I have just activated 77 removal hints - attached is a dd-list of the
packages with a removal hint now. The list was filtered by rechecking
the severity and whether the bug still affected sid by using UDD (with a
hanful of them was manually checked as well).
Should your package still be listed
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 01:10:51AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
Andreas Tille ti...@debian.org
camitk (U)
A fixed version is since two days in
http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
Thanks for your QA effort
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 2013-07-08 01:34, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 01:10:51AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
Andreas Tille ti...@debian.org
camitk (U)
A fixed version is since two days in
http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
Thanks for your QA effort
Andreas.
Humble suggestion:
Sort the bug list (sort -k2 would be great) to make it easier to read
through the list and to find packages which might interest one.
It is a very useful report; a sort by package name would make it better.
-JimC
--
James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com OpenPGP:
Hi,
Thanks a lot for this work.
On 30/06/13 at 23:32 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list.
The packages have been selected based on the
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net wrote:
#678383 [pixelmed]: pixelmed: FTBFS with Java7 (uses internal Java API)
Would it be possible to filter out (in the future?) any bugs that are
marked as pending ? I have no control on this process.
Thanks,
--
To
On 2013-07-01 09:05, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net wrote:
#678383 [pixelmed]: pixelmed: FTBFS with Java7 (uses internal Java API)
Would it be possible to filter out (in the future?) any bugs that are
marked as pending ? I have no
On 2013-07-01 08:21, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
Thanks a lot for this work.
On 30/06/13 at 23:32 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list.
There is a fix for rrep but it is waiting for sponsorship (#702588).
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
Hi,
Quoting Lucas Nussbaum (2013-07-01 08:21:30)
Currently, the following criterias are used:
| Key packages are:
| - packages whose popcon is higher than 5% of the max popcon (that's
| 7570 insts currently)
| OR
| - packages of priority = standard
| OR
| - packages of section
On 01/07/13 at 15:00 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
Hi,
Quoting Lucas Nussbaum (2013-07-01 08:21:30)
Currently, the following criterias are used:
| Key packages are:
| - packages whose popcon is higher than 5% of the max popcon (that's
| 7570 insts currently)
| OR
| - packages of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list.
The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
- The package
On 05-06-13 18:30, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
I also like it, somewhat, but am also aware of this approach rendering
unstable more stable than testing. I would prefer another kind of punishment
for neglect / some difficulty than the mere removal.
In what way exactly would this effort even
On Ma, 04 iun 13, 14:06:26, Niels Thykier wrote:
[1] We normally filter out certain type of RC bugs (incl. but not
limited to license issues), where we consider it unreasonable to demand
a resolution within the usual deadline (i.e. 14 days of non-activity +
7 days after a d-d notice).
Maybe
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:37:54AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit :
Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
The packages have been
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:37:54AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit :
Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
The packages have been
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013, Rodolfo García Peñas (kix) wrote:
On 04/06/2013 14:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
Hi,
Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
The packages have been selected based on the following
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:37:54AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit :
Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
The packages
Hi,
On 04-06-13 14:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
[1] We normally filter out certain type of RC bugs (incl. but not
limited to license issues), where we consider it unreasonable to demand
a resolution within the usual deadline (i.e. 14 days of non-activity +
7 days after a d-d notice).
# #708695
Le Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:15:14PM +0200, Steffen Möller a écrit :
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:37:54AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit :
Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
found 79
Hi,
Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
* The package had at least one RC bug without activity for the past
14 days.
* If a bug is assigned
Control: severity -1 grave
Control: reassign -1 debhelper 9.20130518
Control: affects -1 + src:xgalaga++
Control: tags -1 - jessie
The FTBFS bug against xgalaga++ (#707481) is caused by debhelper, it
builds fine with debhelper 9.20120909 but not with debhelper
9.20130518. It appears that
On 04/06/13 14:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
Hi,
Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
* The package had at least one RC bug without activity
Paul Wise wrote:
Control: severity -1 grave
Control: reassign -1 debhelper 9.20130518
Control: affects -1 + src:xgalaga++
Control: tags -1 - jessie
The FTBFS bug against xgalaga++ (#707481) is caused by debhelper, it
builds fine with debhelper 9.20120909 but not with debhelper
9.20130518.
Seems I confused xgalaga with xgalaga++, which does use dh.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 04/06/2013 14:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
Hi,
Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
* The package had at least one RC bug without activity
On Dienstag, 4. Juni 2013, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Thanks a lot for this initiative! I hope this leads to a shorter freeze
this cycle.
+1 - keep the removals coming ;-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Le Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit :
Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
* The package had at least one RC
On 2013-01-24 15:47, Niels Thykier wrote:
[...]
