Re: qiime REMOVED from testing
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:26:56 +0100 (CET) Steffen Möller steffen_moel...@gmx.de wrote: The problem with the qiime removal imho is less the extra work that you ask for, but the message sent to our users of testing that they cannot rely on us - I know it says testing, but this is exactly what they should be allowed to do reliably. 0: The bug has been open for some time - if there is that much demand, then someone needs to fix the bug. 1: The package is only removed from the repository, not installed systems. The removal only affects new installs. Stop whining and fix the bug already! Researchers using qiime use the latest version since the scientific field (identify the relative abundance of microbiota) develops so quickly. If the package was developing so quickly, why was the package allowed to get sufficiently stale that the bug wasn't fixed? All the bug needed was a new version of the package. The individuals who decided for qiime on Debian (not the upstream-provided binary distribution) find testing a natural environment. They are on the latest scientifically and run on the latest technically. This goes together. Until technical bugs in the software force someone else to do the work instead, i.e. the auto-removal from testing process. Now, when you retract packages for no scientific reason or for a technical reason that would affect them, then they will look to Debian with big eyes asking why did you do this to us? Because the people entrusted with looking after the package in Debian - the maintainers - did not fix the bug. The technical reason does affect them - it blocks updates of other packages, some of which may contain much needed updates. I know, the problem is old. And you may not have any immediate answer that would make me happy. Just kindly think about it anyway. The general process has been thought about long and hard, many, many times and this is the correct solution. If the maintainers cannot find time to fix the bug properly, it is up to Debian to get this package out of the way so that other packages which follow the rules can update correctly. Blocking supported packages with abandonware is a sufficiently important problem that automated removal of packages is entirely warranted. Fix the bug and the entire problem goes away! -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#728906: Build on unstable requires changes
Hi, Joachim Zobel wrote (06 Dec 2013 07:20:30 GMT) : The issue has been discussed on the debian java mailing list, see the discussion following http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2013/11/msg00100.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2013/12/msg2.html It was found that a build on unstable would require further changes to the package. It might also be difficult to do. The reason are changes in build dependencies on unstable. It would in any case increase the size of the change and thereby make it less suitable for stable. The change is currently small (half a dozen lines plus in the startup script, one line changed in the control file). When adapted to unstable it is likely to end up with a multiple of that. As a result I am back to request a direct pu. Be aware that git currently holds changes after the debian/7.0.1+dfsg1-6 tag that are not relevant. It's unclear to me whose court the ball is in (IOW, if the moreinfo tag still applies) after this answer. Joachim, is the situation still that complicated in unstable that the problems cannot be fixed there? Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- 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/851u00l4du@boum.org
Bug#728575: pu: package calendarserver/3.2.dfsg-4
Hi, Adam D. Barratt wrote (04 Dec 2013 20:31:44 GMT) : On Sun, 2013-11-03 at 14:05 +0530, Rahul Amaram wrote: Updated zoneinfo data Is there a plan for doing so in unstable? Ping? Regards, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- 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/85txcwjprr@boum.org
Bug#725661: pu: opencv/2.3.1+dfsg-1
Hi, Cyril Brulebois wrote (07 Oct 2013 08:41:17 GMT) : Nobuhiro Iwamatsu iwama...@debian.org (2013-10-07): I'd like to propose an upgrade of opencv. opencv distributed in wheezy includes source code of non-free (#724920). I want to solve this problem. Source code of the target is the code for test. It does not affect the actual working. I attached debdiff. Could you consider this change suitable for stable-proposed-updates? (for the records, we usually prefer when bugs are fixed in testing / unstable before considering updates in stable.) Anyway, if the files indeed got relicensed under a suitable license, why should they get removed from an earlier release? At best we could ship a package with updated headers and licensing info to reflect the facts all those files are actually OK? Ping? Regards, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- 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/85fvogjpow@boum.org
Processed: Re: Bug#725142: pu: package totem-plugin-arte/3.2.1-1~wheezy1
Processing control commands: tag -1 - moreinfo Bug #725142 [release.debian.org] pu: package totem-plugin-arte/3.2.1-1~wheezy1 Removed tag(s) moreinfo. -- 725142: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=725142 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.b725142.139038541227421.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#725142: pu: package totem-plugin-arte/3.2.1-1~wheezy1
Control: tag -1 - moreinfo Nicolas Delvaux wrote (19 Dec 2013 22:46:25 GMT) : Here is a new version proposal, this time taking the traditional path of patching the current stable package. The debdiff is shorter/easier to review than the one based on the new upstream version, but I would still prefer the 3.2.1-1~deb7u1 version mainly because it would be easier to maintain for me. However, this fix is pending for a much too long time. Now I just want the package to be usable again :-) All packages are available on mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/package/totem-plugin-arte AFAICT Nicolas has addressed all concerned raised by the release team, hence I'm dropping the moreinfo tag. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- 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/858uu8jpjg@boum.org
Processed: tagging 717493
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 717493 - moreinfo Bug #717493 [release.debian.org] pu: package sympa/6.1.11~dfsg-5.1~deb7u1 Removed tag(s) moreinfo. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 717493: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=717493 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.139038568029312.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#698778: marked as done (pu: expect/5.45-2+deb7u1)
Your message dated Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:36:36 +0100
with message-id 85mwiogv63@boum.org
and subject line Re: Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #698778,
regarding pu: expect/5.45-2+deb7u1
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.)
