Re: autoconf 2.72 to unstable?

On 14/06/2024 18:24, Andreas Metzler wrote: On 2024-06-14 Gürkan Myczko wrote: [...] Have never done mass bug filings, any easy way, preferably something copy pastable, non-interactive. Hej, How about mass-bug(1) in devscripts? Also set a user/usertag when doing an MBF in order to have a n

Re: Epoch bump for bcachefs-tools

On 26/04/2024 15:57, Jonathan Carter wrote: Hi Debian Developers In January, bcachefs[1] finally made it into the mainline Linux kernel as an experimental filesystem in to Linux 6.7 In 2022 something odd happened and the versions releases were 23 and 24 (previously we had alpha versions in D

Re: OpenMPI / MPI transition

On 23/11/2023 14:14, Alastair McKinstry wrote: On 23/11/2023 12:44, Drew Parsons wrote: On 2023-11-23 12:13, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Hi, On 23/11/2023 09:36, Alastair McKinstry wrote: Hi, OpenMPI has a new upstream release 5.0.0. It is in experimental now; the SOVERSION for

Re: OpenMPI / MPI transition

Hi, On 23/11/2023 09:36, Alastair McKinstry wrote: Hi, OpenMPI has a new upstream release 5.0.0. It is in experimental now; the SOVERSION for libraries remains 40.X (minor version increment), there is  an SOVERSION increment for private libraries only so in theory this is not an ABI transiti

Re: RFP: virtme-ng -- Tool to build and run a kernel inside a virtualized snapshot of your live system

On 09/05/2023 09:51, Andrea Righi wrote: On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:30:54AM +0200, Héctor Orón Martínez wrote: Hello, virtme already exists in Debian, what would be the benefit of virtme-ng over virtme? https://salsa.debian.org/debian/virtme Regards The original virtme project is not mai

Re: -ffile-prefix-map option and reproducibility

On 07/02/2023 20:00, Sven Joachim wrote: On 2023-02-07 17:50 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: On Tue, 2023-02-07 at 16:41:47 +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote: When building packages, a -ffile-prefix-map option is automatically injected into CFLAGS. Where does it come from? Since when? This is coming

Re: Clarification regarding zlib1g-dev package for buster-slim s390x

Hi Yasir, On 11/08/2022 17:14, Yasir Ashfaq1 wrote: Hi Team, Hope you are doing well! We are recently facing a problem installing zlib1g-dev package for s390x/debian:buster-slim tag. Preinstalled zlib1g version for this tag is zlib1g/now 1:1.2.11.dfsg-1+deb10u1. When we try to install zlib1g-

Re: Epoch bump for golang-github-valyala-fasthttp

On 12/11/2021 16:26, Guillem Jover wrote: On Fri, 2021-11-12 at 10:55:26 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: On 12 November 2021 12:38:23 am IST, Guillem Jover wrote: The golang-github-valyala-fasthttp package used to have date-based release numbers (current Debian version 20160617-2). Upstream has s

Re: Proposed mass bug filing: packages without support for build-arch and build-indep

On 06/11/2021 12:40, Simon McVittie wrote: On Sat, 06 Nov 2021 at 11:31:25 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: On 05/11/2021 21:22, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: build-arch and build-indep are required targets according to Debian Policy section 4.9. ... Unfortunately this is only a warning in

Re: Proposed mass bug filing: packages without support for build-arch and build-indep

Hi Lucas, On 05/11/2021 21:22, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Hi, I'd like to propose a MBF with severity:serious for the above issue. build-arch and build-indep are required targets according to Debian Policy section 4.9. This rule was introduced in Policy version 3.9.4, released in 2012. https://www.

