Package: xtables-addons-dkms
Version: 3.11-1
distribution: bullseye
linux-headers-5.9.0-3-amd64: 5.9.9-1
linux-headers-5.9.0-3-common: 5.9.9-1
linux-source-5.9: 5.9.9-1
linux-image-5.9.0-3-amd64: 5.9.9-1
linux-kbuild-5.9: 5.9.9-1
linux-compiler-gcc-10-x86: 5.9.9-1
linux-config-5.9: 5.9.9-1
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 07:05:24PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + confirmed
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 06:46:26PM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> > Source: linux
> > Version: 5.10~rc4-1~exp1
> > Severity: important
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > building
On Thu, 2020-11-26 at 05:48 +0100, nicoo wrote:
> Out of curiousity, do you know whether a trailing comma is allowed, like with
> dependencies? It is what I try to default to, for lists with one element per
> line, but I erred on the side of caution here, since you mentionned issues
> there
Package: python3-astroquery
Version: 0.4.1+dfsg-3
Severity: serious
Tags: patch
Sorry to disturb again:
The released version of astroquery uses some internal structures of
astropy, which make it fail with the latest version:
On 26/11/20 at 11:57 +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> I have pushed a fix to salsa, should I just close this bug, or you
> prefer cloning a new one?
I think that using this bug is fine. I'll reopen another bug if I can
reproduce the previous issue.
Lucas
On 2020-11-25 Rob Browning wrote:
> Andreas Metzler writes:
>> I think I have described how to reproduce this on amd64 in the other
>> bugreport:
>> (sid)ametzler@argenau:/$ rm -rf /tmp/GNUTLS/ /dev/shm/GNUTLS
>> (sid)ametzler@argenau:/$ mkdir /tmp/GNUTLS/ /dev/shm/GNUTLS
>>
The debian/tests/control also needs updating, new patch attached
Le 25/11/2020 à 16:39, Debian Bug Tracking System a écrit :
> Thank you for filing a new Bug report with Debian.
>
> You can follow progress on this Bug here: 975724:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=975724.
>
>
Package: src:linux
Version: 5.9.6-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
* What led up to the situation?
Plugged in QNAP 5GigE USB ethernet.
dmesg says:
[346264.680355] usb 2-1: new SuperSpeed Gen 1 USB device number 3 using xhci_hcd
[346264.705280] usb 2-1: New USB device found, idVendor=1c04,
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 6:15 AM Xavier Guimard wrote:
> Package: libjs-sizzle
[...]
> A proposal package is ready in https://salsa.debian/org/js-team/sizzle,
> it fixes this and the 2 other bugs:
> * #751606 [n|P| ] [libjs-sizzle] libjs-sizzle: Embedded copy of "RequireJS
> text"
> * #892834
Control: tags -1 + patch
Hi
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 05:59:50AM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Source: x11vnc
> Version: 0.9.13-6
> Severity: grave
> Tags: security upstream fixed-upstream
> Justification: user security hole
> X-Debbugs-Cc: car...@debian.org, Debian Security Team
>
>
Source: yade
Version: 2020.01a-12
Severity: serious
libyade is still linked with libpython3.8 after the
rebuild with 3.9 as default, likely due to
https://sources.debian.org/src/yade/2020.01a-12/CMakeLists.txt/#L196
Package: libjs-sizzle
Version: 1.10.18-1
Severity: important
Tags: patch ftbfs
Hi,
following #974218 discussion, node-typescript-types no more embeds
@types/sizzle, please embed it in libjs-sizzle.
A proposal package is ready in https://salsa.debian/org/js-team/sizzle,
it fixes this and the 2
Package: libpam-fprintd
Version: 1.90.1-2
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-Cc: Asher Gordon
Dear Maintainer,
When I upgraded the libpam-fprintd package to 1.90.1-2 (from 0.8.1-2¹),
fingerprint scanning stopped working for many things, including login,
sudo, and systemctl (but still worked for
Source: x11vnc
Version: 0.9.13-6
Severity: grave
Tags: security upstream fixed-upstream
Justification: user security hole
X-Debbugs-Cc: car...@debian.org, Debian Security Team
Control: found -1 0.9.16-4
Hi,
The following vulnerability was published for x11vnc.