--
698778: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=698778
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!
I'd like to upload expect/5.45-3 with the following modification:
I've added 'Breaks: expectk' header because the expectk package does
not exist anymore but the one from squeeze remains (and doesn't work)
after upgrade.
The diff between the current 5.45-2 and upcoming 5.45-3 is attached.
This upload closes bug #686364.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (100, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 3.5-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
diff -u expect-5.45/debian/changelog expect-5.45/debian/changelog
--- expect-5.45/debian/changelog
+++ expect-5.45/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+expect (5.45-3) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Added breaks header to the debian/control file which ensures that the
+no longer existing expectk package is installed (closes: #686364).
+
+ -- Sergei Golovan sgolo...@debian.org Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:31:34 +0400
+
expect (5.45-2) unstable; urgency=low
* Replaced ckalloc() call in exp_clib.c by malloc() because using the
diff -u expect-5.45/debian/control expect-5.45/debian/control
--- expect-5.45/debian/control
+++ expect-5.45/debian/control
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
Package: expect
Architecture: any
Depends: ${misc:Depends}, ${shlibs:Depends}
+Breaks: expectk ( 5.45)
Description: Automates interactive applications
Expect is a tool for automating interactive applications according to a script.
Following the script, Expect knows what can be expected from a program and what
---End Message---
---BeginMessage---
Sergei Golovan wrote (21 Jan 2014 18:11:36 GMT) :
I don't object in closing the bug. There was no complains about
expectk, so I think the issue will never be noticed.
Thanks a lot for the clarification. Closing, then.
Cheers!
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc---End Message---
Bug#717420: update reSIProcate in stable from 1.8.5 - 1.8.12
Hi, Daniel Pocock wrote (21 Jan 2014 17:55:15 GMT) : On 21/01/14 18:43, intrigeri wrote: Jonathan Wiltshire wrote (25 Sep 2013 21:59:15 GMT) : I could provide a diff that eliminates changes in such files. Yes, please. AFAICT, this stable proposed update has been blocking on the lack of a filtered diff for almost 4 months. Daniel, do you still intend to follow-up on this? There have been more upstream improvements, we now have 1.8.14 and may make up 1.8.15 just to backport any final bugs that were fixed in the 1.9.0 testing If I provide a filtered diff between 1.8.5 and 1.8.15 will that definitely be considered for stable? I'm not a member of the release team, but in my experience all not-too-crazy pu diffs are at least considered, once they are actually shown to the release team. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- 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/85txcwgv77@boum.org
Bug#714355: nmu: djview4_4.9-3
Hi, Julien Cristau wrote (30 Sep 2013 08:51:28 GMT) : On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:45:51 +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: [...] nmu djview4_4.9-3 . ALL . -m unify libtiff dependency, thanks to Harald Jenny for noting the issue What does that mean? What issue? I see djview4 4.9-4+b1 is now in testing. Can this binnmu request be closed, then? If not, you'll surely want to answer the question Julien asked. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- 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/8561pcguu0@boum.org
Bug#731902: nmu: transmission_2.82-1
Hi, Niels Thykier wrote (11 Dec 2013 18:42:44 GMT) : On 2013-12-11 07:54, Thomas Goirand wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu transmission_2.82-1 . ALL . -m rebuild with newer libminiupnpc Not convinced this will work; transmission is OOD on several architectures because qt5-qmake is uninstallable/missing. This still seems to be the case. Thomas, what's the plan? Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- 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/85d2jkguxv@boum.org
Bug#706488: Aw: Re: Bug#706488: RM: boinc-server-maker/7.0.27
Hi, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote (02 May 2013 07:51:28 GMT) : Isn't it possible to fix these vulnerabilities through a DSA or in the first point release? Or alternatively remove the binary package in the first point release? Steffen, what are your plans regarding this (now kind of old) RM request? Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- 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/85ob34fg0z@boum.org
Bug#712604: nmu: python-scientific_2.9.2-4
