> > This is now solved on
> > https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/mariadb-server/-/merge_requests/31
>
> Mangling the maintainers scripts of another package is a delicate issue
> as it's often fragile and can cause hard to debug failures in corner cases.
>
> Personally, I would have turned the
This is now solved on
https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/mariadb-server/-/merge_requests/31
FYI, this was merged in
https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/mariadb-server/-/commit/3062888cb67ba22a5e0acaeb3321a06cb7d07ea3
and uploaded to Debian.
Latest build statuses: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=mariadb
Upstream seems to also do their fixes:
-
Severity: wishlist
Tags: newcomer help
Hello!
Galera 4 [1] does include a systemd script. Having one in this older
version is mostly a nice-to-have level of thing. I am happy to review
any Merge Requests on the topic.
I have used up my time budget for Debian packaging work for this
spring so I
Thanks Alexis, Tommi, Paul and many others for using rdiff-backup and
contributing to the bug report
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=310442!
The latest version of rdiff-backup 2.2.2-1 is now available in Debian
Sid and Bookworm: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/rdiff-backup
If
Control: tags -1 newcomer help
Hello!
Thanks for using rdiff-backup in Debian. The latest version
(https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/rdiff-backup) has recently been
uploaded to Debian. I would appreciate it if you can help testing it,
and perhaps also verify if this issue still exists and if it
Hello Alexis!
Thanks for using rdiff-backup and reporting about
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=992325
Please test if this issue still exists in latest rdiff-backup 2.2.2-1
in Debian. If it still exists, please report the issue upstream at
Control: tags -1 newcomer help
Hello!
You are right, the current autopkgstest is extremely trivial and only
checks that the program runs at all[1].
Upstream Makefile has various test targets. Some of them might not be
compatible with autopkgtest[3,4] due to doing weird stuff as root user
to the
> How about temporarily inserting something like the implementation below of
> Arnaud R's workaround somewhere (where?) in mariadb-server(-10.6).postinst?
>
> Thank you!
> Daniel Lewart
> Urbana, Illinois
> ---
> # Temporary workaround which should be removed after upstream fixes
> #
Control: tags -1 patch
This Debian bug is still waiting for a contributor to dive deep into
it, but it is easier now as there is a draft of one way to potentially
solve it in
https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/mariadb-server/-/merge_requests/29
Control: tags -1 patch
This Debian bug is still waiting for a contributor to dive deep into
it, but it is easier now as there is a draft of one way to potentially
solve it in
https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/mariadb-server/-/merge_requests/29
Hi!
Here is the situation after 'apt full-upgrade -y':
$ dpkg -l | grep -iE 'maria|mysql|galera' || true # List installed
ii default-mysql-client 1.1.0
all MySQL database client binaries (metapackage)
ii default-mysql-client-core 1.1.0
all
Hi!
I managed now to reproduce this. The purge step is not relevant, but
simply the upgrade itself.
In clean Docker container with Debian unstable:
$ apt install -y mariadb-server-10.6
-> install successful
$ apt full-upgrade -y
-> does nothing
$ service mariadb restart
Stopping MariaDB
Hi!
We have a MR at
https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/mariadb-server/-/merge_requests/28
by Adrian (titled HACK), discussions and code snippets at
https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-30411 and a new patch by Daniel
at
Control: tags -1 patch
Hi!
You are right, I missed
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=1024041;filename=mariadb-fix-ftbfs-riscv64.patch;msg=20
I will try this on next upload
Hi!
I don't see anything new in upstream
https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-28751 about this.
However we do have MariaDB 10.11.1 in Debian now. Maybe you Daniel can
for the sake of it check if the behaviour is still same on 10.11?
I would personally also be keen to figure out how to make the
Hi!
Contributions to improve mysys/CMakeFiles.txt are welcome!
We have now MariaDB 10.11.1 in Debian with latest version of said file
from upstream.
On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 17:27, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
>
> Control: Severity -1 wishlist
>
> Based on replies from Daniel and Mar
Hello Peter and Faustin!
