Processed (with 2 errors): Re: tome needs a rebuild using GCC 7

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> reassign -1 release.debian.org
Bug #872297 [src:tome] tome needs a rebuild using GCC 7
Bug reassigned from package 'src:tome' to 'release.debian.org'.
No longer marked as found in versions tome/2.4~0.git.2015.12.29-1.1.
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #872297 to the same values 
previously set
> severity -1 normal
Bug #872297 [release.debian.org] tome needs a rebuild using GCC 7
Severity set to 'normal' from 'serious'
> retitle -1 nmu: tome_2.4~0.git.2015.12.29-1.1
Bug #872297 [release.debian.org] tome needs a rebuild using GCC 7
Changed Bug title to 'nmu: tome_2.4~0.git.2015.12.29-1.1' from 'tome needs a 
rebuild using GCC 7'.
> user release.debian@packages.debian.org
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.

> usertags -1 binnmu
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.


-- 
872297: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=872297
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Re: tome needs a rebuild using GCC 7

[Andreas Beckmann]

Control: reassign -1 release.debian.org
Control: severity -1 normal
Control: retitle -1 nmu: tome_2.4~0.git.2015.12.29-1.1
Control: user release.debian@packages.debian.org
Control: usertags -1 binnmu

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:00:02 +0200 Matthias Klose  wrote:
> Package: src:tome
> Version: 2.4~0.git.2015.12.29-1.1
> Severity: serious
> Tags: sid buster
> 
> buster won't ship with GCC 6 (libasan3). Please rebuild the package.

this can be binNMUed, too

nmu tome_2.4~0.git.2015.12.29-1.1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against 
libasan4"


Andreas

Bug#871444: transition: msgpack-c

[James McCoy]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:11:36PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 08/08/17 03:56, James McCoy wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: transition
> > 
> > I'd like to upload the new msgpack-c to unstable.  I did a test rebuild
> > in July and filed bugs[0] against the packages which fail to build with
> > the new API changes.
> > 
> > [0]: 
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=msgpac...@packages.debian.org;tag=msgpack-c-2.x;dist=unstable
> > 
> > The below Ben settings will detect the packages using the C library
> > which need to be rebuilt, but the C++ library is header-only.  I'm not
> > sure the how that should be tracked, other than FTBFS bugs.
> 
> > is_affected = .depends ~ "libmsgpackc2";
> > is_good = .depends ~ /libmsgpackc2 \(>= 2\.1\.0)/ | .depends ~ 
> > /libmsgpackc2 \(>= 0\.5\.7);
> > is_bad = .depends ~ /libmsgpackc2 \(>= 1\.0\.0\)/;
> 
> Why do the C library rdeps need to be rebuilt if the SONAME didn't change?

Hmm, you have a good point there. :) There are incompatible API changes
for the (header only) C++ library, but no ABI changes for the C library.

Maybe I need to split the C++ headers out into their own APIv1 and APIv2
packages.

Cheers,
-- 
James
GPG Key: 4096R/91BF BF4D 6956 BD5D F7B7  2D23 DFE6 91AE 331B A3DB

Bug#870258: GCC 7 related library transitions

[Matthias Klose]

On 15.08.2017 22:05, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Control: forwarded -1 
> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/libgfortran4.html
> 
> Hi Matthias,
> 
> On 31/07/17 13:42, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Package: release.debian.org
>> Severity: normal
>> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
>> Usertags: transition
>>
>> Bumping the GCC default to GCC 7 triggers some GCC library transitions.
>>
>>  - libgfortran3 -> libgfortran4
>>  - libgphobos68 -> libgphobos71
>>  - libgo7 -> libgo9
>>  - libasan3 -> libasan4
>>
>> Afaics only the first mentioned library has reverse dependencies in the 
>> archive,
>> the other ones don't have any.
> 
> libasan3 has tome (from non-free). Can you file a bug against it?
> 
> For gfortran I have created 
> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/libgfortran4.html

please ignore the gcc-* packages.

> Should I schedule the binNMUs?

please do. according to
http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/transitions/html/libgfortran.html
the following packages still fail to build: mpqc3 starpu-contrib wsjt wsjtx pymc
scilab.

