Accepted lintian 2.2.16 (source all)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.8 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:30:33 +0100 Source: lintian Binary: lintian Architecture: source all Version: 2.2.16 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian Lintian Maintainers lintian-ma...@debian.org Changed-By: Adam D. Barratt

Accepted debian-archive-keyring 2014.2 (source all) into unstable

Team packa...@release.debian.org Changed-By: Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk Description: debian-archive-keyring - GnuPG archive keys of the Debian archive debian-archive-keyring-udeb - GnuPG keys of the Debian archive (udeb) Closes: 771008 Changes: debian-archive-keyring (2014.2) unstable

Accepted debian-archive-keyring 2014.3 (source all) into unstable

Team packa...@release.debian.org Changed-By: Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk Description: debian-archive-keyring - GnuPG archive keys of the Debian archive debian-archive-keyring-udeb - GnuPG keys of the Debian archive (udeb) Changes: debian-archive-keyring (2014.3) unstable; urgency

Re: Who gets an email when with bugreports [was: Re: Unauthorised activity surrounding tbb package]

On 2015-01-19 10:03, Eugene Zhukov wrote: Through my experience this is not the case - even the maintainer doesn't get mail about a bug. For example I'm listed as a maintainer of epubcheck package, No, you're not: Maintainer: Debian XML/SGML Group debian-xml-sgml-p...@lists.alioth.debian.org

Re: Who gets an email when with bugreports [was: Re: Unauthorised activity surrounding tbb package]

On 2015-01-19 11:31, Wookey wrote: I recall looking at that list for the 'maintainer and submitter' option, and being disappointed not to find one. Am I right that the only way to expliticly mail the submitter and the maintainer is to look the submitter's mail up in the initial bugrep and just

Re: Who gets an email when with bugreports [was: Re: Unauthorised activity surrounding tbb package]

On 2015-01-19 10:47, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:26:41AM +, Wookey wrote: Can someone remind me what the current rules are (or where it's written down). I know it doesn't work the way I expect it ought to, but I forget/never-understood exactly how it does work. Do

Re: Should we mark #388141 as jessie-ignore?

On 2015-02-12 19:59, Riley Baird wrote: In any case, even if there is interest in closing this bug, it is definitely more of a long-term thing and is unlikely to be fixed before the jessie release. Because of this, would it be okay to mark it as jessie-ignore? For reference, as per

Re: Bug#778417: ITP: netcdf-python -- python interface to the netCDF4 (network Common Data Form) library

On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 19:55 +0100, Ross Gammon wrote: * Package name: netcdf-python Version : 1.1.3 Upstream Author : University Corporation for Atmospheric Research/Unidata * URL : http://unidata.github.io/netcdf4-python/ How does this differ from the existing

RE: Debian PHP upgrade

On 2015-03-25 7:12, Gareth Webb wrote: Passive-aggressive? I was merely asking from a security perspective I assume Ondřej was referring to if we need to move over to a new distribution that has this updated version of PHP. That's a fairly strong opening gambit for merely asking,

Re: Debian PHP upgrade

On 2015-03-25 11:22, Andile Ntebe wrote: We have Apache/2.2.22 on our Debian boxes. Ive tried using apt-get update and apt-get upgrade to try and get us onto the latest version but with no success. Is there any other way that we could get Apache updated? I have to admit I'm confused at this

Bug#782749: All browsers except Links2 crash constantly and iceweasel is broken

On 2015-04-20 13:47, Paul Wise wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Peter Spiess-Knafl wrote: The crash of browser could be affected through the following bug in libcairo: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=767858 There is already a patch available, which Tobi and I verified

Re: mudlet bug #787354: icon had wrong license

On 2015-06-08 13:41, Craig Small wrote: I'm trying to work out what would be the best way forward for this. mudlet has an icon, mudlet.svg which had a cc-by-nc-sa license. I reported it to upstream who basically said oh yeah, we stuffed up, not sure how it got there, fixed now. Do I need to

Re: Q: Which is suitable distribution in changelog for point release?

On 2015-06-22 14:54, Hideki Yamane wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:41:30 +0200 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@debian.org wrote: Then, which is better: jessie or jessie-proposed-updates? and {testing,stable,oldstable}-security and {stretch,jessie,wheezy}-security? jessie and jessie-security.