We have several related bugs:
#1028271 [mariadb-server] MariaDB systemd: start using sysusers.d
#1028272 [mariadb-server] MariaDB systemd: start using tmpfiles.d
#1028273 [mariadb-server] MariaDB systemd: make multiple systemd files
compatible with --build=all
We also
Latest build 1:10.6.11-2 fully passed on sh4 so this bug must have
been fixed in the past
Control: retitle -1 mariadb: FTBFS on riscv64:
rocksdb/db/memtable.cc:129: undefined reference to
`__atomic_compare_exchange_1' to misc functions and files
Control: reassign -1 mariadb
Control: found -1 mariadb-10.6/1:10.6.9-1
Control: found -1 mariadb/1:10.11.1-1
I reviewed recent builds of the
Source: mariadb
Version: 1:10.11.1-1
Tags: upstream, confirmed, help, ftbfs
User: debian-powe...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ppc64
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-powe...@lists.debian.org
Builds on ppc64 pass but the testsuite that validates that binary
works failed with:
Control: retitle -1 mariadb: FTBFS on hurd-i386: undefined reference
to misc functions and files
Control: reassign -1 mariadb
Control: found -1 mariadb-10.6/1:10.6.7-1
Control: found -1 mariadb/1:10.11.1-1
I reviewed recent builds of the new MariaDB 10.11[1] and similar
failures still exist.
Source: mariadb
Version: 1:10.11.1-1
Tags: upstream, confirmed, help, ftbfs
User: debian-powe...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: powerpc
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-powe...@lists.debian.org
Builds on powerpc pass but the testsuite that validates that binary
works failed with:
...
main.subselect_sj2_jcl6
Control: reassign -1 mariadb-10.6,mariadb
Control: retitle -1 mariadb: FTBFS on hppa: builds, but test suite
crashes immediately with "'aio write' returned OS error 0"), maybe
io_uring related
I reviewed recent builds of new MariaDB 10.11[1] and this same failure
still exists.
warning: Can't
-team/mariadb-server/-/wikis/Contributing-to-MariaDB-packaging-in-Debian
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 at 13:06, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
>
> > fneq (,$(filter $(DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU),alpha))
> > LDFLAGS+=-Wl,--no-relax
> > endif
>
> Thanks Michael for the suggestion!
>
> I
Hi!
I have been frantically trying to reproduce the issue you reported.
Would you be able to describe more in detail what was the situation
before and after you upgraded and what commands exactly did you do to
execute the upgrade (apt upgrade, apt full-upgrade, apt-get,
aptitude)?
We might very
Hi!
Thanks for reporting the issue. I saw this earlier and fixed it via
https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/mariadb-server/-/commit/dd3a058ebec877da50aadc9f8909d61ac634430a
- but cleary the fix does not fully work as you ran into this again.
I will dive deeper.
- Otto
Source: mariadb
Version: 1:10.11.1-1
Tags: upstream, confirmed, ftbfs
User: debian-m...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: mipsel, mips64el
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-m...@lists.debian.org
After upload of MariaDB 11.10 to Debian (this is a regression from
10.6) the following test started to fail:
Source: mariadb
Version: 1:10.11.1-1
Tags: help
Hi!
I tested to cross-compile MariaDB 10.11.1-1 on
http://crossqa.debian.net/src/mariadb on multiple architectures but
they all failed with:
[ 1%] Linking C executable uca-dump
cd /<>/builddir/strings && /usr/bin/cmake -E
cmake_link_script
Source: mariadb
Version: 1:10.11.1-1
Tags: upstream, confirmed, ftbfs
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: eabi, mipsel, mips64el, armhf, armel
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-...@lists.debian.org, debian-m...@lists.debian.org
Forwarded: https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-30411
Several tests that
Package: mysql-defaults
Version: 1.1.0
Severity: serious
Owner: Otto Kekäläinen
Don't allow mysql-defaults into testing/Bookworm before MariaDB
1:10.11.1-1 has entered it first. There is no package
'mariadb-server-core' in MariaDB 1:10.6.11-2 and thus the defaults
pointer would fail
Package: mariadb-server
Severity: wishlist
Tags: newcomer
Upstream MariaDB ships with multiple systemd service files but we
don't have it enabled in MariaDB packaging in Debian[1].
This issue is tagged newcomer friendly as it only requires a minimal
knowledge[2] of existing MariaDB packaging in
Package: mariadb-server
Severity: wishlist
Tags: newcomer
Upstream MariaDB ships with usr/lib/tpmfiles.d/mariadb.conf but we
don't use it in MariaDB packaging in Debian[1].
