to conform
to current Policy; the older x11 (and now incorrect) Section entries
thus no longer need overriding.
* Updated packaging to conform to the policy version suitable for Wheezy
Stable (3.9.4), notably for the revised font handling requirements.
* Added hardening to debian/rules.
Allowing this update into Stable will harmonize what is in Debian with
what Colin Watson wanted in Ubuntu; it will use a debian/control file
that does not require Section overrides during building; and it will use
hardening.
I am attaching the changelog.
Thanks,
Paul Hardy
unifont (1:5.1.20080914-4) unstable; urgency=low
* debian/control changes:
- Updated packaging to conform to Debian Policy version 3.9.4.
- Section tag is listed for each package; unifont-bin is in
Section x11, and all other packages are in fonts.
- Added explicit Depends entry for xfonts-utils for each package,
as per Debian Policy Manual 3.9.4 Section 11.8.5, Packages
providing fonts, item 9.
- Added Depends for fontforge to unifont-bin; removed weaker
Suggests for fontforge from unifont-bin.
* debian/rules - CPPFLAGS is now declared and used, for hardening.
-- Paul Hardy unifoun...@unifoundry.com Thu, 14 Nov 2013 05:16:42 -0800
unifont (1:5.1.20080914-3) unstable; urgency=low
* Changed debian/control unifont Section entry from x11 to fonts.
* Changed debian/control Depends entries for unifont and ttf-unifont
to add Depends: ${misc:Depends}.
* Corrected changelog entries for 1:5.1.20080914-2.
* debian/rules uses dpkg-buildflags to set CFLAGS LDFLAGS, for
hardening.
-- Paul Hardy unifoun...@unifoundry.com Sun, 10 Nov 2013 19:55:48 -0800
unifont (1:5.1.20080914-2) unstable; urgency=low
[ Colin Watson ]
* Use maintscript support in dh_installdeb rather than writing out
dpkg-maintscript-helper commands by hand. We now simply Pre-Depend on a
new enough version of dpkg rather than using 'dpkg-maintscript-helper
supports' guards, leading to more predictable behaviour on upgrades.
(Closes: #659730)
[ Paul Hardy ]
* Applied above changes that Colin Watson provided in bug report,
simplifying debian/ file structure and making the Unifont package
more suitable for Ubuntu. The one exception is I didn't create
the ttf-unifont.maintscript file, because /etc/defoma/ no longer
exists on Debian or Ubuntu.
* debian/copyright - updated copyright and licensing information to
reflect the latest source code changes and license agreements.
* debian/README.Debian - minor change now that Etch is no longer
the current release.
* README - updated documentation to cover font modifications and the
latest license agreements.
* Corrected changelog entries for 1:5.1.20080808-1 and
Bug#714398: transition: glpk
Control: tags -1 confirmed On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 22:08:06 +0200, Sébastien Villemot wrote: Please schedule a transition for the source package glpk. The new version is currently in experimental. It features a SOVERSION bump, and removes several obsolete functions from the API. Please go ahead. Sorry for the delay. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#714398: transition: glpk
Processing control commands: tags -1 confirmed Bug #714398 [release.debian.org] transition: glpk Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 714398: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=714398 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.b714398.13859187463549.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#708401: transition: suitesparse
Control: tags -1 confirmed On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 16:17:45 +0200, Sébastien Villemot wrote: Please schedule a transition for the source package suitesparse. The new version is currently in experimental. It features a SONAME bump of all library packages (as with every new upstream release, since upstream does not track ABI), and it also includes a small API change. Let's go ahead with this, sorry for the delay. Please tell us when the package is built/installed everywhere so we can schedule rebuilds. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#708401: transition: suitesparse
Processing control commands: tags -1 confirmed Bug #708401 [release.debian.org] transition: suitesparse Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 708401: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=708401 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.b708401.13859188794681.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#728179: Is anyone handling this?
Due to changes in other build dependencies unrelated to the gsoap update the cgsi-gsoap and lcgdm packages needed changes to the source package. The need for binnmu of these packages therefore no longer exists. The following is still needed: nmu gridsite . amd64 i386 powerpc sparc . -m Rebuild against libgsoap4 nmu voms . ALL . -m Rebuild against libgsoap4 nmu srm-ifce . ALL . -m Rebuild against libgsoap4 nmu gfal2 . ALL . -m Rebuild against libgsoap4 and libgridsite2 dw gfal2 . ALL . -m srm-ifce-dev ( 1.18.0-1+b1) nmu condor . ALL . -m Rebuild against libgsoap4 nmu virtualbox . amd64 i386 . -m Rebuild against libgsoap4 Mattias signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#728179: Is anyone handling this?