Matthias

Bug#868756: stretch-pu: package ntp/1:4.2.8p10+dfsg-3+deb9u1 (pre-pre-approval)

[Bernhard Schmidt]

On 08.08.2017 22:19, Adam D. Barratt wrote:

Hi Adam,

> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
> 
> On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 12:07 +0200, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
>> I'm looking for an indication whether something like this would be acceptable
>> for a stable release. If it might be acceptable I would come back with a 
>> proper debdiff for approval. A fellow DD has recently asked on the pkg-ntp
>> mailinglist about this.
>>
>> sntp is the proper NTP client tool bundled with ntp sources, replacing
>> ntpdate. It was accidentally included in jessie due to an upstream 
>> build-system
>> screwup, fixed shortly after, not reenabled in time for Stretch but now built
>> in Buster. This makes Stretch having a regression over Jessie by not shipping
>> sntp.
>>
>> I have added it in a seperate binary package in Buster. I think this will not
>> be possible for Stretch, so I would like to add it to the ntp binary package 
>> as
>> it has been the case with Jessie. The proper breaks/replaces for going to
>> Buster should be already in place, but I'll test the upgrade paths before
>> submission.
> 
> That sounds plausible, yes. As with any p-u request we'd need to see a
> tested debdiff before a final ack, hence tagging moreinfo for now.

debdiff attached, I tested all the upgrade paths I could think of.

The debdiff of the resulting binary is

Files in second .deb but not in first
-
-rwxr-xr-x  root/root   /usr/bin/sntp

Control files: lines which differ (wdiff format)

Installed-Size: [-1650-] {+1804+}
Version: [-1:4.2.8p10+dfsg-3-] {+1:4.2.8p10+dfsg-3+deb9u1+}

Best Regards,
Bernhard
diff -Nru ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/changelog ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/changelog
--- ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/changelog	2017-05-07 23:04:52.0 +0200
+++ ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/changelog	2017-08-08 22:44:37.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+ntp (1:4.2.8p10+dfsg-3+deb9u1) stretch; urgency=medium
+
+  * Build and install /usr/bin/sntp (Closes: #793837)
+sntp (the successor of ntpdate as general purpose NTP client) has
+been accidentally included in Jessie, dropped after Jessie,
+reintroduced too late for Stretch and is now included in Buster.
+Fix regression by building sntp and shipping it in ntp:any
+
+ -- Bernhard Schmidt   Tue, 08 Aug 2017 22:44:37 +0200
+
 ntp (1:4.2.8p10+dfsg-3) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   * No-change upload to supersede accidental upload of experimental
diff -Nru ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/ntp.install ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/ntp.install
--- ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/ntp.install	2017-05-07 23:04:52.0 +0200
+++ ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/ntp.install	2017-08-08 22:44:37.0 +0200
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
 debian/tmp/usr/bin/ntpdc
 debian/tmp/usr/bin/ntpq
 debian/tmp/usr/bin/ntptrace
+debian/tmp/usr/bin/sntp
 debian/tmp/usr/bin/update-leap
 debian/tmp/usr/sbin/ntp-keygen
 debian/tmp/usr/sbin/ntp-wait
diff -Nru ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/patches/series ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/patches/series
--- ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/patches/series	2017-05-07 23:04:52.0 +0200
+++ ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/patches/series	2017-08-08 22:44:37.0 +0200
@@ -5,3 +5,4 @@
 ntpd-linux-caps-runtime.patch
 openssl-disable-check.patch
 libedit.patch
+sntp-sysexits.patch
diff -Nru ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/patches/sntp-sysexits.patch ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/patches/sntp-sysexits.patch
--- ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/patches/sntp-sysexits.patch	1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/patches/sntp-sysexits.patch	2017-08-08 22:44:37.0 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+From: Miroslav Lichvar
+Subject: Building 4.2.8p8 with disabled local libopts fails
+Bug: http://bugs.ntp.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3132
+
+When trying to build 4.2.8p8 with the --disable-local-libopts option on Fedora,
+it fails with the following error:
+
+main.c: In function ‘sntp_main’:
+main.c:143:8: error: ‘EX_SOFTWARE’ undeclared (first use in this function)
+   exit(EX_SOFTWARE);  
+^~~
+...
+
+
+It seems the problem is that sntp/main.c is missing "#include ".
+The configure script detects that the system has sysexits.h, but then the sntp
+code doesn't use it, expecting the local definitions of the EX_* macros.
+
+The following patch fixes the problem for me:
+
+--- ntp-4.2.8p8/sntp/main.c.orig2016-10-19 10:18:41.690800420 +0200
 ntp-4.2.8p8/sntp/main.c 2016-10-19 10:19:31.900966925 +0200
+@@ -8,6 +8,10 @@
+ # include 
+ #endif
+
++#ifdef HAVE_SYSEXITS_H
++#include 
++#endif
++
+ #include "main.h"
+ #include "ntp_libopts.h"
+ #include "kod_management.h"
+
diff -Nru ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/rules ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/rules
--- ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/rules	2017-05-07 23:04:52.0 +0200
+++ ntp-4.2.8p10+dfsg/debian/rules	2017-08-08 22:44:37.0 +0200
@@ -21,7 +21,6 @@
 		--prefix=/usr \
 		--enable-all-clocks --enable-parse-clocks --enable-SHM \
 		--disable-debugging 

Bug#872293: nmu: loads of golang stuff

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-go-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org
thanks

Howdy, release!