CVE-2020-29074[0]:
| scan.c in
Hi Paul,
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 02:40:50PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> yubico-piv-tool 2.1.1-1 introduced an invalid uploaders field, that is
> missing a comma between Dain Nilsson & Klas Lindfors.
Indeed! Sorry about that, I'm currently building a fixed package.
I guess I missed have missed
On Sat, 14 Nov 2020, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> First, in former times it was easy to find pdfjam because the package
Yes, but now it is part of the TeX Live group and we cannot include the
long description of every single included TeX package in the long
description of the Debian package, it would
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 09:12:13AM -0800, tony mancill wrote:
> Package: openjdk-11
> Version: 11.0.9+11-1
> Severity: important
>
> Upstream 11.0.9+11 introduces JDK-8250861 [1], which can result in the
> JVM crashing. This regression is addressed in upstream release
> 11.0.9.1+1.
>
> [1]
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: buster
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Hello Release Team:
I propose that openjdk-11 be updated to upstream 11.0.9.1+1 in the
upcoming stable point release. This update addresses a regression [1]
introduced in upstream
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 5:15 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > The relevant part is near "FAIL:"
> >
> > === RUN TestIssue1374
> >proc_test.go:112: failed assertion at proc_test.go:4211: Call -
> > could not restore registers: bad address
> > --- FAIL: TestIssue1374 (0.62s)
> >
> >
> >
This quick-and-dirty fix seems to work for me:
root@odin:~# systemctl cat nfs-kernel-server
# /lib/systemd/system/nfs-server.service
[...]
# /etc/systemd/system/nfs-server.service.d/zfsutils-linux.conf
# If you configure NFS exports in "zfs set sharenfs",
# this will
Michael Biebl writes:
> Am Mittwoch, den 25.11.2020, 16:07 -0500 schrieb Ian Kelling:
>> package: systemd
>> version: 246.6-2~bpo10+1
>>
>> Confirmed upstream, they asked that it be filed with debian:
>> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/17485
>
> I think Lennart meant that you should
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, Fabio Fantoni wrote:
> fast tests I haven't found important issue but is better wait cinnamon
> 4.8 release stable (after good testing these weeks), in the meantime, in
I have prepared 4.8 packages for those packages that have already a new
upstream. Let us wait till all are
Package: zfsutils-linux
Version: 0.8.4-1~bpo10+1
Severity: minor
I'm not sure who is 'at fault' here, or where the fix belongs.
The problem I ran into was this:
1. I zfs set sharenfs (not /etc/exports), because
it makes config management a little easier (exports(5) lacks a "drop-in"
Package: python3-ldif3
Version: 3.2.2-1
Severity: normal
I wrote a trivial ldifsort tool (attached).
I noticed it was not idempotent.
This is because python3-ldif3 is not preserving trailing space.
An easy way to see this is:
diff -u <(printf 'dn: a=b\nc:: ZCAgIA==\n'|ldifsort) \
Source: rxvt-unicode
Version: 9.22-8
taffybar is unable to find the urxvt icon unless I
happen to start taffybar in /usr/share/pixmaps.
I believe this is because rxvt-unicode.desktop
specifies the icon file as neither a name that
can be found in a GTK theme directory nor an
absolute path.
This
found 939633 5.8.10-1~bpo10+1
severity 939633 important
merge 935456 939633
quit
I'm left suspecting bugs #935456 and #939633, are in reality a single
bug: Raspberry Pi device trees were garbled during Debian's 5.2 kernel
development.
They appear to remain very garbled, to the point of being
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: buster
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Dear release team,
[ Reason ]
#975862: Two upcoming changes in the Let's Encrypt chain of trust
severely impact lacme and will break all issuance once they're rolled
out in
Hi,
First read https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=810741 for
context if you forgot about this report.
I agree the messages is unhelpful, but I don't know how to improve it.
Libgsasl uses Kerberos via GSS-API, so I can't access or see the libkrb5
error codes -- maybe someone knows
Hi Aurélien,
Aurélien COUDERC writes:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Aurélien COUDERC
> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org
>
> * Package name: plasma-disks
> Version : 5.20.3
> Upstream Author : Plasma Developers
> * URL :
Package: devscripts
Version: 2.20.4
Severity: normal
Hi,
I maintain a few non-free packages where I can't directly download the
corresponding upstream tarballs. But at least there exist upstream
websites where I can parse the current version number from. That
information is at least sufficient
Package: cura
Version: 4.7.1-2
The first run of Cura get stuck at the "Add a printer" screen of the welcome
screen sequence. There are no printers to select and it is not possible to
escape or get into Cura.