Re: Adding an epoch to the 'steam' package

On 16/08/2021 16:08, Simon McVittie wrote: Before Valve's Steam game distribution platform became available on Linux, the Debian source package name 'steam' was used by an unrelated package sTeam, an "environment for cooperative knowledge managment" (a wiki and related software). sTeam was remove

Re: Backports needed for Firefox/Thunderbird ESR 78 in Buster/Stretch

On 20/09/2020 11:33, Félix Sipma wrote: > Hello Emilio and others, > > On 2020-09-10 19:32+0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> I'm currently attempting a build of Firefox 78.2.0 ESR for buster. If that >> goes >> well I'll start uploading things

Re: Backports needed for Firefox/Thunderbird ESR 78 in Buster/Stretch

On 01/09/2020 19:17, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 04:35:42PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 01/09/2020 14:05, Christoph Martin wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am not shure if I can help, but I can try and have a look at it. >>&

Re: Backports needed for Firefox/Thunderbird ESR 78 in Buster/Stretch

On 01/09/2020 14:05, Christoph Martin wrote: > Hi, > > I am not shure if I can help, but I can try and have a look at it. > > Yes please upload your LLVM9 and wasi-libc backports. fwiw I started to look at this and have an LLVM 10 backport ready. Should we go with that instead? It may be more fu

Re: introducing an epoch for src:debian-security-support

On 17/08/2020 12:01, Holger Levsen wrote: > hi, > > debian-security-support | 2019.12.12~deb8u2 | jessie-security | > source, all > debian-security-support | 2020.06.21~deb9u1 | stretch | > source, all > debian-security-support | 2020.06.21~deb10u1 | buster

Re: Python3 modules not built for all supported Python versions

ng? Cheers, Emilio diff -Nru ros-geometry2-0.6.6/debian/changelog ros-geometry2-0.6.6/debian/changelog --- ros-geometry2-0.6.6/debian/changelog2020-01-18 21:51:17.0 +0100 +++ ros-geometry2-0.6.6/debian/changelog2020-03-30 16:56:18.00000 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +ros-geom

Python3 modules not built for all supported Python versions

Hi, We've just finished the transition to python3.8 as the default python3 interpreter, which was a bit difficult due to some autopkgtest regressions in a few rdeps, and to the fact that many modules only build their extensions for the default python version, which means they have a strict depende

Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Hi, On 21/11/2018 14:56, Graham Inggs wrote: > Hi Bastian > > My apologies in advance for doing this, but another month has passed. > Another ping from me. > > On 2018/10/25 12:24, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"): >>> Lumin writes ("Re: julia

Re: Opt-in to continue as DD/DM? (was: I resigned in 2004)

On 12/11/2018 20:47, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 09:43:20PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: >> Tollef Fog Heen : >>> (I also wonder if we should just require people to opt in to their >>> DD-ship on a yearly basis instead of doing most of the WAT/MIA dance. If >>> people can't be b

Re: SALSA migration of XML/SGML packages (sgml-data for me)

On 11/07/18 15:38, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Jul 08, 2018 at 07:51:53PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 08, 2018 at 11:20:57PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > ... >> All this gives sgml-base impressive popcon numbers, but the actual usage >> is likely pretty limited. I'm sure we hav

Re: Mass filing on Python 3.7 async module import?

On 08/07/18 00:17, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > Hey DPMT (BCC'ing -devel, let's keep conversaion on DPMT), > > I see that Python 3.7 now raises a syntax error when you try to import > a module that is named `async`. > > ``` > $ python3.6 > Python 3.6.6 (default, Jun 27 2018, 14:44:17) > [GCC 8.1.

Re: packages which have not been rebuild since December 2016

On 01-06-18 16:32, Chris Lamb wrote: > … wouldn't we just binNMU these? There are many packages in your list that are arch:all only, and those can't be binNMU'ed. Still I'm not sure we can do some several thousand binNMUs. But that number could get reduced due to maintainer uploads and binNMUs due

Re: remote: GitLab: LFS objects are missing. Ensure LFS is properly set up or try a manual "git lfs push --all".

On 30/05/18 11:40, Geert Stappers wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:19:14AM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote: >> On Wed, 30 May 2018, Andreas Tille wrote: >>> Hi again, > > :-) > > >>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 07:50:01AM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote: >> Your repo has lfs disabled. You should e

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

On 25/05/18 12:24, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:16:20PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 25/05/18 12:09, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >>> autoremoval mails contains tons of false positive and cases where >>> regular package maintainers can

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

On 25/05/18 12:09, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > autoremoval mails contains tons of false positive and cases where > regular package maintainers can do nothing about but watch. Can you give some examples of false positives in autoremoval mails? Do you mean the case where you just fixed your package but

Re: Firefox 60esr on Stretch ?