Due to the way that Go packages are built, I've started keeping an eye
on packages that were built using an out of date version of another
corner of the archive.

I've written a script that generates a list of things to binNMU, but
I've only just written it on the flight back from DebConf, and I am not
super sure of it yet.

So, here's a list of some things that look sensible by eye. I've got
a *lot* more, so if this turns out OK, I'll send another bug with more.

  nmu sia . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu prometheus-node-exporter . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu go-md2man . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu webhook . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu kcptun . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu acbuild . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu notary . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu dh-make-golang . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu robustirc-bridge . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu runc . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu prometheus . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu skydns . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu gb . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu golang-golang-x-tools . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu systemd-docker . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu golang-github-xordataexchange-crypt . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu abci . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu prometheus-varnish-exporter . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu gosu . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu rclone . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu docker-registry . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu golang-petname . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu prometheus-mongodb-exporter . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu prometheus-mysqld-exporter . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu consul . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu minica . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu gitlab-ci-multi-runner . any . -m 'out of date'
  nmu ratt . any . -m 'out of date'

Thank you!
  Paul

Bug#872023: transition: nodejs

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Control: forwarded -1 
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/nodejs-abi-48.html
Control: tags -1 confirmed

On 13/08/17 16:57, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> Transition from nodejs 4 to nodejs 6, with module abi change from
> version 46 to version 48.
> All nodejs c++ addons (build-depending on nodejs-dev) must be rebuilt.
> 
> Also Julien Puydt rebuilt all node modules packages against nodejs 6
> to check for failures and report them:
> - node-chai #868319 fixed upstream
> - node-argparse #868294 might be fixed upstream
> - node-evp-bytestokey fails and is deprecated. #868298
> 
> Also i'm using nodejs 6 from experimental for some time now, and i don't
> see breakage.

Go ahead.

Cheers,
Emilio

Processed: Re: Bug#872023: transition: nodejs

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/nodejs-abi-48.html
Bug #872023 [release.debian.org] transition: nodejs
Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 
'https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/nodejs-abi-48.html'.
> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #872023 [release.debian.org] transition: nodejs
Added tag(s) confirmed.

-- 
872023: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=872023
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#871469: transition: ocaml

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Control: tags -1 confirmed

On 08/08/17 10:32, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> Dear release team,
> 
> We would like to update ocaml from 4.02.3 to 4.05.0. This is 3 major
> releases (and 2 years) ahead.
> 
> With current unstable, on amd64:
> - 9 source uploads (at least) are needed
> - 222 packages rebuild fine with no changes
> - 22 packages FTBFS with the new version
> - 18 packages cannot be rebuilt because one of their b-deps FTBFS
> 
> Among the latter 40 packages, 32 are in testing. Bug reports have been
> submitted for some of them [1] and patches are available. The
> remaining ones are pretty self-contained (no external reverse
> dependencies) and can be removed from testing if they get in the
> way. I've put details at [2].

Please file bugs for all of them.

> ocaml 4.05.0 and a few selected packages have been uploaded to
> experimental and build fine on all architectures [3].

> So, basically, this transition is ready to be started from my point of
> view.
> 
> I will take care of the necessary binNMUs.

Go ahead.

Cheers,
Emilio

Processed: Re: Bug#871469: transition: ocaml

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #871469 [release.debian.org] transition: ocaml
Added tag(s) confirmed.

-- 
871469: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=871469
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#871444: transition: msgpack-c

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

On 08/08/17 03:56, James McCoy wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> I'd like to upload the new msgpack-c to unstable.  I did a test rebuild
> in July and filed bugs[0] against the packages which fail to build with
> the new API changes.
> 
> [0]: 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=msgpac...@packages.debian.org;tag=msgpack-c-2.x;dist=unstable
> 
> The below Ben settings will detect the packages using the C library
> which need to be rebuilt, but the C++ library is header-only.  I'm not
> sure the how that should be tracked, other than FTBFS bugs.

> is_affected = .depends ~ "libmsgpackc2";
> is_good = .depends ~ /libmsgpackc2 \(>= 2\.1\.0)/ | .depends ~ /libmsgpackc2 
> \(>= 0\.5\.7);
> is_bad = .depends ~ /libmsgpackc2 \(>= 1\.0\.0\)/;

Why do the C library rdeps need to be rebuilt if the SONAME didn't change?