This issue is tagged newcomer friendly as it only requires a minimal
knowledge[2] of existing MariaDB packaging in Debian.
Package: mariadb-server
Severity: wishlist
Tags: newcomer
Upstream MariaDB ships with usr/lib/sysusers.d/mariadb.conf but we
don't use it in MariaDB packaging in Debian[1].
This issue is tagged newcomer friendly as it only requires a minimal
knowledge[2] of existing MariaDB packaging in Debian.
On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 at 01:18, Utkarsh Gupta wrote:
>
> Hi Otto,
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 5:33 AM Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> > I didn't get a reply to this, so asking again.
>
> I could take care of the upload but if you'd like to do that, please
> feel free t
> I assume there are no other changes in the new releases that might be
> relevant / interesting to users (and thus worthy of mentioning in the
> changelog)?
Misc bugfixes but nothing special to highlight, and nothing that is
known to fix any of the 5 bugs tracked at bugs.debian.org for
I did a re-run today and surprisingly it passed:
main.order_by_innodb 'innodb'w2 [ pass ] 84
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mariadb-10.6=s390x=1%3A10.6.11-1=1670206361=0
Maybe the issue is sporadic? But also the first day I saw this I
re-ran the build and it did
Hi Emilio!
I didn't get a reply to this, so asking again.
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 at 17:57, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
>
> Hello Emilio!
>
> MariaDB 1:10.3.37-0+deb10u1 is ready for upload at
> https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/mariadb-10.3/-/commits/buster
>
> Do
Thanks for the info. Do you what is the mechanism that controls makes the
test suite being skipped on m68k/sh?
Page https://release.debian.org/ says next stable update is mid-late
November. Are you OK if I upload this to bullseye?
- Otto
Source: mariadb-10.6
Version: 1:10.6.11-1
Tags: ftbfs
User: debian-i...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ia64
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-i...@lists.debian.org
After upload of mariadb-10.6 1:10.6.11-1 I noticed that ia64 builds
at https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=mariadb-10.6 were
failing:
Source: mariadb-10.6
Version: 1:10.6.11-1
Tags: ftbfs
User: debian-s...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: s390x
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-s...@lists.debian.org
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source on official Debian architecture
After upload of mariadb-10.6 1:10.6.11-1 I noticed that
> fneq (,$(filter $(DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU),alpha))
> LDFLAGS+=-Wl,--no-relax
> endif
Thanks Michael for the suggestion!
I don't see any alpha porter boxes on
https://db.debian.org/machines.cgi?sortby=purpose=dsc so I
can't test/validate this myself.
If you feel confident about the change, can
version 10.3.37.
-- Otto Kekäläinen Fri, 11 Nov 2022 20:54:48 -0800
This release does not (at least not yet) have any CVE tracked vulnerabilities.
I realize you might not be interested to include this in a LTS release
if there are no critical fixes to point out, but I decided to file
-27449
- CVE-2022-27451
- CVE-2022-27452
- CVE-2022-27455
- CVE-2022-27456
- CVE-2022-27457
- CVE-2022-27458
- CVE-2022-32083
- CVE-2022-32085
- CVE-2022-32086
- CVE-2022-32087
- CVE-2022-32088
-- Otto Kekäläinen Fri, 11 Nov 2022 18:33:01 -0800
Source: mariadb-10.6
Version: 1:10.6.9-1
Tags: upstream, confirmed, ftbfs
User: debian-ri...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: riscv64, riscv
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ri...@lists.debian.org
After upload of mariadb-10.6 1:10.6.9-1 I noticed that riscv64 builds
at
Source: mariadb-10.6
Version: 1:10.6.7-1
Tags: upstream, confirmed, ftbfs
User: debian-al...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: alpha
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-al...@lists.debian.org
After upload of mariadb-10.6 1:10.6.7-1 I noticed that alpha builds
at
> > I think the answer to this should probably be established by the
> > libpam-tmpdir maintainer and documented first, for fear of someone else
> > later coming along and saying that the maintainer script incorrectly
> > ignores TMPDIR because we started ignoring it to resolve this bug. So I
> >
There seems to be a lot of people hitting this:
* https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=17=152419
*
https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/comments/qcwpfr/sudo_is_completely_broken_after_i_accidentally/
Thus I am posting this to clarify things:
Release notes of Debian 11 (bullseye)
Control: -1 tags wontfix
Hello Tim, Faustin and Georg!