Hi, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote (15 Nov 2013 16:40:40 GMT) : Ping? Yes the upstream is working on a clean solution. So I am waiting for the next release which should fix this problem. Did I understand correctly that this won't be fixed via a binnmu? If so, I suppose that this request could be closed. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- 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/85y528fg5v@boum.org
Bug#706488: Aw: Re: Bug#706488: Re: Bug#706488: RM: boinc-server-maker/7.0.27
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote (02 May 2013 07:51:28 GMT) : Isn't it possible to fix these vulnerabilities through a DSA or in the first point release? Or alternatively remove the binary package in the first point release? Steffen, what are your plans regarding this (now kind of old) RM request? We have done a real lot on the boinc-server-maker package - 7.0.27 should not be anywhere in stable. I would happily see the binary removed. Who do I do this? Through reportbug? Is there also a way to get recent BOINC clients into a point release, possibly? Many thanks Steffen -- 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/trinity-1f71728f-07c1-43e9-ae7b-3009e9de864d-1390389062350@3capp-gmx-bs58
Bug#712604: nmu: python-scientific_2.9.2-4
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:46:04AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote (15 Nov 2013 16:40:40 GMT) : Ping? Yes the upstream is working on a clean solution. So I am waiting for the next release which should fix this problem. Did I understand correctly that this won't be fixed via a binnmu? If so, I suppose that this request could be closed. Yes and no, it could be temp fixed with a binNMU until the next change in python gnukfreebsd9 - 10 I do not know if this occure frequently. Only kfreebsd is affected. So maybe the best solution is to binNMU only the kfreebsd packages for now. The upstream is working on a cleaner solution which should fix this for real, but I do not know when it will be available. All I know is that he already commit modificaions in the official repository. So I am waiting for the next release. Cheers Fred -- GPG public key 4096R/4696E015 2011-02-14 fingerprint = E92E 7E6E 9E9D A6B1 AA31 39DC 5632 906F 4696 E015 uid Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel pi...@synchrotron-soleil.fr GPG public key 1024D/A59B1171 2009-08-11 fingerprint = 1688 A3D6 F0BD E4DF 2E6B 06AA B6A9 BA6A A59B 1171 uid Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel pi...@debian.org -- 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/20140122105937.ga23...@synchrotron-soleil.fr
Bug#706488: Aw: Re: Bug#706488: Re: Bug#706488: RM: boinc-server-maker/7.0.27
Hi, Steffen Möller wrote (22 Jan 2014 11:11:02 GMT) : I would happily see the binary removed. Who do I do this? Through reportbug? My understanding is that it requires a stable proposed update, with a debdiff that stops building the binary package you want to see removed. Is there also a way to get recent BOINC clients into a point release, possibly? Possibly. See Suite update policy on https://release.debian.org/. You'll want to file a stable pu bug with reportbug, attaching a debdiff, making it clear what important bugs it fixes, making sure not to include unrelated changes, and making sure the bugs are fixed in testing/sid already. Any not-too-crazy debdiff that satisfies these basic requirements is usually at least considered. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- 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/85ob34b63k@boum.org
Bug#707550: opu: package php-mdb2/2.5.0b2-1
Hi, 2014/1/21 intrigeri intrig...@debian.org: Hi, Teodor, ping? I don't have the necessary experience to make this source debdiff. Thomas, are you still interested in uploading this (simple) patch for squeeze? Cheers -- 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/cag2wgffe_+rsxec84qv0tjpbjdr3ux0nouj5msp4utrcgu_...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#714355: marked as done (nmu: djview4_4.9-3)
Your message dated Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:21:32 +0100 with message-id 20140122142132.gc4...@betterave.cristau.org and subject line Re: Bug#714355: nmu: djview4_4.9-3 has caused the Debian Bug report #714355, regarding nmu: djview4_4.9-3 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.) -- 714355: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=714355 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: binnmu nmu djview4_4.9-3 . ALL . -m unify libtiff dependency, thanks to Harald Jenny for noting the issue ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:43:51 +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, Julien Cristau wrote (30 Sep 2013 08:51:28 GMT) : On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:45:51 +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: [...] nmu djview4_4.9-3 . ALL . -m unify libtiff dependency, thanks to Harald Jenny for noting the issue What does that mean? What issue? I see djview4 4.9-4+b1 is now in testing. Can this binnmu request be closed, then? If not, you'll surely want to answer the question Julien asked. Closing. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature ---End Message---