Re: Metapackage dependencies: Depends or Recommends?

On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 17:22 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Ole Streicher (2015-07-28 16:33:17) Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes: Installation of a package from the 'metapackages' section does *not* mark its dependencies as automatically installed. Really? So, if someone

Re: is the whole unstable still broken by gcc-5?

On Sat, 2015-09-12 at 22:31 +0300, Виталий Филиппов wrote: > My sources.list contains sid, experimental and jessie-updates (+ oibaf > graphics-drivers ppa) That doesn't make a lot of sense. jessie-updates sits on top of (predictably enough) Jessie and won't contain anything relevant for

Re: suggestion to add package vlan to default instalation DVD

On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 15:26 -0400, Pascal Giard wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Sven Hartge wrote: > > Josef Masek wrote: > > > >> it is possible to add package "vlan" to the DVD instalation images? > >> It is tiny package (36kB) and in some special

Re: Bug#808152: ITP: pixelmed-codec -- some imaging codices for pixelmed DICOM image and ECG viewer

On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 16:18 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Description : some imaging codices for pixelmed DICOM image and ECG > viewer "Codices" is the plural of "codex"; you're looking for "codecs". Regards, Adam

Re: Debian is not welcome on Microsoft Azure

On Sun, 2015-11-22 at 21:53 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2015-11-22 at 21:34 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On Sun, 2015-11-22 at 20:45 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Sun, 2015-10-18 at 12:35 +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote: > > > > On Sat, 17 Oct 2

Re: Debian is not welcome on Microsoft Azure

On Sun, 2015-11-22 at 20:45 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2015-10-18 at 12:35 +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 18:54:51 +0100 > > Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > It would be built from the linux-tools source package. We could > > > cherry-pick more

Re: Mass bug filing: dpkg-buildpackage -A

On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 08:48 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Julien Cristau writes: > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 06:14:43 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > > > > If it's a “severe violation of Debian policy”, the bug is at least > > > “serious” severity. > > This is one way that a

Re: Debian is not welcome on Microsoft Azure

On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 12:43 -0800, Joshua R. Poulson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Adam D. > Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote: > I assumed that there would have been a discussion - if only > because > adding a binary package to s

Re: Debian is not welcome on Microsoft Azure

On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 13:09 -0800, Joshua R. Poulson wrote: > Sorry, I assume you meant binary-only in context. It was certainly not > our intent to ask for something like that. Ah. I'm assuming that there's been a confusion of terminology here. A binary package in this context is a package that

Re: Next steps for gitlab.debian (Re: GitLab B.V. to host free-software GitLab for Debian project)

On 2016-06-08 10:45, Pirate Praveen wrote: On Wednesday 08 June 2016 02:51 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 10:25:07AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: Thanks for the offer. It would be great if I have more hands to help with migrating git.debian.org Whoah there. Running an

Re: Bug#825821: ITP: neomutt -- NeoMutt is a place to gather all the patches against Mutt.

[re-adding -devel to the CC] On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 17:02 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 13:00 +0200, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > * Package name: neomutt > > Version : 20160502 > > Upstream Author : Richard Russon <r..

Re: Package removal from testing for bug in stable

On 2016-06-20 4:09, Simon Richter wrote: Hi, On 17.06.2016 09:31, Eugene Zhukov wrote: The package is marked for autoremoval from testing, however the RC[1] bug is reported against version in stable (testing has a newer version, without a bug). In this case, send a mail to

Re: Fixing dependency resolution of britney (was: Re: The state of cross building)

On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 23:07 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > My question is: why does it not just use dose3 just as the buildds > are doing it? How old is the dose codebase? The changelog.gz in the current Debian package only goes back to 2012, which is more than a decade after britney was

Re: About archived squeeze

On 2016-03-16 10:53, Mathieu Parent wrote: Hello Joerg, squeeze-lts on archive [1] has a Valid-Until header which makes apt complain. That's expected - see https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=670141 Also, squeeze is still on security [2] and LTS is still on primary miror

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Sat, 2016-05-14 at 10:01 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > For future reference, we updated the release-notes after the Jessie > release. Examples include: > > * > https://www.debian.org/releases/jessie/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#systemd-sigkill-regression >- Discovered post