Fresh Debian 11 Bullseye install, LXDE minimal, offline.
This needs to work because
Source: dart
Version: 6.9.5-1
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package fails to upgrade from
'sid' to 'experimental'.
It installed fine in 'sid', then the upgrade to 'experimental' fails
because it tries to
Hello,
It seems quite counterintuitive that this bug would be marked as closed in
unstable, given that it's the unstable version which fails to build?
And also, it seems counterintuitive to auto-remove the testing version of
the package due to a regression in buildability in the unstable
Package: bpftrace
Version: 0.11.3-2
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: john.ogn...@linutronix.de
Dear Maintainer,
In order for bpftrace to support setting uprobes by address/offset, the build
dependency libbfd-dev must be added. Otherwise uprobes are limited to symbols,
which in many cases is not
Control: notfound -1 elementpath/2.0.4-1
Control: reassign -1 python-xmlschema
On 11/21/20 9:50 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Source: elementpath, python-xmlschema
> Control: found -1 elementpath/2.0.4-1
> Control: found -1 python-xmlschema/1.2.2-2
> Severity: serious
> Tags: sid bullseye
>
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 5:11:37 PM EST Guilhem Moulin wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 15:00:58 +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
>> I have not looked in detail, but there seem to be at least one rework
>> of sig2dot rewritten which seem to cover this.
>>
>> It is
Package: apt-listbugs
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch l10n
Hi!
Please find attached the french templates translation, proofread
by the debian-l10n-french mailing list contributors.
This file should be put as debian/po/fr.po in your package build tree.
Kind Regards
Jean-Pierre Giraud
fr.po.gz
Il 25/11/2020 21:54, Lucas Nussbaum ha scritto:
> Source: cjs
> Version: 4.6.0-2
> Severity: serious
> Justification: FTBFS on amd64
> Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
> Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
>
> Hi,
>
> During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your pack
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
I am Gitano's upstream as well as the package maintainer in Debian. From an
upstream perspective I consider Gitano to basically be obsolete. There are only
very few installations, nobody has contributed bug reports or patches in a very
long time, and
Package: blueman
Version: <=2.0.8-1+deb10u
Severity: minor
Tags: a11y upstream
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 10.6
APT prefers stable-updates
APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 5.9.9 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Kernel taint
Hi, Jody and Eriberto.
Thanks for the quick reply.
The tests conducted before 2020-10-13 were using jdupes 1.18.2 (all
tests passed). I only introduced the package in September (after 1.18.2
was released) so I don't know if this was a problem before that release.
Cheers,
Charles
On Wed, Nov
> Hi Radosław, you should use JAVA_OPTS instead of CATALINA_OPTS in
> /etc/default/tomcat9 as documented in the file. I don't think
> CATALINA_OPTS has ever been intended to be supported in
> /etc/default/tomcat.
Hello,
I'm already using JAVA_OPTS as a workaround, but I thought CATALINA_OPTS
Package: leatherman
Version: 1.12.1+dfsg-1
Severity: serious
Tags: patch
Justification: Policy 10.1
User: team+bo...@tracker.debian.org
Usertags: boost174
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Dear maintainer,
it was discovered that your package ships some
files, which are now shipped
I've rebased the patch on top of current make upstream master, ensured that
it compiles with -Werror, added a test case and posted it upstream at
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?45763#comment3 . The updated patch is
attached.
Thanks.
Mike.
>From e249c43741779ae7dd6834f6840384257d4c3dd8 Mon Sep 17
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
Control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/17730
Am Mittwoch, den 25.11.2020, 12:56 +0100 schrieb Richard van den Berg:
> On 25-11-2020 02:11, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > Can you break this down to a more minimal test case which would
> > make
> >
Package: lacme
Version: 0.6.1-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Two upcoming changes in the Let's Encrypt chain of trust severely impact
lacme and will break new issuance when they're rolled out in December /
January.