Bug#712604: marked as done (nmu: python-scientific_2.9.2-4)
Your message dated Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:20:58 +0100 with message-id 20140122142058.gb4...@betterave.cristau.org and subject line Re: Bug#712604: nmu: python-scientific_2.9.2-4 has caused the Debian Bug report #712604, regarding nmu: python-scientific_2.9.2-4 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.) -- 712604: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=712604 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: binnmu Hello It seems that with the latest python the extensions are expected to be under /usr/lib/python2.x/site-package/package/gnukfreebsd9 instead of gnukfreebsd8 (when the package was uploaded) the first effect is that the package is broken under kfreebsd but also that it cause FTBFS for other packages. like the current state of mmtk. I do not know if other packages are affected by this problem, and I do not know if this nmu is the right way to deal with this issue. I am trying to find a better to way to deal with this with the upstream (move the Extension in the right namespace instead of building this kind of Extension) thanks Frederic nmu python-scientific_2.9.2-4 . kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 . -m Rebuild to take into account the new toolchain -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 3.9-1-486 Locale: LANG=fr_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:46:04 +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote (15 Nov 2013 16:40:40 GMT) : Ping? Yes the upstream is working on a clean solution. So I am waiting for the next release which should fix this problem. Did I understand correctly that this won't be fixed via a binnmu? If so, I suppose that this request could be closed. Yes, IMO the code needs to be fixed to not look at kernel versions, and I refuse to paper over that bug with a binNMU. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature ---End Message---
Bug#731902: nmu: transmission_2.82-1
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:41:32 +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, Niels Thykier wrote (11 Dec 2013 18:42:44 GMT) : On 2013-12-11 07:54, Thomas Goirand wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu transmission_2.82-1 . ALL . -m rebuild with newer libminiupnpc Not convinced this will work; transmission is OOD on several architectures because qt5-qmake is uninstallable/missing. This still seems to be the case. Thomas, what's the plan? That'll hopefully fix itself (or at least get better) once qt 5.2 hits sid, as that's built on many more archs. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#706895: transition: db5.3
Control: tag -1 pending On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 16:51:10 +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote: Uploaded, thanks. Telling the bug. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#706895: transition: db5.3
Processing control commands: tag -1 pending Bug #706895 [release.debian.org] transition: db5.3 Bug #658829 [release.debian.org] transition: db5.3 Added tag(s) pending. Added tag(s) pending. -- 658829: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=658829 706895: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=706895 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.b706895.139040964916510.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Processed: tagging 719227
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 719227 + pending Bug #719227 [release.debian.org] transition: poppler 0.22 Added tag(s) pending. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 719227: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=719227 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.1390411863755.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#736260: pu: package lazr.restfulclient/0.12.0-2
Control: tags -1 + wheezy confirmed On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 19:07 +0200, Stefano Rivera wrote: Hi. Paul Wise reported launchpadlib cache corruption in the Debian wiki in #736259. It looks like the concurrency improvements in lazr.restfulclient 0.13.1 helped with the issue, and he's now running a version with the patch attached, and reports an improvement. I'm assuming the changes below are part of the original Ubuntu patch, but they seem slightly odd given that none of the subsequent changes appear to be compression-related; I may well be missing something however. +-import gzip [...] + from httplib2 import ( +-FailedToDecompressContent, FileCache, Http, urlnorm) ++Http, ++urlnorm, ++) + import simplejson + from cStringIO import StringIO +-import zlib In any case, the rest of the patch looks sane enough, so please go ahead. 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/1390420070.28217.22.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Processed: Re: Bug#736260: pu: package lazr.restfulclient/0.12.0-2
