On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 02:28:30PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > Can you please look at libproxy<->glib-networking? libproxy excuses show
> > glib-networking tests failing, but they are working in sid.
>
> And that's not missing a versioned Depends and/or Breaks? I.e. this is a
> test only
Hi,
On 27-04-2024 7:52 p.m., Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
Can you please look at libproxy<->glib-networking? libproxy excuses show
glib-networking tests failing, but they are working in sid.
And that's not missing a versioned Depends and/or Breaks? I.e. this is a
test only failure?
Paul
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:38:42PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 24-04-2024 7:35 p.m., Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
> > What to do with autopkgtests that fail in testing because of problems with
> > packages in testing that are fixed in unstable, e.g. the autopkgtest for
> >
Hi,
On 24-04-2024 7:42 p.m., Jérémy Lal wrote:
Inform the Release Team and we can either schedule the combination
manually, add a hint or both.
Isn't it processed automatically ? What needs manual intervention and
what doesn't ?
Well, the migration software *tries* to figure out
Hi,
On 24-04-2024 7:38 p.m., Paul Gevers wrote:
On 24-04-2024 7:35 p.m., Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
What to do with autopkgtests that fail in testing because of problems
with
packages in testing that are fixed in unstable, e.g. the autopkgtest for
speech-dispatcher/0.11.5-2 on
Inform the
Le mer. 24 avr. 2024 à 19:39, Paul Gevers a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On 24-04-2024 7:35 p.m., Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
> > What to do with autopkgtests that fail in testing because of problems
> with
> > packages in testing that are fixed in unstable, e.g. the autopkgtest for
> >
Hi,
On 24-04-2024 7:35 p.m., Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
What to do with autopkgtests that fail in testing because of problems with
packages in testing that are fixed in unstable, e.g. the autopkgtest for
speech-dispatcher/0.11.5-2 on
Inform the Release Team and we can either schedule the
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 08:51:48AM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> If you wonder how you are able to help with the migration, here are
> some things to do:
> * Fix FTBFS bugs
> * Check the status of autopkgtests [1] and report or fix any issues
> related to failing tests.
> * Check if
Hi,
dpkg and gcc with t64 enabled migrated to trixie last night. The other
packages will slowly migrate as we fix the remaining blockers
(autopkgtest regressions, FTBFS bugs, etc). Be aware that temporary
removals from trixie may occur to get packages (especially key packages)
unstuck as we work
Hi Andreas,
please stop reopening the time_t bugs where transitions are staged in
experimental. When we eventually start those transitions, they do not
need to change the package name again as they will enter unstable with a
new SONAME and built with the 64 bit time_t ABI.
Cheers
--
Sebastian
Lists updated to omit packages not in testing:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 09:22:02PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Let's start with the first category. Those are packages that could be
> binNMUed, but there are issues that make those rebuilds not have the
> desired effect. This list include
On 18.04.24 21:22, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
Hi,
as the progress on the t64 transition is slowing down, I want to give an
overview of some of the remaining blockers that we need to tackle to get
it unstuck. I tried to identify some clusters of issues, but there might
be other classes of issues.
All missing bugs about wrong deps are now filed.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi
thanks for checking all the packages and filing bugs!
On 2024-04-20 00:43:30 +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 09:22:02PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Let's start with the first category. Those are packages that could be
> > binNMUed, but there are issues
Hi Andreas
On 2024-04-19 10:49:15 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I've spotted these Debian Med packages.
>
> > gentle
gentle required a rebuild for wxwidgets3.2 on mips64el. Done
> > jellyfish
The t64 changes were reverted. crac needs to rebuilt for this change so
that libjellyfish-2.0-2t64
On 2024-04-19 10:34:45 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Sebastian Ramacher writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > as the progress on the t64 transition is slowing down, I want to give an
> > overview of some of the remaining blockers that we need to tackle to get
> > it unstuck. I tried to identify some
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 09:22:02PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Let's start with the first category. Those are packages that could be
> binNMUed, but there are issues that make those rebuilds not have the
> desired effect. This list include packages that
> * are BD-Uninstallabe,
> * FTBFS
Hi Sebastian,
Andreas Tille, on 2024-04-19:
> I've spotted these Debian Med packages.
[…]
> Am Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 09:22:02PM +0200 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher:
[…]
> > jellyfish
> > quorum
[…]
> No idea how we can help here. Please let us know if we can do
> something.
About these two
Hi Sebastian,
thank you for your work on t64 transition.
Am Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 09:22:02PM +0200 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher:
I've spotted these Debian Med packages.
> gentle
> jellyfish
> quorum
> sbmltoolbox
No idea how we can help here. Please let us know if we can do
something.
> anfo
Hello,
On Thu, 2024-04-18 at 21:22 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Finally, packages that need rebuilds but currently have open FTBFS (RC +
> ftbfs tag) bugs:
> (...)
> virtualjaguar
I already have a tentative patch and will fix the package within the next
days. I am also preparing to fix two
Sebastian Ramacher writes:
> Hi,
>
> as the progress on the t64 transition is slowing down, I want to give an
> overview of some of the remaining blockers that we need to tackle to get
> it unstuck. I tried to identify some clusters of issues, but there might
> be other classes of issues.
On 2024-04-19 06:02:03 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2024-04-18 Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> [...]
> > Let's start with the first category. Those are packages that could be
> > binNMUed, but there are issues that make those rebuilds not have the
> > desired effect. This list include packages
On 2024-04-18 Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
[...]
> Let's start with the first category. Those are packages that could be
> binNMUed, but there are issues that make those rebuilds not have the
> desired effect. This list include packages that
> * are BD-Uninstallabe,
> * FTBFS but with out
Hi,
as the progress on the t64 transition is slowing down, I want to give an
overview of some of the remaining blockers that we need to tackle to get
it unstuck. I tried to identify some clusters of issues, but there might
be other classes of issues.
Let's start with the first category. Those
24 matches
Mail list logo