Tim: The choice of utfmb4 was made also at upstream, but you are
right, Debian adopted it earlier than upstream and thus diverged
slightly. In the next version in Debian (MariaDB 10.6) this is again
in sync with upstream.
> > Issues:
> @Otto, does that look like something good to have in the CI? I will
> propose a MR then...
>
Yes
Sounds like this is a scenario users hit and thus makes sense to have in
Salsa-CI.
Thanks!
I just wanted to follow up and notify that x32 now indeed builds and
test suite passed too:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=mariadb-10.6
Hi!
Resurrecting this again and filed as
https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/mariadb-server/-/merge_requests/16
with plan to merge it on 10.6 and upload to Debian soon.
Hello Dick!
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 2:54 PM Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
>
> Thanks Dick for reporting #1006388!
>
> We need to fix multi-arch support on MariaDB 10.6 in unstable before
> we can consider backporting anything to Bullseye/10.5. Right now we
> don't have anybody on t
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:19 PM Cameron Davidson wrote:
>
> On 20-Feb-22 10:42, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > Thanks for using MariaDB. In the scope of Debian packaging we do not
> > fix upstream bugs. If you have a reproducible test case you coul
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Hello Akira!
Was https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1001843 already
solved for you?
Thanks John for researching this!
Since you are close to solving it, would you like to finalize it by
submitting a MR at
https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/mariadb-server?
https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/mariadb-server/-/wikis/Contributing-to-MariaDB-packaging-in-Debian
Thanks for reporting.
Upstream is scheduled to release new versions in about a month or so,
and the next Debian stable update date will show up at
https://release.debian.org/ when it is planned. There will be no extra
releases of MariaDB 1:10.3.3x in Debian 10 "Bullseye" than the next
stable
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 9:33 PM Johnny A. Solbu wrote:
>
> On Sunday 20 February 2022 02:23, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> > Is the issue https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=996028
> > still affecting people?
>
> We just hit it again on our server aftre4r upgr
Hi!
Thanks for looking into this. Can you elaborate why you filed this on
26.4.8 and not latest 26.4.10?
Builds are passing. Thus tests indicate that there is no issue. What is the
broken thing exactly and since tests are passing, how will we verify that
the broken thing is fixed or still
Hi Adam!
Could you please also approve upload of galera-4 and galera-3 to
Bullseye stable updates?
Thanks
Control: Severity -1 wishlist
Based on replies from Daniel and Marko this code section is indeed
correct. Also, based on git blame the section you suggest to be
removed was not added in a MariaDB version. However, instead of
closing this bug report as invalid, I leave it open as a wishlist item
Source: mariadb-10.6
Version: 1:10.6.7-3
Tags: upstream, confirmed, ftbfs
User: debian-sp...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: sparc64
Forwarded: https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-28052
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-sp...@lists.debian.org
After upload of mariadb-10.6 1:10.6.7-3 I noticed that sparc64 builds
Source: mariadb-10.6
Version: 1:10.6.7-3
Tags: upstream, confirmed, ftbfs
User: debian-powe...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: powerpc
Forwarded: https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-23915
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-powe...@lists.debian.org
Filing this bug for tracking purposes. No help needed from Debian
Source: mariadb-10.6
Version: 1:10.6.7-1
Tags: upstream, confirmed, help, ftbfs
User: debian-powe...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ppc64
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-powe...@lists.debian.org
Builds on ppc64 failed with:
[ 48%] Building CXX object
extra/mariabackup/CMakeFiles/mbstream.dir/xbstream.cc.o
cd
/codership/documentation/blob/master/release-notes/release-notes-galera-25.3.35.txt
-- Otto Kekäläinen Wed, 02 Mar 2022 21:39:54 -0800
Debdiff attached. Created with commands:
git diff --stat debian/25.3.34-0+deb11u1..bullseye | xz >
25.3.36-0+deb11u1.debdiff.stat.xz
git diff debian/25.3.3
/codership/documentation/blob/master/release-notes/release-notes-galera-26.4.10.txt
-- Otto Kekäläinen Wed, 02 Mar 2022 21:26:00 -0800
Debdiff attached. Created with commands:
git diff --stat debian/26.4.9-0+deb11u1..bullseye | xz >
26.4.11-0+deb11u1.debdiff.stat.xz
git diff debian/26.4.