Processing control commands: tags -1 + wheezy confirmed Bug #736260 [release.debian.org] pu: package lazr.restfulclient/0.12.0-2 Added tag(s) wheezy and confirmed. -- 736260: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736260 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.b736260.139042008022878.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#736290: pu: package pdns/3.1-4
Control: tags -1 + wheezy confirmed On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 01:02 +0100, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: pdns-server in stable has shipped with old SQL schema files, having both records.content and supermasters.ip too short. +pdns (3.1-4.1) stable; urgency=medium + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * Fix lengths of the records.content and supermasters.ip column. +Upgrades are only done for mysql and pgsql, as sqlite does not +care about column length limits anyway. +(Closes: #698911, #707761) We'd usually suggest 3.1-4+deb7u1, even for an NMU, but -4.1 is okay if you'd prefer, as there doesn't appear to have been an upload using that version in the past. Please go ahead; thanks. 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/1390420451.28217.25.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Processed: Re: Bug#736290: pu: package pdns/3.1-4
Processing control commands: tags -1 + wheezy confirmed Bug #736290 [release.debian.org] pu: package pdns/3.1-4 Added tag(s) wheezy and confirmed. -- 736290: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736290 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.b736290.139042045825490.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#736364: conkeror: stable package depends on obsolete xulrunner-10.0
Package: conkeror Version: 1.0~~pre+git120527-1 Severity: important X-Debbugs-CC: debian-release@lists.debian.org Hi, The version of conkeror in wheezy still depends on xulrunner-10.0, whereas wheezy now has iceweasel 17 and will shortly (at least via -security) have 24. Would it be possible to update the package to support newer iceweasel versions? Please prepare a proposed debdiff and open a pu bug against release.debian.org to discuss that. 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/1390420985.28217.34.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#736365: tuxguitar: stable package depends on obsolete xulrunner-10.0
Package: tuxguitar Version: 1.2-13 Severity: important X-Debbugs-CC: debian-release@lists.debian.org Hi, The version of tuxguitar in wheezy still depends on xulrunner-10.0, whereas wheezy now has iceweasel 17 and will shortly (at least via -security) have 24. Would it be possible to update the package to support newer iceweasel versions? Please prepare a proposed debdiff and open a pu bug against release.debian.org to discuss that. 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/1390420996.28217.35.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#717923: tiff transition apparently nearing completion
It looks like there are only two blocking bugs left on the tiff transition and only one of them applies to a package that's in testing (gimp). After these issues are resolved, will it be time for me to request removal of the tiff3 package? If not, what is the trigger that the time has come to request removal? -- Jay Berkenbilt q...@debian.org -- 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/20140122153512.0235710083.qww314...@jberkenbilt-linux.appiancorp.com
Re: qiime REMOVED from testing
On 2014-01-22 00:43, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
On 21/01/14 18:45, Andreas Tille wrote:
However, it is kicked because of an old libffi dependency. I realised
that it had in fact
libffi6 (= 3.0.4)
in its dependencies which was included via
${shlibs:Depends} or
${misc:Depends}
but I have no idea, how to prevent this. Would a rebuild be sufficient
to get the new libffi dependency or do I need to do more?
When I rebuilt it just now on kfreebsd-amd64, the .deb picked up these
dependencies:
Depends: libc0.1 (= 2.17-91), libffi6 (= 3.0.4), libgmp10, python (=
2.7), python ( 2.8), pynast (= 1.2), python-cogent (= 1.5.3), king,
python-biom-format
So presumably that's fine, libffi6/3.0.13-10 in jessie+sid satisfies this.
Regards,
Thanks for testing this, Steven
Andreas, based on Steven's test, you may want to consider requesting a
give-back for qiime on kFreeBSD[1]. This is, of course, assuming that
such a request haven't been filed for you by Steven. :)
~Niels
[1] https://release.debian.org/wanna-build.txt
NB: Needs to go to debian-wb-t...@lists.debian.org and not d-release.