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 19:02 +0100, Mattias Ellert wrote: nmu gridsite . amd64 i386 powerpc sparc . -m Rebuild against libgsoap4 nmu voms . ALL . -m Rebuild against libgsoap4 nmu srm-ifce . ALL . -m Rebuild against libgsoap4 nmu gfal2 . ALL . -m Rebuild against libgsoap4 and libgridsite2 dw gfal2 . ALL . -m srm-ifce-dev ( 1.18.0-1+b1) nmu condor . ALL . -m Rebuild against libgsoap4 nmu virtualbox . amd64 i386 . -m Rebuild against libgsoap4 Scheduled. 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/1385921323.7781.14.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Processed: virtualbox: FTBFS (kmk: *** [/«PKGBUILDDIR»/out/obj/webservice/gsoap_copy_all_ts] Error 64)
Processing control commands: block 728179 with -1 Bug #728179 [release.debian.org] transition: libgsoap4, libgridsite2, canl-c 728179 was not blocked by any bugs. 728179 was blocking: 728636 Added blocking bug(s) of 728179: 731081 -- 728179: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=728179 731081: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=731081 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.b.138592590611209.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#728179: Is anyone handling this?
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 18:08 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 19:02 +0100, Mattias Ellert wrote: nmu virtualbox . amd64 i386 . -m Rebuild against libgsoap4 Scheduled. and failed. Given the repeated chasing of the rebuilds, I must admit that I had assumed that you had checked that they were likely to succeed. Mea culpa for not explicitly asking. 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/1385926013.7781.21.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: meep-lam4_1.1.1-10~deb7u1_mips.changes ACCEPT -- 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/e1vnckp-0006bw...@franck.debian.org
Bug#728179: Thanks
sön 2013-12-01 klockan 19:02 +0100 skrev Mattias Ellert: dw gfal2 . ALL . -m srm-ifce-dev ( 1.18.0-1+b1) That should have been = 1.18.0-1+b1 - sorry for screwing up. And many thanks for executing the nmus. Mattias signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Processed: tagging 705546, tagging 720093, notfixed 730537 in 3.0.3-12, fixed 730537 in 3.0.2-12 ...
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tags 705546 - fixed-in-experimental
Bug #705546 {Done: Martin Loschwitz madk...@debian.org} [pacemaker] pacemaker
fails to take action on clones and master/slave resources on-fail
Removed tag(s) fixed-in-experimental.
tags 720093 + fixed-in-experimental
Bug #720093 [libcib3] libcib3: Uninstallable in sid: Depends on versions of
libpils2 and libplumb2 only available in experimental
Added tag(s) fixed-in-experimental.
notfixed 730537 3.0.3-12
Bug #730537 {Done: Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net}
[vsftpd] vsftpd: use LSB logging function in init script
There is no source info for the package 'vsftpd' at version '3.0.3-12' with
architecture ''
Unable to make a source version for version '3.0.3-12'
No longer marked as fixed in versions 3.0.3-12.
fixed 730537 3.0.2-12
Bug #730537 {Done: Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net}
[vsftpd] vsftpd: use LSB logging function in init script
Marked as fixed in versions vsftpd/3.0.2-12.
fixed 62 3.4.2.1-1
Bug #62 {Done: Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net}
[gnome-session-bin] gnome-session-bin: gnome-session-save --force-logout does
not force a logout
Marked as fixed in versions gnome-session/3.4.2.1-1.
# fixed in binNMU, not representable in bts versioning
notfixed 729216 4:3.5.0-3+b1
Bug #729216 {Done: Reinhard Karcher reinhard.karc...@gmx.net} [digikam]
digikam: Geolocation stops working with kde 4.3.11
No longer marked as fixed in versions digikam/4:3.5.0-3+b1.
notfixed 722467 2.2.9-1
Bug #722467 {Done: Jaldhar H. Vyas jald...@debian.org} [dovecot-core]
dovecot-core: fails to upgrade from sid: Error: The new file
/usr/share/dovecot/dovecot-db.conf.ext does not exist!
There is no source info for the package 'dovecot-core' at version '2.2.9-1'
with architecture ''
Unable to make a source version for version '2.2.9-1'
No longer marked as fixed in versions 2.2.9-1.
fixed 722467 1:2.2.9-1
Bug #722467 {Done: Jaldhar H. Vyas jald...@debian.org} [dovecot-core]
dovecot-core: fails to upgrade from sid: Error: The new file
/usr/share/dovecot/dovecot-db.conf.ext does not exist!