> > According to https://release.debian.org/ the next stable update is
> > due
> > in February. Please include this update to MariaDB.
> >
>
> That was the plan, yes. As you probably noticed, we're a little behind
> schedule
That's fine as long as it is just about a couple of weeks, and not
long
Control: forwarded -1 https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-27936
This was actually already in progress upstream. Sorry for escalating
to list before noticing this.
Hello!
A recent build regression on ppc64el is preventing a new MariaDB version
from migrating from unstable to testing.
Could any experts on this list help out?
Please use reply-to-all, I don't subscribe to the list.
Builds on both ppc64 and ppc64el fail due to misc errors related to
Control: retitle -1 mariadb-10.6: FTBFS on sh4: test suite fails to start
Control: reopen -1
Control: reassign -1 mariadb-10.6
Control: found -1 1:10.6.7-1
This bug still exists for MariaDB 10.6.
In
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mariadb-10.6=sh4=1%3A10.6.7-1=1645397551=0
the
Control: retitle -1 mariadb-10.6: FTBFS on m68k: test suite fails to start
Control: reopen -1
Control: reassign -1 mariadb-10.6
Control: found -1 1:10.6.7-1
This bug still exists for MariaDB 10.6.
In
Source: mariadb-10.6
Version: 1:10.6.7-1
Tags: confirmed, help, ftbfs
User: debian-h...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: hurd
Builds on hurd-i386 currently fail due to unknown reasons. See log at
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mariadb-10.6=hurd-i386=1%3A10.6.7-2%7Eexp1=1645912176=0
Source: mariadb-10.6
Version: 1:10.6.7-1
Tags: confirmed, help, ftbfs
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: x32
Builds on x32 currently fail due to unknown reasons. See log at
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mariadb-10.6=x32=1%3A10.6.7-2%7Eexp1=1645782519=0
There are a lot
Source: mariadb-10.6
Version: 1:10.6.7-1
Tags: upstream, confirmed, help, ftbfs
User: debian-h...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: hppa
Builds on hppa succeed, but as the mariadbd binary crashes immediately on start:
mysql-test-run: *** ERROR: Error executing mariadbd --bootstrap
Could not install
Source: mariadb-10.6
Version: 1:10.6.7-1
Tags: confirmed, help, ftbfs
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: sh4
Builds on sh4 currently fail due to unknown reasons. See log at
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mariadb-10.6=sh4=1%3A10.6.7-2%7Eexp1=1645784432=0
There are a lot
Source: mariadb-10.6
Version: 1:10.6.7-1
Tags: upstream, confirmed, help, ftbfs
User: debian-powe...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ppc64el, ppc64
Builds on both ppc64 and ppc64el fail due to misc errors related to htmxlintrin:
htmxlintrin.h:25:3: error: #error "HTM instruction set not enabled"
Thanks Dick for reporting #1006388!
We need to fix multi-arch support on MariaDB 10.6 in unstable before
we can consider backporting anything to Bullseye/10.5. Right now we
don't have anybody on the maintainer team who fully understands the
Debian multi-arch stuff.
If you have suggestions on how
Hello Sebastian!
I have now MariaDB 10.6 working with OpenSSL 3.0.0. Yihuu!
However I have problems making the correct debian/control changes. If
I use just 'libssl-dev' as the dependency then the build will pick up
old OpenSSL 1.1.1. If I use 'libssl-dev (>= 3.0.0)' then only
experimental
I've now successfully built MariaDB 10.6 with OpenSSL 3.0 using the
patches CentOS folks had written:
https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/mariadb-server/-/jobs/2498671
Hello!
As part of our CI we run a Bullseye MariaDB 10.5 to Debian Sid MariaDB
10.6 upgrade on every commit. If passes correctly with:
The following packages will be REMOVED:
mariadb-client-10.5 mariadb-client-core-10.5 mariadb-server-10.5
mariadb-server-core-10.5
The following NEW packages
Hi!
Personally I don't use trailing dots in d/changelog unless there are
actual full sentences that need them. I do however wish gbp-dch had
this feature, as currently when it does not have it, Lintian-brush
adds trailing dot to git commit message titles.
I find that ugly and I believe most git
Control: reassign -1 mariadb-server-10.3
Control: tags moreinfo
Hello!