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 21:44 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 20:42, Niels Thykier wrote: > > * We are too few to write the release-notes to keep track of all the > >relevant parts for a release. > >- HELP IS VERY WELCOME! > > Can we make the entry barier to contribute

Re: Bug#821149: RFP: out-of-order -- Adventure game

Control: reassign -1 out-of-order 1.0-2 [BBCed to debian-devel for notification of the move] On Fri, 2016-04-15 at 21:48 -0400, hillhopper.new wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > > --- Please fill out the fields below. --- > >Package

Re: use long keyid-format in gpg.conf (Re: Key collisions in the wild

On 2016-08-10 11:39, Ian Jackson wrote: It would be much better to put out a stable release update to change the default. (Probably not a security update because of the risk of causing currently-vulnerable scripts to become nonfunctional, which is not something we normally do in security

Re: use long keyid-format in gpg.conf (Re: Key collisions in the wild

On 2016-08-10 12:55, Ian Jackson wrote: Adam D. Barratt writes ("Re: use long keyid-format in gpg.conf (Re: Key collisions in the wild"): On 2016-08-10 11:39, Ian Jackson wrote: > It would be much better to put out a stable release update to change > the default. (Probabl

Re: synaptics vs libinput and GNOME 3.20 no longer supporting synaptics

On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 16:34 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > GNOME 3.22 will be released before squeeze freezes That seems a little unlikely. :) Regards, Adam

Re: mk-build-deps cannot install particular version of Build-Depends packages

On 2016-08-25 10:44, Исаев Виталий wrote: Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 9), cmake, flatbuffers (= 1.2.0-1), This has nothing to do with mk-build-deps. Given this: ➜ apt-cache policy flatbuffers flatbuffers: Installed: (none) Candidate: 1.4.0-17 Version table: 1.4.0-17 500 500

Subjects and threads (was: Re: Is missing SysV-init support a bug?)

On Sat, 2016-09-03 at 21:01 +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: [stuff] btw, I'm sure I'm not the only one irritated by this, but when replying to a message it is conventional to indicate such in the Subject header (e.g. with the addition of an "Re:"), unless one is changing the subject -

Re: Use and abuse of the unreproducible tag

On 2016-09-13 12:55, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: On 09/13/2016 01:49 PM, Santiago Vila wrote: You can't reproduce it, or you don't want to reproduce it? I added the tag because I couldn't reproduce the issue in unstable where we build our packages. It's great that it's reproducible in

Re: Use and abuse of the unreproducible tag

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 19:38 +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > On 13.09.2016 18:25, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On 2016-09-13 12:55, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > >> On 09/13/2016 01:49 PM, Santiago Vila wrote: > >>> You can't reproduce it, or you don't want to reproduce

Re: Debian does not have customers

On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 16:06 +0200, Bart Schouten wrote: > Russ Allbery schreef op 24-09-2016 2:48: > > The Wanderer writes: [...] > >> Some excuses are valid, mind. That doesn't mean they aren't excuses. > > > > I guess I'm finding it quite remarkable how much concerted

Re: removal instead of orphaning?

On 2016-09-19 12:28, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk>, 2016-09-18, 11:28: "Fixed in NMU" has not been a distinct state for several years, since the introduction of BTS version tracking. To clarify, the state still exists: https://bugs.de

Re: removal instead of orphaning?

On Sun, 2016-09-18 at 11:45 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 10:10:14 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > >With the BTS version tracking feature, acking NMUs is no longer needed > >as the BTS tracks changelog heritage IIRC, so I'd not mention that in > >the description. > >

Re: removal instead of orphaning?

On Sun, 2016-09-18 at 16:01 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 02:25:13PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > That depends on what you mean by 'after'. If you mean 'with a greater > > version', then the answer is no. The BTS parses changelogs to > > determine whether a version

Re: removal instead of orphaning?