Marked as fixed in versions dovecot/1:2.2.9-1.
notfound 675092 1:2.6.4-1
Bug #675092 {Done: Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
perezme...@gmail.com} [calligrasheets] calligrasheets does not start from the
command line
No longer marked as found in versions calligra/1:2.6.4-1.
notfound 378592 1.1.0+dfsg-1
Bug #378592 {Done: Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru} [qemu] qemu: -smb only
works if supervisor
Bug #419515 {Done: Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru} [qemu] qemu: -smb seems
not to work
No longer marked as found in versions qemu/1.1.0+dfsg-1.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #419515 to the same values
previously set
retitle 697805 gcc-4.(7|8) FTBFS on non-ubuntu based derivatives that change
output of lsb_release -is
Bug #697805 {Done: Matthias Klose d...@debian.org} [gcc-4.7] gcc-4.(7|8)
FTBFS on non-ubuntu based derivatives that
Changed Bug title to 'gcc-4.(7|8) FTBFS on non-ubuntu based derivatives that
change output of lsb_release -is' from 'gcc-4.(7|8) FTBFS on non-ubuntu based
derivatives that'
reassign 723956 jline2
Bug #723956 {Done: tony mancill tmanc...@debian.org}
[libjline-java,libjline2-java] libjline-java,libjline2-java: error when trying
to install together
Bug reassigned from package 'libjline-java,libjline2-java' to 'jline2'.
No longer marked as found in versions jline/1.0-2 and jline2/2.11-1.
No longer marked as fixed in versions jline2/2.11-2.
fixed 723956 2.11-2
Bug #723956 {Done: tony mancill tmanc...@debian.org} [jline2]
libjline-java,libjline2-java: error when trying to install together
There is no source info for the package 'jline2' at version '2.11-2' with
architecture ''
Unable to make a source version for version '2.11-2'
Marked as fixed in versions 2.11-2.
found 723956 2.11-1
Bug #723956 {Done: tony mancill tmanc...@debian.org} [jline2]
libjline-java,libjline2-java: error when trying to install together
There is no source info for the package 'jline2' at version '2.11-1' with
architecture ''
Unable to make a source version for version '2.11-1'
Marked as found in versions 2.11-1.
affects 723956 + jline
Bug #723956 {Done: tony mancill tmanc...@debian.org} [jline2]
libjline-java,libjline2-java: error when trying to install together
Added indication that 723956 affects jline
found 723956 jline/1.0-2
Bug #723956 {Done: tony mancill tmanc...@debian.org} [jline2]
libjline-java,libjline2-java: error when trying to install together
Marked as found in versions jline/1.0-2.
retitle 730013 nmu: cgal_4.2-5
Bug #730013 [release.debian.org] nmu: libcgal-ipelets_4.2-5+b1
Changed Bug title to 'nmu: cgal_4.2-5' from 'nmu: libcgal-ipelets_4.2-5+b1'
found 730845 3.10-3
Bug #730845 [gpsd] gpsd: modifies conffiles (policy 10.7.3): /etc/default/gpsd
Marked as found in versions gpsd/3.10-3.
notfixed 369514 2.01+01a03-5
Bug #369514 {Done:
Bug#731103: nmu: coinor-flopc++_1.0.6-3.1 and rsymphony_0.1-17-1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu Hello, We've updated coinutils in unstable. coinor-flopc++ is the only package not already bumped with a runtime dependency on coinor-libcoinutils3, so a transition slot was deemed unnecessary. We request a binNMU. It has rebuilt cleanly in our tests. rsymphony has a build-dep on coinor-libsymphony-dev (coinor-symphony is also part of the transition), but no runtime dependency. It should also be rebuilt so that it properly wraps the current version of symphony. nmu coinor-flopc++_1.0.6-3.1 . ALL . -m rebuild against coinor-libcoinutils3 (soname 0 - 3) nmu rsymphony_0.1-17-1 . ALL . -m rebuild against coinor-libsymphony3 (soname 0 - 3) -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.10-3-amd64 (SMP w/1 CPU core) -- 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/20131202030502.3927.43281.report...@debian.mit.edu
Uploading linux (3.11.10-1)
I'm intending to upload linux 3.11.10-1 to sid early this week. No ABI change appears to be necessary. Since there will be no further 3.11.y stable updates, the following upload to sid will probably be based on 3.12. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings friends: People who know you well, but like you anyway. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