# #697402
remove bzr-gtk/0.103.0+bzr792-3
Reassigned to python and downgraded.
# #694642
remove glpi/0.83.31-1
Fixed in sid and downgraded.
# #696816
remove jenkins/1.447.2+dfsg-2
Fixed in sid.
# #694589
remove lastfmproxy/1.3b-2
Le vendredi 25 janvier 2013 à 07:15 +0100, Christian PERRIER a écrit :
Quoting Niels Thykier (ni...@thykier.net):
Pierre Chifflier pol...@debian.org
glpi
I looked briefly at the RC bug for glpi (#694642). It seems that an
embedded Flash file provided with the package has a security
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 07:15:43AM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
Quoting Niels Thykier (ni...@thykier.net):
Pierre Chifflier pol...@debian.org
glpi
I looked briefly at the RC bug for glpi (#694642). It seems that an
embedded Flash file provided with the package has a security
n Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
So all in all it is ugly (as in most PHP webapps), but it doesn’t seem
release-critical to me.
The SWF files do not appear appear to have source code in glpi.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi there,
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:47:08 +0100 (CET)
ni...@thykier.net (Niels Thykier) wrote:
# #696816
remove jenkins/1.447.2+dfsg-2
Just for the information of anybody reading this thread, I have just
submitted a fix for this bug. It was a trivial backport; the bug was
already fixed in
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 18:56 -0500, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net wrote:
Debian QA Group packa...@qa.debian.org
bzr-gtk
--88-- removals --88--
# #697402
remove bzr-gtk/0.103.0+bzr792-3
As jwilk has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list
can be found in the removals file (also
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 03:47:08PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them.
[...]
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org
pmw
I had overlooked the fact that serious means release critical,
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net wrote:
Debian QA Group packa...@qa.debian.org
bzr-gtk
--88-- removals --88--
# #697402
remove bzr-gtk/0.103.0+bzr792-3
As jwilk has already mentioned in the bug report, [1] this should be
assigned elsewhere.
Quoting Niels Thykier (ni...@thykier.net):
Pierre Chifflier pol...@debian.org
glpi
I looked briefly at the RC bug for glpi (#694642). It seems that an
embedded Flash file provided with the package has a security issue.
I have no clue at all if this .swf file is of critical use for GLPI
On 2012-11-30 12:55, Niels Thykier wrote:
[...]
While slightly overdue; the results were 0 removals! \o/
--8-- removals.txt --8--
# #668740/#668740
remove dsc-statistics/201203250530-1
Downgraded.
# #692623
remove fossil/1:1.22.1-1
Fixed in sid and wheezy (via t-p-u)
#
I just see that propose of removal gnome-dvb-daemon just after I made a
RFA to it... Nice! :-D
I agree that the problem of gnome-dvb-daemon its related to #674156 as
Simon stated.
Are all the packages affected by this issue going to be removed from
testing?
In addition, I will package the newer
On 03/12/12 11:19, José Luis Segura Lucas wrote:
Are all the packages affected by this issue going to be removed
from testing?
No, unless you prevent them from being fixed by making uploads that
are not suitable for wheezy. (You quoted the full text of the email to
which you replied, so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list
can be found in the removals file (also
Niels Thykier writes (Candidates for removal from testing (2012-11-30)):
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list
can be found
# #692623
remove fossil/1:1.22.1-1
This is worrying because fossil is the vcs used by sqlite upstream.
It looks like fixing this would involve Packaging cson too. The
alternative of dumping cson into the fossil source tree is probably
not ideal.
Barak, have you looked at this at all
On 30/11/12 11:55, Niels Thykier wrote:
The packages have been selected based on the following criteria: *
The package had at least one RC bug without activity for the past
14 days.
...
Debian GNOME Maintainers
pkg-gnome-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org gnome-dvb-daemon
(U)
I have no
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes (Re: Candidates for removal from testing
(2012-11-30)):
CSON is not used in the Debian build: the relevant source files can be
replaced by empty files and the fossil package will build fine. (They
cannot just be removed because make expects them.)
Ah. I think
On 30.11.2012 13:03, Simon McVittie wrote:
Suggested options include:
A) Consider the new ABI to be right. Recompile every package that
mentions the affected structs (including everything that
subclasses GstElement), unless it has already been compiled
against GLib 2.32 on every
Thanks for the update!
--
I pledge not to post to any systemd-related thread on -devel until
(at least) 2013.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes (Re: Candidates for removal from testing
(2012-11-30)):
Good idea. Will add this info to the bug report.
Technically there are two bugs. 692623 is for the CSON not evil files
being derived files rather than truly original source, while 692624
Good idea. Will add this info to the bug report.