On Sun, 2016-09-18 at 14:30 +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote: > On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 11:28:55 +0100, "Adam D. Barratt" > <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote: > > If your next maintainer upload includes the changelog stanza for the NMU > > in its changelog then the BTS will a

Bug#835516: General: Incorrect permissions on /bin for Debian Jessie

On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 12:07 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 09:36:12AM -0300, Daniel Bareiro wrote: [...] > > I think that jailkit just copies the permissions that Debian has set as > > default for /bin which are different now according to the jailkit shell. > > > > There

Re: mk-build-deps cannot install particular version of Build-Depends packages

On 2016-08-26 13:15, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:06:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: [...] I don't think that apt should step outside the configured priorities without instruction from the user. Since apt doesn't currently interact with the user (but aptitude does), it can

Re: Is missing SysV-init support a bug?

On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 18:39 +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 17:07 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > No. It shows that, two years ago, over 18,000 machines that were > > reporting to the popcon servers had sysvinit-core installed and now > > l

Re: Is missing SysV-init support a bug?

On 2016-08-26 16:26, Dmitrii Kashin wrote: Marco d'Itri writes: On Aug 26, Carsten Leonhardt wrote: Considering the past conflicts on the topic of systemd, it should be expected that there is a considerable user base that is staying with sysvinit or another

Re: Is missing SysV-init support a bug?

On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 13:12 +0300, Dmitrii Kashin wrote: > Don Armstrong writes: [...] > > Policy is not a tool to beat developers with; it's a method of > > documenting convention so that we can build a distribution of packages > > which interact. Like most documentation of

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 19:04 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > As for "porter qualification" > = > > We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the > roll call for sparc and we kept sparc as a release architecture for > Jessie. However, we ended up

Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus

On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 10:34 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > I'm still confused, thinking that this Binary-Only-Changes field needs > to be assembled into a file, called changelog.$arch, which is then put > into the debian directory of the unpacked source package. (And which is > then not included in

Re: Package name conflict question

On 2016-10-18 9:52, SZ Lin wrote: I think this situation meets the condition. The case of two programs having the same functionality but different implementations is handled via "alternatives" or the "Conflicts" mechanism. These two programs having the same functionality - implementation of

Re: Unsatisfiable build-dependency in testing

On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 20:49 +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Hello, > > two days ago, syslog-ng 3.8.1-5 migrated to testing. However, as this > package build-depends on libssl1.0-dev which is available in unstable > only at the moment, it cannot be rebuild in testing. [...] > So, does anybody else

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Sun, 2016-11-13 at 11:28 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:37:00 +, Niels Thykier > >""" > >The release managers may make exceptions to these guidelines as they see > >fit. *Such exceptions are not precedents and you should not assume that > >your package

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Sun, 2016-10-09 at 21:12 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > [ adding debian-powerpc ] > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:54:44PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > Niels Thykier schrieb: > > > If I am to support powerpc as a realease architecture for Stretch, I > > > need to know

Re: lamenting current developments [was: Re: Is missing SysV-init support a bug?]

On 2016-10-17 16:04, Bart Schouten wrote: I also want to just quickly summarize my position here, since some very long posts were written on this and linked into the thread by someone. And you then wrote another very long post. We really don't need another one. Regards, Adam

Re: Bits from the Stable Release Managers

On 2016-11-28 23:43, Santiago Vila wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 03:11:17PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: On 2016-11-28 14:38, Holger Levsen wrote: > thanks for this update! > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 08:42:26PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > >* The update must be built in

Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies

On 2016-12-08 13:08, Andreas Henriksson wrote: On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:41:38PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: On 08/12/16 13:35, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: [...] I don't think that clearly addresses the case of alternative

Re: https://manpages.debian.org/man/1/uscan

On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 19:59 +0100, Stéphane Blondon wrote: > The home page has a note explaining the service does not really work. > I tested it (with 'man' and 'uscan') and it works correctly. Perhaps I > missed something but the note should be removed, no ? Where? Assuming that by "home

Re: Work-needing packages report for Dec 9, 2016

On 2016-12-09 6:40, Paul Gevers wrote: Hi, Something went wrong with this list. At least the following. On 09-12-16 01:27, w...@debian.org wrote: GNOME (#847411), orphaned yesterday Bug Report URL: http://bugs.debian.org/847411 This bug is about: gnome-btdownload, GNOME interface

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 11:05 +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: > I don't see the need to keep things in sync: If a new failure is > detected, it creates an RC bug against the migration candidate, with an > "affects" to the package that failed the test. The maintainer then has > the possibilities: > > *

Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 21:01 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Hi, > > Quoting Ian Jackson (2017-01-09 18:33:51) > > Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: Feedback on 3.0 source format problems"): > > > Sbuild could do this cleanup itself if there was a way to > > > automatically determine whether the user

Re: Bits from the Stable Release Managers

On 2016-11-28 23:07, Iustin Pop wrote: On 2016-11-27 20:42:26, Adam D. Barratt wrote: * The bug should be of severity "important" or higher Quick question: assuming all the other conditions are met (minimal patch, clean debdiff, etc.), this seems to discourage normal b

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

On Wed, 2017-01-04 at 20:33 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 04.01.2017 um 19:53 schrieb Margarita Manterola: > > > Can we accelerate the removal of non key packages, please? > > > > One example: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libsigc++-1.2 migrated to > > testing on Dec 29th even though it has

Re: Help with watch file

On Fri, 2016-12-23 at 08:37 -0500, James McCoy wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 05:42:43PM -0500, Bill Blough wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:40:26PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > suffers rather from leaning toothpick syndrome. Does the > > > `downloadurlmangle' support Perl's ability to

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

On 2016-12-19 12:12, Johannes Schauer wrote: Imagine you even directly build-depend on a virtual package. There is currently no way to somehow "reliably" always pick the same real provider of that virtual package. I'm not sure how that isn't exactly what you're doing by depending on

Re: init system agnosticism

On Fri, 2017-04-14 at 19:05 +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: [...] > So, it's up to us, to provide a better solution - just telling how bad > systemd is, isn't just enought (from their perspective). [...] > If we get out of the ideologic war (including the upstreams, too), > it

Re: Bits from the 10th Debian Groupware Meeting

On 2017-08-03 14:21, Rainer Dorsch wrote: So I can see multiple solutions 1) Debian includes nextcloud only in unstable and testing (probably most compatible with the nextcloud/owncloud business models, see also https://

Re: unblock: webkit2gtk/2.16.3-2

On 2017-06-01 22:29, Jeremy Bicha wrote: On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote: On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: You're best technical bet would be to upgrade to new webkit releases in stretch point releases, this

Re: Accepted thermald 1.5.4-2.1 (source amd64) into testing-proposed-updates

Hi, On 2017-06-13 16:03, Colin King wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:23:11 +0100 Source: thermald Binary: thermald Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1.5.4-2.1 Distribution: stretch Urgency: medium Maintainer: Colin King

Re: Accepted thermald 1.5.4-2.1 (source amd64) into testing-proposed-updates

On 2017-06-19 8:51, Colin Ian King wrote: Hi Adam, On 18/06/17 12:14, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 08:41 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: What was the intent of this upload? If it was to try and get the updated package into the release, then a) it's (far) too late and b

Re: Call for Signatures: stretch dedication

On 2017-06-14 9:48, Ben Finney wrote: For those who (like me) had difficulty with some of these steps, here's how I eventually got it done: Out of curiosity, which step(s)? They all seem fairly self-explanatory, but I may well be missing something. [...] $ gpg --detach-sign \

Re: Accepted thermald 1.5.4-2.1 (source amd64) into testing-proposed-updates

On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 08:41 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > What was the intent of this upload? If it was to try and get the updated > package into the release, then a) it's (far) too late and b) it should > have been discussed, not just uploaded to t-p-u. Ping? As you uploaded th

Accepted debian-archive-keyring 2017.5 (source all) into unstable

Team <packa...@release.debian.org> Changed-By: Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> Description: debian-archive-keyring - GnuPG archive keys of the Debian archive debian-archive-keyring-udeb - GnuPG keys of the Debian archive (udeb) Closes: 860830 860831 863303 Changes: debian-arc

Re: [BUMP] r-cran-readstata13 had five weeks in NEW queue for two uploads

On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 12:59 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > Bumping this as my mail to ftpmaster went unanswered. > > Could someone please remind me who to ask about the NEW Queue?  It is > causing > me a FTBFS as I need this Build-Depends for an existing package which > itself > has reasonably