On 16/05/18 19:12, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > I've started to look into this; I have created a llvm-4.0 build > for stretch and build a bootstrap build of rustc 1.24 against it. > Those two went fine. > > However cargo's bootstrap is broken ATM which will need fixing (and > it also requires a more

Re: [1/2] MBF: Defunct alioth addresses in the Maintainer: field (serious)

On 05/05/18 17:34, Christoph Biedl wrote: > A lot of now defunct alioth addresses are used in the Maintainer: > field. This makes the packages rc-buggy for an invalid address. Before doing the MBF, can you send an email with all the people in Uploaders in Bcc? It may trigger some package updates o

Re: Firefox 60esr on Stretch ?

On 04/05/18 17:42, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Quoting Moritz Mühlenhoff : >> Julien Cristau schrieb: >>> I expect nothing much different from previous ESR cycles: stretch will >>> move to 60 after 52 goes EOL in September. >> >> Exactly. > > How will we deal with breaking extensions? > > E.g. I'

Re: why hasn't the debian transition freeze been announced or shared in debin testing info. or bits.debian.org ?

On 26/04/18 02:20, Luke Faraone wrote: > On 26 April 2018 at 00:16, shirish शिरीष wrote: >> I had read >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2018/04/msg6.html >> so knew when the transition freeze is going to happen. For a blog >> post/technical article I wanted to share about the

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

On 23/04/18 23:54, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Also, I have noticed that when removing Python 2 legacy packages, a lot > of cruft remains in the archive. This isn't trivial to track and clean. > I'd love to have the opinion of the FTP master team about this. How can > we file sensible bugs about it? Ho

Re: graphs at https://ftp-master.debian.org/stat.html have intermissions.

On 24/04/18 07:34, Geert Stappers wrote: > > Hello, > > > The graphs at https://ftp-master.debian.org/stat.html have intermissions. > > What used to be a contineus line is now a dotted line. > > > This posting to d-devel@ldo is for asking where to report the issue. > > Who to contact to get

Re: Please add debian_releases to base-files (was Re: Bits from the release team: full steam ahead towards buster)

On 20/04/18 16:46, Marvin Renich wrote: > I would also like /etc/debian_version to contain both number and name, > but I suspect there is some resistance to this on the grounds that > scripts may be using $(cat /etc/debian_version) for comparisons. > Perhaps /etc/debian_codename? Since debian_vers

Re: Bug#886968: btrfs-progs-udeb: depends on non-udeb: libzstd1

On 18/04/18 01:30, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > That's another perfect example why udeb additions should get reviewed: > we would have noticed another buggy package, and its bugginess might not > have been copied over to another package. I'm sure people don't request those reviews because they don't k

Re: Completed: lists.alioth.debian.org migration

On 17/04/18 22:42, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:39:22PM +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote: >> Also, @lists.alioth.debian.org addresses that were *not* migrated now >> result in bounces as expected. Are there already plans for a MBF >> severity RC against all packages with a now-fail

Re: Bits from the release team: full steam ahead towards buster

Hi, When all people can complain about are the codenames, it means we are doing things fairly well :) On 18/04/18 08:20, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 11:16 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >> No, users and, I suspect, a large part of admins and developers cannot >> easily say whi

Re: Help: gpb buildpackage no longer builds

On 08/04/18 20:25, Steve Robbins wrote: > In the last upload of googletest -- December 2016 -- I successfully used "gbp > buildpackage". Today, with zero changes, it fails to actually do the build: > it skips from configuration to running tests. > > The rules file [1] is, I think, pretty simple

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

On 28/03/18 12:00, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi John, > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:36:16PM +0900, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> Yes, of course. But Andreas hit a nerve with this on me. > > Sorry, this was not intended. > >>> In my experience, most arguments (not "mere" disagreements) have s

Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?