1. The existing issuer, namely “Let's Encrypt
>> + tsc
>> src/promisify.ts(27,15): error TS2345: Argument of type 'Duplex |
>> Pick | Agent | undefined' is not assignable to
>> parameter of type 'Duplex | Pick | Agent |
>> PromiseLike'.
>> Type 'undefined' is not assignable to type 'Duplex | Pick> "addRequest"> | Agent | PromiseLike'.
>>
Package: mercurial
Version: 5.5.2-1
Severity: normal
Dear maintainer,
After the Debian switch to python3.9 by default, mercurial got a lot slower,
see the following tests in a small repository:
$ time python3.9 /usr/bin/hg status
real 0m0.403s
user 0m0.391s
sys0m0.012s
$ time
Hello,
It seems #975794 (node-ws) and #975819 (node-agent-base) are related as
they concern the same piece of code of agent-base, which is packaged in
node-agent-base and embedded in node-ws. Removing agent-base source from
node-ws is underway (#972541).
Best,
Andrius
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:54:24 +0100 Frans Spiesschaert wrote:
[...]
> Please find attached the updated Dutch po file for the apt-listbugs
> package.
Hi Frans!
Thank you so much for your contribution.
In order to improve consistency, I changed some strings.
Please speak up, in case I have to
Hi Sébastien,
A couple of other notes about this:
- the tests would succeed on Ubuntu infrastructure if the implementation
respected http_proxy / https_proxy; but it appears this is not the case.
I think this should be considered a bug in cl-usocket, independent of the
tests passing or
Am Mittwoch, den 25.11.2020, 16:07 -0500 schrieb Ian Kelling:
> package: systemd
> version: 246.6-2~bpo10+1
>
> Confirmed upstream, they asked that it be filed with debian:
> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/17485
I think Lennart meant that you should file this at
package: systemd
version: 246.6-2~bpo10+1
Confirmed upstream, they asked that it be filed with debian:
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/17485
Package: util-linux
Version: 2.36.1-1
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-Cc: electron.bad...@tutanota.com
Dear Maintainer,
It is not possible to do davfs mount through fstab:
Error on syslog:
Unknown mount option "symfollow"
It seems other filesystems are affected too:
Hi Bastian,
On 25/11/20 at 21:45 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote:
> Am 25.11.20 um 21:35 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
> > Hi Bastian,
> >
> > On 24/11/20 at 20:03 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote:
> > > severity 973211 important
> >
> > Can you explain why you downgraded that bug?
>
> Yes. The failing
Source: r-cran-haplo.stats
Version: 1.7.9-4
Severity: serious
Control: close -1 1.8.6-1
Tags: sid bullseye
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: out-of-sync
Dear maintainer(s),
As recently announced [1], the Release Team now considers packages that
are out-of-sync between
Source: mediastreamer2
Version: 1:2.16.1-4
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> cd /<>/obj-x86
Source: pplacer
Version: 1.1~alpha19-3
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[3]: Entering direct
Source: debmake-doc
Version: 1.14-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[3]: Entering direct
Source: sensible-utils
Version: 0.0.12+nmu1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[2]: Enter
Source: ruby-fakefs
Version: 1.2.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> /usr/bin/ruby2.7 /usr/
Source: opam
Version: 2.0.5-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[2]: Entering directory '/<
Source: google-oauth-client-java
Version: 1.27.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> dpkg-buildpack
Source: grml2usb
Version: 0.18.3
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[2]: Entering direct
Source: ruby-redis
Version: 4.2.2-2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> /usr/bin/ruby2.7 /usr/bin/gem2
Source: rocksdb
Version: 5.17.2-3
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> g++ -g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-
Source: cjs
Version: 4.6.0-2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[1]: Entering direct
Source: uwsgi-apparmor
Version: 0.0.0+git.2014.09.15.7d6d7bd7eb-3
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully
Source: sphinx-tabs
Version: 1.2.1+ds-2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[1]: Entering direct
Source: sopt
Version: 3.0.1-10
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> /usr/bin/ld: CMakeFi
Source: google-api-client-java
Version: 1.27.1-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> dpkg-buildpack
Source: ghostscript
Version: 9.52.1~dfsg-1
Severity: serious
Control: close -1 9.53.3~dfsg-5
Tags: sid bullseye
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: out-of-sync
Dear maintainer(s),
As recently announced [1], the Release Team now considers packages that
are out-of-sync between
Thanks for the upload, it appears to have fixed *almost* all the
reproducibility issues!