Cheers,
Emilio

Bug#871395: transition: qtbase-opensource-src

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Control: forwarded -1 
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/qtbase-abi-5-9-1.html
Control: tags -1 confirmed

On 07/08/17 18:45, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> Hi RT! Normal request for a Qt transition slot.
> 
> Dmitry took the time to check all reverse dependencies and created
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org;tag=qt5.9
> 
>>From all this ones all are fixed except one which has a patch available.

Cool. Go ahead.

Cheers,
Emilio

Processed: Re: Bug#871395: transition: qtbase-opensource-src

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/qtbase-abi-5-9-1.html
Bug #871395 [release.debian.org] transition: qtbase-opensource-src
Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 
'https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/qtbase-abi-5-9-1.html'.
> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #871395 [release.debian.org] transition: qtbase-opensource-src
Added tag(s) confirmed.

-- 
871395: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=871395
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#870258: GCC 7 related library transitions

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Control: forwarded -1 
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/libgfortran4.html

Hi Matthias,

On 31/07/17 13:42, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> Bumping the GCC default to GCC 7 triggers some GCC library transitions.
> 
>  - libgfortran3 -> libgfortran4
>  - libgphobos68 -> libgphobos71
>  - libgo7 -> libgo9
>  - libasan3 -> libasan4
> 
> Afaics only the first mentioned library has reverse dependencies in the 
> archive,
> the other ones don't have any.

libasan3 has tome (from non-free). Can you file a bug against it?

For gfortran I have created 
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/libgfortran4.html

Should I schedule the binNMUs?

Cheers,
Emilio

Processed: Re: Bug#870258: GCC 7 related library transitions

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/libgfortran4.html
Bug #870258 [release.debian.org] GCC 7 related library transitions
Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 
'https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/libgfortran4.html'.

-- 
870258: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=870258
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#871805: transition: x265

[Sebastian Ramacher]

On 2017-08-15 19:38:50, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
> 
> On 11/08/17 19:38, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: transition
> > 
> > Another x265 SONAME bump. All rev deps build fine against the new version. 
> > Note
> > that ffmpeg currently FTBFS on ppc64el (#871565).
> 
> Go ahead.

Thanks, uploaded.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#871897: transition: directfb

[Sebastian Ramacher]

On 2017-08-15 19:39:34, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
> 
> On 12/08/17 11:50, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: transition
> > 
> > libdirectfb bumped its SONAME and needs a transition. The reverse 
> > dependencies
> > build fine against the new version. qingy however FTBFS for unreleated 
> > reasons
> > (#817643)
> 
> Ack.

Thanks, uploaded.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#871911: transition: poco

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Control: tags -1 confirmed

On 12/08/17 15:13, Jochen Sprickerhof wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> Hi release team,
> 
> I would like to transition poco to the new ABI version available in
> experimental. I did test rebuilds of the reverse dependencies and found
> no problems.

Go ahead.

Emilio

Processed: Re: Bug#871911: transition: poco

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #871911 [release.debian.org] transition: poco
Added tag(s) confirmed.

-- 
871911: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=871911
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: Bug#871897: transition: directfb

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #871897 [release.debian.org] transition: directfb
Added tag(s) confirmed.

-- 
871897: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=871897
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#871897: transition: directfb

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Control: tags -1 confirmed

On 12/08/17 11:50, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> libdirectfb bumped its SONAME and needs a transition. The reverse dependencies
> build fine against the new version. qingy however FTBFS for unreleated reasons
> (#817643)

Ack.

Emilio

Bug#871805: transition: x265

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Control: tags -1 confirmed

On 11/08/17 19:38, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> Another x265 SONAME bump. All rev deps build fine against the new version. 
> Note
> that ffmpeg currently FTBFS on ppc64el (#871565).

Go ahead.

Emilio

Processed: Re: Bug#871805: transition: x265

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #871805 [release.debian.org] transition: x265
Added tag(s) confirmed.