Accepted debian-archive-keyring 2017.6 (source) into unstable

<packa...@release.debian.org> Changed-By: Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> Description: debian-archive-keyring - GnuPG archive keys of the Debian archive debian-archive-keyring-udeb - GnuPG keys of the Debian archive (udeb) Closes: 801381 870780 872525 Changes: debian-arc

Re: When pkg-foo is not at all involved here

On Sun, 2018-05-13 at 19:15 +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: > Hello debian-devel, > > IIRC do we agree that feedback is good. > > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 04:51:54PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > > [always CC the package maintainer when reassigning] > >   >

Re: uploaded but not processed

On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 14:52 +0400, Jerome BENOIT wrote: > Hello, > > my two last upload were successfully uploaded (yesterday and the day > before), > but they have not yet been precessed. The involved packages are: 4ti2 > and mpfrcxx. > I suspect a keying issue. Is there a log where I can get

Re: sarge bo rex

On Sun, 2018-06-24 at 18:10 +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: > What is the sequence of Debian release names? > > Which Debian web page contains such list? > Fairly predictably, https://www.debian.org/releases/ Regards, Adam

Re: sarge bo rex

On Sun, 2018-06-24 at 17:11 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sun, 2018-06-24 at 18:10 +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: > > What is the sequence of Debian release names? > > > > Which Debian web page contains such list? > > > > Fairly predictably, https://www.d

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?

On Tue, 2017-12-26 at 19:27 +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: >  ❦ 26 décembre 2017 10:03 -0800, Russ Allbery  : > This is the sort of thing that makes me feel like you have your > > Lintian > > settings turned up too high for the amount of nit-picking that you > > want. > > The

Re: Conditions for testing migration

On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 12:25 +, Lumin wrote: > For instance, package lua-torch-xlua[3] > (= 0~20160719-g41308fe-4) is an Arch=all > package which depends on lua-torch-torch7 > (arch=any). lua-torch-torch7 is shipped by > testing, but lua-torch-xlua doesn't migrate[4]. > I tried to change Arch

Re: Test message

On Sun, 2018-07-29 at 13:40 -0500, Jonathan Busby wrote: > I have been having problems posting to this mailing list so I'm > using  > pobox.com instead of my Gmail to see if that helps as per the  > listmaster's suggestion. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/07/msg00449.html arrived fine

Re: A problem with a watch file

On Sat, 2018-10-13 at 15:23 +0300, Tommi Höynälänmaa wrote: > Hi > > > On 12.10.2018 04:40, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > > 2) Upstream uses "_" as the "NAME_VERSION" separator (instead of > > "NAME-VERSION").  Your regex doesn't match that.  Also, you have to > > be > > careful because

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 14:16 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > So, it's not always a purely technical decision whether a port > remains a release architecture. It's also often highly political and > somehow also influenced by commercial entities. Please don't make implications like that

Re: Remainings of old versions of packages in UDD / tracker

On 2019-01-22 08:25, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: mattia@warren ~ % rmadison -S -s unstable muparser libmuparser-dev | 2.2.6.1+dfsg-1 | unstable | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x libmuparser-doc | 2.2.3-6|

Re: usrmerge -- plan B?

On 2018-11-27 08:18, Stephan Seitz wrote: But I don’t want to get the /usr-merge forced upon my systems because this minority is obviously too stupid to install the package and migrate their systems on their own. Please refrain from posting such messages; they are inappropriate and contribute

Re: Updating the policy for conflicting binaries names ? [was: Re: Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen - already taken]

On Wed, 2018-09-12 at 22:34 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 08:18:10PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > ... > > For example, in the Rust team, we have been discussing about > > packaging fd (a find alternative developed using rust [1]). > > We are planning to install it in

Re: Bug#923221: ITP: libpam-fingerprint -- Pluggable Authentication Module for fingerprint authentication

On 2019-02-25 08:20, Philipp Meisberger wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Philipp Meisberger * Package name: libpam-fingerprint Version : 1.5 Upstream Author : Philipp Meisberger * URL : https://github.com/philippmeisberger/pam-fingerprint * License

Re: ITP: fossology -- FOSSology is an open source license compliance software system and toolkit.