Is the issue https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=996028
still affecting people? Did anybody figure out the root cause or what
upstream issue it was, or what version it was fixed in?
Hello!
If somebody wants to continue to work on this issue[1], please submit
your packaging improvement suggestion as a Merge Request on Salsa[2].
I promise to review them promptly.
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=975911
[2]
Package: mariadb-plugin-mroonga
Version: 10.6.5-1
Severity: normal
Tags: newcomer
Hello!
If somebody wants to continue working on this[1] newcomer friendly tagged
bug report, please submit Merge Requests[2].
I promise to review them quickly.
[1]
Hello!
Thanks for using MariaDB. In the scope of Debian packaging we do not
fix upstream bugs. If you have a reproducible test case you could file
bug report upstream.
We are in the process of uploading 10.3.34, 10.5.15 and 10.6.7 to
Debian. If these versions fix the issue then we can mark the
Seems upstream added OpenSSL 3.0 support in
https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-25785. It has 4 git commits
linked, from which I learned that:
* OpenSSL 3.0 is disabled on all old MariaDB majors
(https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commit/c9beef43154a199bfcd9f71049c011a2ed77ca74)
and enabled only
Is https://github.com/MariaDB/server/pull/2010 a fix for this perhaps?
Do we have any takers for making 10.6 build with OpenSSL 3.0?
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 2:27 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
>
> Source: mariadb-10.6
> Version: 1:10.6.5-2
> Severity: important
> Tags: bookworm sid
> User:
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
Hi,
Please remove src:mariadb-10.5 from unstable.
MariaDB 10.5 has been replaced by MariaDB 10.6, which is now available
in unstable and testing.
Ref:
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/mariadb-10.5
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/mariadb-10.6
run shows no upgrade regressions:
https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/mariadb-server/-/pipelines/335209
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:05 AM Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
>
> Note that apt-get and apt use different resolvers. Did you
> specifically run 'apt' or 'apt-get'?
Note that apt-get and apt use different resolvers. Did you
specifically run 'apt' or 'apt-get'?
> With mariadb-10.6 migrated to testing, I was expecting to see it
> installed on my bookworm system today. However, it turns out that the
> version of mariadb on my system is determined by
> default-mysql-server-core. I think both packages should agree on what
> the default mariadb version is.
Thanks for the bug report.
Highlighting lines:
>The following packages will be REMOVED:
> mariadb-client-10.5 mariadb-client-core-10.5 mariadb-server
>mariadb-server-10.5 python-pip-whl
The package 'mariadb-server' should not be here but instead
'mariadb-server-core-10.5'.
> On 21-01-2022 21:11, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> > Currently mariadb-10.6 is blocked from migrating to testing due to
> > test failure in ruby-mysql2/0.5.3-3
>
> I just uploaded a fix. The bug report already had the solution since
> January 5.
Thanks!
Please submit to
FYI: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1004151
Filed skip-test request to release team to get mariadb-10.6 migrate
from unstable to testing.
Package: release.debian.org
Currently mariadb-10.6 is blocked from migrating to testing due to
test failure in ruby-mysql2/0.5.3-3
Please consider adding a migration hint[1, 2] like:
force-skiptest ruby-mysql2/0.5.3-3
We are currently waiting for upstream ruby-mysql2 to make a new
release 0.5.4
Hi!
> Yes, please fix the situation in unstable/testing. It looks like 10.6
> isn't migrating because your reverse depends need fixing first (did you
> report that to the maintainers?); having 10.6 migrate would ease the
> situation a bit because then we can just remove 10.5. I think it would
uery> with backtrace:
> >
> > Our error message changed.
> >
> > ruby-mysql2 already fixed the test upstream -
> > https://github.com/brianmario/mysql2/commit/cca57b97ad6d1b1b985376be110b89d2b487dea6
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:47 AM Ot
Hey,
Next MariaDB for Bullseye release tracked in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1000342
Status: the stable release team decided not to release the latest
MariaDB 10.5.13 even though it was prepared and uploaded for Bullseye.
Apparently on the grounds that Debian testing does
Hello!
Yes, you are referring to
https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/mariadb-server/-/blob/debian/latest/debian/control#L12
Indeed, libaio-dev only exists on Linux:
https://packages.debian.org/sid/libaio-dev
This change is related to using uring-io on Linux. The correct
solution here I guess
301 - 400 of 1443 matches
Mail list logo