-- 
871805: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=871805
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#871673: marked as done (nmu: libnet-ssh2-perl_0.66-1)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:29:07 +0200
with message-id <047dfa7a-61c2-75d8-cfb7-b987c7e9f...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#871673: nmu: libnet-ssh2-perl_0.66-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #871673,
regarding nmu: libnet-ssh2-perl_0.66-1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
871673: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=871673
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu

Hi

Apparently when I did upload libnet-ssh2-perl (I think I did not
during the perl transition), in the i386 chroot on the buildd was
still perl 5.24 installed. Now libnet-ssh2-perl cannot migrate:

libnet-ssh2-perl (0.65-1 to 0.66-1)
Maintainer: Debian Perl Group
15 days old (needed 5 days)
libnet-ssh2-perl/i386 unsatisfiable Depends: perlapi-5.24.1
Piuparts tested OK - 
https://piuparts.debian.org/sid/source/libn/libnet-ssh2-perl.html

Can you please schedule a binnmu for libnet-ssh2-perl on i386?

nmu libnet-ssh2-perl_0.66-1 . i386 . unstable . -m "Rebuild against Perl 5.26"

Regards,
Salvatore
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 10/08/17 17:21, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: binnmu
> 
> Hi
> 
> Apparently when I did upload libnet-ssh2-perl (I think I did not
> during the perl transition), in the i386 chroot on the buildd was
> still perl 5.24 installed. Now libnet-ssh2-perl cannot migrate:
> 
> libnet-ssh2-perl (0.65-1 to 0.66-1)
> Maintainer: Debian Perl Group
> 15 days old (needed 5 days)
> libnet-ssh2-perl/i386 unsatisfiable Depends: perlapi-5.24.1
> Piuparts tested OK - 
> https://piuparts.debian.org/sid/source/libn/libnet-ssh2-perl.html
> 
> Can you please schedule a binnmu for libnet-ssh2-perl on i386?
> 
> nmu libnet-ssh2-perl_0.66-1 . i386 . unstable . -m "Rebuild against Perl 5.26"

Scheduled.

Cheers,
Emilio--- End Message ---

Bug#871899: marked as done (nmu: libopenshot_0.1.7+ds1-1)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:30:26 +0200
with message-id <399690db-7a8a-0c1a-7315-ca2c06491...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#871899: nmu: libopenshot_0.1.7+ds1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #871899,
regarding nmu: libopenshot_0.1.7+ds1-1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
871899: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=871899
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu

nmu libopenshot_0.1.7+ds1-1 . ANY . experimental . -m "Rebuild against 
libopenshot-audio5."

libopenshot-audio soversion bump libopenshot-audio3 -> libopenshot-audio5 in 
experimental.


Andreas
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 12/08/17 12:37, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: binnmu
> 
> nmu libopenshot_0.1.7+ds1-1 . ANY . experimental . -m "Rebuild against 
> libopenshot-audio5."
> 
> libopenshot-audio soversion bump libopenshot-audio3 -> libopenshot-audio5 in 
> experimental.

Scheduled.

Emilio--- End Message ---

Bug#870277: marked as done (nmu: packages with upper dependency on binutils)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:26:41 +0200
with message-id 
and subject line Re: Bug#870277: nmu: packages with upper dependency on binutils
has caused the Debian Bug report #870277,
regarding nmu: packages with upper dependency on binutils
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.)


-- 
870277: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=870277
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu

please binNMU packages with an upper dependency on binutils (<< 2.29).  afaics
these are: tulip, boinc-app-eah-brp and lush.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 31/07/17 15:35, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: binnmu
> 
> please binNMU packages with an upper dependency on binutils (<< 2.29).  afaics
> these are: tulip, boinc-app-eah-brp and lush.

Done earlier today, and binutils migrated.

Cheers,
Emilio--- End Message ---

Processed: Re: Bug#864631: unblock: jetty9/9.2.22-1

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 - moreinfo
Bug #864631 [release.debian.org] unblock: jetty9/9.2.22-1
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.

-- 
864631: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=864631
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#864631: unblock: jetty9/9.2.22-1

[Salvatore Bonaccorso]

Control: tags -1 - moreinfo

Hi Adam,

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 05:32:07PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, 2017-06-11 at 23:33 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > This is a pre-upload request to unblock jetty9/9.2.22-1. This update fixes
> > a timing attack in a class checking passwords (no CVE ID has been assigned 
> > yet)
> > and removes a broken symlink (#857217).
> > 
> > Note that Jetty 9.2.x is in maintenance mode and receives only critical 
> > fixes
> > from upstream, that's why I'm suggesting to upload a new version (it mostly
> > consists in the security fix anyway).
> 
> Sorry that this didn't get picked up before the release.
> 
> From your comment above, I assume the plan is to get a newer upstream
> version of Jetty into unstable soon? If so, then how we proceed with
> fixing this in stretch depends on whether the Security Team plan to
> handle it via a DSA; CCing them for an opinion.

Sorry for the delay. No we marked the issue as no-dsa, and the fix
should preferably go in via a point release.

The CVE is CVE-2017-9735.

Regards,
Salvatore