Unfortunately there is still an issue with Makefile.in, looking at the
latest build:
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/diffoscope-results/dynare.html
Apparently
Source: r-cran-partykit
Version: 1.2-7-1
Severity: serious
Control: close -1 1.2-10-1
Tags: sid bullseye
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: out-of-sync
Dear maintainer(s),
As recently announced [1], the Release Team now considers packages that
are out-of-sync between testing
Source: kore
Version: 3.3.1-1
Severity: serious
Control: close -1 4.0.1-5
Tags: sid bullseye
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: out-of-sync
Dear maintainer(s),
It seems to forgot to file a removal request against the ftp.debian.org
pseudo package for the binaries of your
Am 25.11.20 um 21:35 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
Hi Bastian,
On 24/11/20 at 20:03 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote:
severity 973211 important
Can you explain why you downgraded that bug?
Yes. The failing test is for an optional component of spyne (msgpack
backend). I guess most users of spyne do
Source: nanopb
Version: 0.4.3-1
Severity: important
Tags: security upstream
Forwarded: https://github.com/nanopb/nanopb/issues/615
X-Debbugs-Cc: car...@debian.org, Debian Security Team
Hi,
The following vulnerability was published for nanopb.
CVE-2020-26243[0]:
| Nanopb is a small code-size
Hi,
No need to revert.
thanks!
Às 23:12 de 24/11/20, Francesco Poli escreveu:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 17:49:30 + tra...@debianpt.org wrote:
Goos afternoon,
thanks for reviewing this.
I'm sending a new version.
Thank you.
Some doubts remain.
First doubt
===
#. TRANSLATORS:
Hi Bastian,
On 24/11/20 at 20:03 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote:
> severity 973211 important
Can you explain why you downgraded that bug?
Thanks
Lucas
I'd like to see people chime in who have not participated in the
discussion yet.
I prefer your original text but we'd need to get support for it.
It sounds like we're fairly evenly split among the current participants
in the issue.
--Sam
Source: python-blosc
Version: 1.9.2+ds1-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> dpkg-buildpack
Package: grml-rescueboot
Version: 0.5.0
Severity: important
This page describes a solution
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Grub2/ISOBoot#Menuentry_Example see the
paragraph under "Generally, when booting with '''grub 2.04''' in UEFI mode you
need an extra command to remove tpm."
I tested that
yeah, my bad, I am working on a fix for that :)
Le 25/11/2020 à 21:02, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
Source: rust-sniffglue
Version: 0.11.1-4
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid
Source: python-aiosqlite
Version: 0.15.0-2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[1]: Enter
Source: radvd
Version: 1:2.18-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[1]: Entering direct
Source: ufo2ft
Version: 2.16.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[1]: Entering direct
Source: tyxml
Version: 4.4.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[1]: Entering direct
Source: openthesaurus
Version: 20160424-3
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> Unpack sou
Source: pyqi
Version: 0.3.2+dfsg-6
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[1]: Entering direct
Source: xscreensaver
Version: 5.44+dfsg1-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[2]: Enter
Source: typerep
Version: 1:0.14.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[1]: Entering direct
Source: pyramid-jinja2
Version: 2.7+dfsg-1.1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> debian/rules build
&
Source: python-m2r
Version: 0.2.1-4
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[1]: Entering direct
Source: sexplib310
Version: 1:0.14.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[1]: Entering direct
Source: ocp-indent
Version: 1.8.2-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[1]: Entering direct
Source: mnemosyne
Version: 2.7.2+ds1-2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[3]: Entering direct
Source: node-ws
Version: 7.3.1+~cs24.0.5-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[1]: Enter
Source: libgtkada
Version: 19-4
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[2]: Entering direct
Source: mom
Version: 0.6.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[3]: Entering directory '/<&
Source: ocaml-gettext
Version: 0.4.2-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201125 ftbfs-bullseye
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[2]: Entering direct
1 - 100 of 265 matches
Mail list logo