On Sat, 2019-03-16 at 08:16 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Sat 16 Mar 2019 at 10:17AM +08, Paul Wise wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 6:06 AM Guillem Jover wrote: > > > > > $ deb-why-removed fossology > > > > I think this script would be a good addition to devscripts, could > >

Re: non-free binary upload issue

On Sun, 2019-04-14 at 17:52 +0400, Jerome BENOIT wrote: > I fixed bugreport #926567 [1], and I upload a binary. > Apparently my upload was accepted [2], but the binary has not yet > show up in Sid: > I guess I missed something, or forgot something because I have not > upload a binary > since a

Re: getting rid of "testing"

On 2019-06-25 09:39, Paul Wise wrote: On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:08 PM Ansgar wrote: Related to that I would like to be able to write something like deb http://deb.debian.org/debian debian11 main Already kind of possible: deb http://deb.debian.org/debian Debian9.9 main With the caveat

Re: How to give back a build

On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 19:02 +0200, Jeff wrote: > The package I uploaded yesterday failed to build[1]. In the buildd, 2 > of 1000+ tests failed. Of course, I built in a clean sbuild for sid > before I uploaded it, and the same package built fine on the newer > Ubuntu distros on launchpad. So I'm

Re: Integration with systemd

On Fri, 2019-11-01 at 00:54 +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > On Thu, 2019-10-31 at 22:40 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Oct 31, Svante Signell wrote: > > > > > When elogind enters testing there would be many more people > > > running > > > Debian with sysvinit/elogind. elogind is needed for

Re: udeb of rsync

On Tue, 2019-11-26 at 23:37 +, Samuel Henrique wrote: > Hello debian-devel, > > TL:DR; What are the drawbacks of providing an rsync udeb (and > am I right regarding the pros)? > > I would like to check in with you before moving on with this feature > request. > > rsync: Please provide an

Re: Bug#950760: RFS: libbpf/0.0.6-1 -- eBPF helper library (development files)

On Wed, 2020-02-05 at 22:42 +, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:22 PM Christian Barcenas > wrote: > > Because this changes the versioning scheme from kernel releases > > (libbpf-dev and libbpf0 currently are at 5.4.13-1 in sid) to libbpf > > version numbers (0.0.6-1), the

Re: Bug#950760: RFS: libbpf/0.0.6-1 -- eBPF helper library (development files)

On 2020-02-06 08:12, Paul Gevers wrote: Hi, On 06-02-2020 00:07, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Wed, 2020-02-05 at 22:42 +, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:22 PM Christian Barcenas wrote: Because this changes the versioning scheme from kernel releases (libbpf-dev and libbpf0

Re: RFC: Final update of DEP-14 on naming of git packaging branches

On Sun, 2020-08-30 at 14:52 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2020-08-30 at 14:46, Richard Laager wrote: [...] > > (because there is no character code name for > > experimental AFAIK). > > I thought the same at one point, but in fact, there is: it's called > rc-buggy. > >

Re: Mass bugs filing: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 09:55 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: > Graham Inggs writes: > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Raphael Hertzog > > wrote: > > > Please reduce the severity of all the bugs that you opened to > > > "normal" or "minor". > > > > Why? > > It does not violate the Debian Policy,

Re: Allowed to build-depend a pkg in main on a pkg in non-free?

On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 19:31 +0200, Roland Fehrenbacher wrote: > a quick question to the list, since I didn't find an answer after a > significant time of searching: > > Is it allowed to have a source package with a build dependency on a > pkg in non-free (in this particular case

Re: archive: bullseye Sources files contain multiple versions of packages - why?

On Fri, 2020-10-02 at 18:37 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi Christian, > > On 02-10-2020 17:05, Christian Kastner wrote: > > I've stumbled another case in buster-backports [1], where Sources > > has the following versions of src:libreoffice. > > > > Version: 1:6.3.4-2~bpo10+1 > > Version:

Re: Problems uploading libpsm2

On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 15:48 -0500, Brian Smith wrote: > The upload succeeds. I see the files sitting in > ftp://ftp.upload.debian.org/pub/UploadQueue/. Eventually, I see the > .changes file disappear and the remaining files are: > > libpsm2_11.2.185-1.debian.tar.xz > libpsm2_11.2.185-1.dsc >

<    1   2   3   4   5   >