Technically there are two bugs. 692623 is for the CSON not evil files
being derived files rather than truly original source, while 692624 is
for the not evil license itself. The latter is already tagged
wheezy-ignore, while the former is causing
The patch for both of these bugs is to just replace
src/cson_amalgamation.{c,h}
by empty files in a +dfsg recombobulated upstream tarball.
I'll go ahead and do the machinations. Unless someone else does an NMU
first. A 0-day NMU. Which I totally wouldn't mind. Hint Hint.
On 2012-11-14 22:02, Niels Thykier wrote:
Hi,
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. [...]
ferm, apt-2p2 and mediawiki-math has been fixed in sid and by the looks
of it all of them are already unblocked.
Should you
On 2012-11-15 00:15, Emmanuel Bouthenot wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:02:10PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
[...]
Should you need a bit more time than given, please do not hesitate to
contact us. It is also easier for us if we can avoid having to
reintroduce a removed package.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:42:54AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
[...]
Certainly, do you have a rough idea of how long you will need?
Before the end of the month, probably earlier but I will be glad to not
have to work under time pressure.
Regards,
M.
--
Emmanuel Bouthenot
mail:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list
can be found in the removals file (also
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:02:10PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
[...]
Should you need a bit more time than given, please do not hesitate to
contact us. It is also easier for us if we can avoid having to
reintroduce a removed package.
[...]
Debian Sympa team
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list.
...
Alexander Wirt formo...@debian.org
ferm
Um, DSA might not be happy
On 15/11/12 04:20, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list.
...
Alexander
On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 11:20 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list.
...
Alexander
On 2012-10-30 14:32, Niels Thykier wrote:
Hi,
[...]
If the relevant RC bugs in the affected packages are not dealt with
/before/ Wednesday the 7th of Nov.[1], the packages will be removed
from testing. Note that dealt with may also include downgrading a
severity-inflated bug or fixing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list
can be found in the removals file (also
On 2012-10-28 18:47, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:37:38PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
ax25-apps, fabric, firmware-crystalhd, icewm-themes, ilisp, inguma,
lustre, mingw-ocaml, noflushd, openvas-plugins-dfsg, php-crypt-gpg,
phpgacl, python-django-piston, smbind,
Hello List,
does it make sense to establish a list of candidates for reintroduction to
testing ?
I have in mind packages that were discarded too quickly because
an easy to fix a RC appeared a some point while it was unofficially orphaned.
Jerome
On 30/10/12 14:32, Niels Thykier wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:53:24PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
does it make sense to establish a list of candidates for reintroduction to
testing ?
Is this not something best managed on a case-by-case basis?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On 30/10/12 17:36, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:53:24PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
does it make sense to establish a list of candidates for reintroduction to
testing ?
Is this not something best managed on a case-by-case basis?
my experience as potential sponsoree for
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:47:53 +0100
Jerome BENOIT g62993...@rezozer.net wrote:
On 30/10/12 17:36, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:53:24PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
does it make sense to establish a list of candidates for reintroduction to
testing ?
Is this not something
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
Is this not something best managed on a case-by-case basis?
my experience as potential sponsoree for such a package answers me no
because
it is hard to get a sponsor.
If it fixes *only* rc bugs, then send a bug to sponsorship-requests.
I
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:37:38PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
ax25-apps, fabric, firmware-crystalhd, icewm-themes, ilisp, inguma,
lustre, mingw-ocaml, noflushd, openvas-plugins-dfsg, php-crypt-gpg,
phpgacl, python-django-piston, smbind, sorl-thumbnail, spatialite-gui,
On 2012-10-18 10:32, Niels Thykier wrote:
Hi,
[...]
If the relevant RC bugs in the affected packages are not dealt with
/before/ Friday the 26th of Oct., the packages will be removed from
testing. Note that dealt with may also include downgrading a
severity-inflated bug or fixing
Great stuff, thanks!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121026160652.GC20294@debian
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:32:39AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list
can be found in the removals
On 2012-10-19 17:43, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:32:39AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list
can be found in the removals file (also
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as they
have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be found in
the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list can be found
in the removals.txt file (also
I can get #651620 (rocksndiamonds)
I fixed this some time ago for Slackware.
2012/5/13 Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as they
have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The
On 2012-01-26 02:45, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Luk Claes wrote:
On 01/25/2012 01:24 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached
On 01/27/2012 12:54 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
On 2012-01-26 02:45, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Luk Claes wrote:
On 01/25/2012 01:24 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list (or at [0]).
The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
-
On 01/25/2012 01:24 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list (or at [0]).
For anyone who is not online the list of 10 packages is:
David
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Luk Claes wrote:
On 01/25/2012 01:24 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list (or at [0]).
For anyone who is
80 matches
Mail list logo
