On 02/09/16 11:48, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> protobuf (3.0.0-7) has been uploaded to unstable which contains a patch
> to fix the ostinato build failure (#).
>
> Can you schedule a dep-wait to rebuild ostinato (0.8-1) with
> libprotobuf-dev (3.0.0-7) once that's available on the buildds?
protobuf (3.0.0-7) has been uploaded to unstable which contains a patch
to fix the ostinato build failure (#).
Can you schedule a dep-wait to rebuild ostinato (0.8-1) with
libprotobuf-dev (3.0.0-7) once that's available on the buildds?
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
On 01/09/16 22:36, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 08/31/2016 04:59 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 31/08/16 12:00, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>>> Just for the record, osmium rebuilds are failing because most tests
>>> segfault by
>>> having two versions of libdap installed. Caused by
On 08/31/2016 04:59 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 31/08/16 12:00, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> Just for the record, osmium rebuilds are failing because most tests segfault
>> by
>> having two versions of libdap installed. Caused by the uncoordinated
>> transition
>> triggered with
On 31/08/16 12:00, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 08/31/16 11:30, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> On 08/31/16 00:41, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> On 28/08/16 18:13, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
On 08/25/16 19:17, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 08/25/16 17:33, Sebastiaan
On 08/31/16 11:30, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
On 08/31/16 00:41, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 28/08/16 18:13, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
On 08/25/16 19:17, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
On 08/25/16 17:33, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
Several packages unfortunately fail to build, some
On 08/31/16 00:41, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 28/08/16 18:13, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
On 08/25/16 19:17, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
On 08/25/16 17:33, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
Several packages unfortunately fail to build, some due to unrelated
issues to the new protobuf
On 28/08/16 18:13, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 08/25/16 19:17, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> On 08/25/16 17:33, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>>> Several packages unfortunately fail to build, some due to unrelated
>>> issues to the new protobuf packages. Bugs still need to be filed for
>>>
On 08/25/16 19:17, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
On 08/25/16 17:33, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
Several packages unfortunately fail to build, some due to unrelated
issues to the new protobuf packages. Bugs still need to be filed for
those that weren't sid-ony due to RC bugs already.
The
On 08/25/16 17:33, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
Several packages unfortunately fail to build, some due to unrelated
issues to the new protobuf packages. Bugs still need to be filed for
those that weren't sid-ony due to RC bugs already.
The bugreports have been filed, and ones specific to
Control: block -1 by 809290 811917 822380
On 08/23/16 16:45, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 11:32:10 AM AEST Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
Dmitry, have you tested the reverse dependencies if they still build?
No... We will have to deal with fallout, if any... It is crucial
On 08/24/16 13:57, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
For hurd-i386 a patch is needed to define PATH_MAX, and on kfreebsd-*
the builds fails with:
google/protobuf/stubs/stringpiece_unittest.cc: In member function
'virtual void
On 08/23/16 12:07, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
On 08/23/16 11:32, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
On s390x, alpha & sparc64 the build fails with:
./.libs/libprotobuf.so: undefined reference to
`google::protobuf::internal::NoBarrier_AtomicIncrement(long volatile*,
long)'
./.libs/libprotobuf.so:
On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 6:08:00 AM AEST Niels Thykier wrote:
> Please review https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions for
> the next transition. Most of the preparation can be done in your own
> cadence and you can request the slot in parallel with the final
> preparation on
Dmitry Smirnov:
> On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 8:51:23 PM AEST Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> That's not an excuse for causing disruption in unstable.
>
> I'm not sure when it is OK to cause disruption in unstable. For example
> uploading new GCC seems to cause a lot of problems despite attempts to
>
On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 1:28:32 AM AEST Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 08/23/16 16:45, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 11:32:10 AM AEST Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> >> protobuf (3.0.0-1) FTBFS pretty much everywhere. :-(
> >>
> >> Using -Werror may be a bit much
Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 8:51:23 PM AEST Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > That's not an excuse for causing disruption in unstable.
>
> I'm not sure when it is OK to cause disruption in unstable. For example
> uploading new GCC seems to cause a lot of problems despite attempts
On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 8:51:23 PM AEST Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> That's not an excuse for causing disruption in unstable.
I'm not sure when it is OK to cause disruption in unstable. For example
uploading new GCC seems to cause a lot of problems despite attempts to
mitigate FTBFS.
Also do
On 08/23/16 16:45, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 11:32:10 AM AEST Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
protobuf (3.0.0-1) FTBFS pretty much everywhere. :-(
Using -Werror may be a bit much based on the buildlogs.
I think it may not be the problem in this particular case...
I
Your upload broke building other packages (for instance,
evolution-data-server is currently unbuildable).
Could you please apply this patch and push to unstable?
Without this patch, protobuf failed to build in my sid sbuild; with
it; the build succeeded.
Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha
On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 00:45 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 11:32:10 AM AEST Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> > > Dmitry, have you tested the reverse dependencies if they still build?
>
> No... We will have to deal with fallout, if any... It is crucial to have
>
On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 11:32:10 AM AEST Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> > Dmitry, have you tested the reverse dependencies if they still build?
No... We will have to deal with fallout, if any... It is crucial to have
protobuf-3 from life cycle prospective. Also several golang dependencies
On 08/23/16 11:32, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
On 08/23/16 11:10, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
The upload of protobuf (3.0.0-1) to unstable has started an uncoordinated
transition.
Dmitry, have you tested the reverse dependencies if they still build?
I'll test the affected packages maintained by
On 08/23/16 11:10, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
The upload of protobuf (3.0.0-1) to unstable has started an uncoordinated
transition.
Dmitry, have you tested the reverse dependencies if they still build?
I'll test the affected packages maintained by the Debian GIS team and
upload them to unstable if
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Control: forwarded -1
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-protobuf.html
The upload of protobuf (3.0.0-1) to unstable has started an uncoordinated
transition.
Dmitry, have
25 matches
Mail list logo