--
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/52e034d3.6050...@thykier.net
Re: qiime REMOVED from testing
Hi Niels, I admit I want to sort out something with qiime to let version 1.8 migrate to testing. The old version in testing (1.4) was quite unimportant compared to what we need to do with latest upstream. So thanks for your offer but there is no need to create manual work for you anyway. Thanks for your work in the release team Andreas. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:14:59PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: Andreas, based on Steven's test, you may want to consider requesting a give-back for qiime on kFreeBSD[1]. This is, of course, assuming that such a request haven't been filed for you by Steven. :) ~Niels [1] https://release.debian.org/wanna-build.txt NB: Needs to go to debian-wb-t...@lists.debian.org and not d-release. -- http://fam-tille.de -- 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/20140122212057.gd16...@an3as.eu
Processed: Re: Bug#729998: pu: package gnash/0.8.11~git20120629-1+wheezy1
Processing control commands: tags -1 + confirmed Bug #729998 [release.debian.org] pu: package gnash/0.8.11~git20120629-1+wheezy1 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 729998: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=729998 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.b729998.13904263341117.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#729998: pu: package gnash/0.8.11~git20120629-1+wheezy1
Control: tags -1 + confirmed On Sat, 2014-01-11 at 18:41 +0100, Gabriele Giacone wrote: Attached a smaller debdiff: removed useless ifdefs according to wheezy libav versions. libavcodec 533500 libavformat 532101 libavutil 512201 +gnash (0.8.11~git20120629-1+wheezy1) stable; urgency=low 0.8.11~git20120629-1+deb7u1, please. Other than that, assuming the resulting package has been tested on a wheezy system, please go ahead; thanks. 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/1390426326.28217.41.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Processed: tagging 735399, tagging 736257
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 735399 + wheezy Bug #735399 [release.debian.org] pu: package policyd-weight/0.1.15.2-7 Added tag(s) wheezy. tags 736257 + wheezy Bug #736257 [release.debian.org] pu: package libglib-object-introspection-perl/0.009-1+deb7u1 Added tag(s) wheezy. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 735399: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735399 736257: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736257 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.13904264381561.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#736257: pu: package libglib-object-introspection-perl/0.009-1+deb7u1
Control: tags -1 + confirmed On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 17:34 +0100, intrig...@debian.org wrote: as described on #736254, a memory allocation bug in Wheezy's libglib-object-introspection-perl causes segfaults in reverse-dependencies (#695838). I've tracked this down to a single upstream commit, that has been part of sid since last June, and fixes the bug once applied on top of the Wheezy version. That's why I'm proposing to apply this patch on Wheezy (debdiff attached). Please go ahead; thanks. 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/1390426555.28217.42.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Processed: Re: Bug#736257: pu: package libglib-object-introspection-perl/0.009-1+deb7u1
Processing control commands: tags -1 + confirmed Bug #736257 [release.debian.org] pu: package libglib-object-introspection-perl/0.009-1+deb7u1 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 736257: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736257 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.b736257.13904265632730.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#731735: pu: package glance/2012.1.1-5+deb7u1
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 18:12 +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: I have prepared an update for Glance over here: http://archive.gplhost.com/pub/security/glance/ The security tracker lists this issue as potentially open in Wheezy: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2013-4354 Does this affect stable and is there a fix which can be included along? Ping? (On both the original upload and Moritz's question.) 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/1390426653.28217.43.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#735020: pu: package nana/2.5-12+deb7u1
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 03:16 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: Followup-For: Bug #735020 Better let's add a dummy prerm to also cover upgrading nana after dpkg. Have you checked the resulting package, beyond confirming that it installs? I'd be particularly interested in a full binary debdiff; I realise this is just a no-change rebuild, but the previous upload was pre-lenny. 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/1390427057.28217.47.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Processed: Re: Bug#735020: pu: package nana/2.5-12+deb7u1
Processing control commands: tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #735020 [release.debian.org] pu: package nana/2.5-12+deb7u1 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 735020: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735020 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.b735020.13904270656793.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#729289: transition: openscenegraph
choreonoid and ossim turned out to also FTBFS (for non-openscenegraph-related reasons); I have posted a patch for choreonoid (#735891), and suggested that ossim (#735814) move to the already-fixed version in the UbuntuGIS PPA. this no longer blocks anything else or needs to be handled as a transition. britney still thinks it does: out of date on i386: libopenscenegraph80 (from 3.0.1-4.1). Given that libopenscenegraph80 is uninstallable (it depends on the no-longer-existing libavcodec53/libavformat53/libavutil51), keeping it around doesn't actually help its reverse dependencies; how should this be dealt with? (request its removal? request that openscenegraph be forced to testing anyway?) -- 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/52e044dc.2080...@bham.ac.uk
Bug#729998: pu: package gnash/0.8.11~git20120629-1+wheezy1
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: 0.8.11~git20120629-1+deb7u1, please. Other than that, assuming the resulting package has been tested on a wheezy system, please go ahead; thanks. Just uploaded. Thanks for your time. -- G..e -- 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/CABcaWC1_Jz2dE7m0gOp7CHMufs=wflsnfa8jbo-y4mxrilp...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#729289: transition: openscenegraph
On 22/01/14 22:23, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: Given that libopenscenegraph80 is uninstallable (it depends on the no-longer-existing libavcodec53/libavformat53/libavutil51), keeping it around doesn't actually help its reverse dependencies; how should this be dealt with? (request its removal? request that openscenegraph be forced to testing anyway?) Probably file a bug requesting ftp-master remove it; I'm a bit puzzled though how an old libopenscenegraph80 gets in the way of newer src:openscenegraph migrating to testing. Anyway, from https://ftp-master.debian.org/cruft-report-daily.txt : * source package openscenegraph version 3.2.0~rc1-2 no longer builds binary package(s): libopenscenegraph80 on amd64,armel,armhf,i386,kfreebsd-amd64,kfreebsd-i386,mips,mipsel,powerpc,s390x,sparc - suggested command: dak rm -m [auto-cruft] NBS (no longer built by openscenegraph) -s unstable -a amd64,armel,armhf,i386,kfreebsd-amd64,kfreebsd-i386,mips,mipsel,powerpc,s390x,sparc -p -R -b libopenscenegraph80 Above is exactly what you'd request. I'd say everything possible has been done already to try to get these fixed: - broken Depends: choreonoid: choreonoid [mipsel] choreonoid-plugins-base [mipsel] libcnoid1 [mipsel] fgrun: fgrun flightgear: flightgear [kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 mips] libcitygml: openscenegraph-plugin-citygml-shared openwalnut: libopenwalnut1 openwalnut-modules openwalnut-qt4 simgear: libsimgearscene2.10.0 [mips] simgear2.4.0 [armel armhf kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390x sparc] Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- 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/52e0667d.4060...@pyro.eu.org
Bug#735020: pu: package nana/2.5-12+deb7u1
On 2014-01-22 22:44, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Have you checked the resulting package, beyond confirming that it
installs? I'd be particularly interested in a full binary debdiff; I
realise this is just a no-change rebuild, but the previous upload was
pre-lenny.
$ debdiff nana_2.5-12_amd64.deb nana_2.5-12+deb7u1_amd64.deb
[The following lists of changes regard files as different if they have
different names, permissions or owners.]
Files in first .deb but not in second
-
-rwxr-xr-x root/root DEBIAN/postinst
Control files: lines which differ (wdiff format)
Depends: gcc, libc6-dev, libc6 (= [-2.7-1)-] {+2.2.5)+}
Installed-Size: [-764-] {+436+}
Version: [-2.5-12-] {+2.5-12+deb7u1+}
I have no clue what nana is or how to use it properly. Some of the
scripts it installs fail to find stuff ... already in the package
currently in wheezy, and I'm not going to fix this. The examples fail to
compile. Not fixing this either. Maybe this intentional. I probably
spent more time with nana than anybody else in the last 5 years :-)
That said, the nana package I want to get into p-u fulfills its purpose:
it can be removed :-)
Andreas
PS: Is there a way to get rid of obsolete crap during distupgrades? I'm
thinking mainly about packages that have no successor and no package
conflicting with it or some dependency going away that would force the
removal of this obsolete crap. Otherwise such a package will bitrot
forever until it becomes a time bomb that once someone notices it some
day where it explodes on removal.
--
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/52e07278.4000...@debian.org
Processed: octave-plplot: FTBFS with Octave 3.8
Processing control commands: block 735557 by -1 Bug #735557 [release.debian.org] transition: octave3.8 735557 was not blocked by any bugs. 735557 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 735557: 736392 -- 735557: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735557 736392: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736392 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.13904621925604.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