On 01/02/18 09:45, Andrej Shadura wrote: > On 01/02/18 09:40, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >> Andrej Shadura writes: >>> On 31/01/18 21:01, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > Here you go, there's #871004 for you. Missed jessie, stretch, > not in testing, no uploads since the beginning of 2017. I do

Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On 18/01/18 21:50, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 06:52:57PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 10/01/18 01:29, Sam Hartman wrote: >>> A build profile seems like a great way to express the flag, and like >>> many things in Debian, the work wo

Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On 10/01/18 01:29, Sam Hartman wrote: > A build profile seems like a great way to express the flag, and like > many things in Debian, the work would fall on those who would benefit > from it. I think it'd be better to be able to mark a build-dependency as optional, and then implement a mechanism i

Re: glibc-2.24-11+deb9u2 from s-p-u already in debian/dists/stretch/main/source/Sources.xz?

On 21/12/17 11:53, Philipp Hahn wrote: > Hi, > > I have written a tool myself to parse Debian's Packages and Sources > files to mirror all files belonging to one version for post-processing. > Today I stumbled over "glibc-2.24-11+deb9u2": > - it is *not* listed on >

Re: custom packages and schroot workflow

On 08/12/17 11:02, Frédéric Bonnard wrote: > Hi, > being new to the Debian schroot setup on Debian machines, I tried > debugging some package. I found the crash happening in a library pulled > as a runtime dependency. > My idea was to recompile that library with some debug enabled and install > tho

Re: recommends for apparmor in newest linux-image-4.13

On 29/11/17 13:04, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 08:22:50PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Maybe SELinux would be better, but various people have been trying to make >> SELinux better-integrated with Debian for quite some time, and those >> efforts don't seem to have been particular

Re: Open beta of debhelper compat level 11 (debhelper/10.10.7)

On 18/11/17 12:41, Niels Thykier wrote: > I have received several requests to make --list-missing or > --fail-missing the default (#650129 and #858834) and I intend to do so > eventually. I am a little concerned with adding more changes to compat > 11 (the list is rather long already), but I am ha

Re: Open beta of debhelper compat level 11 (debhelper/10.10.7)

On 12/11/17 11:25, Niels Thykier wrote: > Hi, > > > The debhelper compat level 11 is about to be finalized and we invite you > to test it out. There are no additional changes planned to compat 11 at > the moment, but there might be changes in response to feedback from testers. One thing with co

Re: Removing obsolete GNOME libraries

On 17/10/17 19:36, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Hi, > > We (the Debian GNOME team) have been removing obsolete, unmaintained GNOME > libraries for several years. Now we think it's time to do another step in this > never-ending task and remove libgnome and frie

Removing obsolete GNOME libraries

mster-applet maximus notebook x-tile zapping Debian Science Maintainers linsmith Debian Sugar Team sugar-toolkit Debichem Team p4vasp Dmitry Smirnov planner (U) winswitch Dominique Belhachemi amide (U) Emilio Pozuelo Monfort alleyoop (U) gnome-speech

Re: Removing Qt4 in Buster

On 22/09/17 14:09, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:29:31PM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer > wrote: >> Jonathan Dowland >>   qtscrob > > The right thing to do here is probably to remove this from the archive. > But out of curiosity I did look at porting it forward

Re: how to build dependency of python-webkit if python-webkit is not maintained?

On 15/08/17 19:03, 慕 冬亮 wrote: > Hello all, > > I have a python pacakge which depends on python-webkit(or pip package > pywebkitgtk). > > However, pywebkitgtk is not maintained now. Is there alternative pip > package to replace webkit python module? The alternative is gir1.2-webkit2-4.0. See e

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

On 27/06/17 18:47, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ralf Treinen writes: >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:09:26PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > >>> sigh. >>> And using `#!/bin(ba)?sh -e` is not good either (there is a lintian tag >>> about it, iirc). > >> what is the rationale for this? Is anyone calling mai

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

On 27/06/17 07:04, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:47:53PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> Btw I just fixed these: >> ekiga-dbg_4.0.1-6+b5/postinst >> ekiga-dbg_4.0.1-6+b5/postrm >> ekiga-dbg_4.0.1-6+b5/preinst > > While you are at it,

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

On 26/06/17 22:23, Ralf Treinen wrote: > Hi, > > we currently have in sid 84 maintainer scripts not using strict mode. > That is, they neither start on "#!/bin/[ba]sh -e", nor do a "set -e". > The list is attached. This list includes the 12 remaining scripts not > starting on #! (bugs are already

Re: Bug#863361: dgit-user(7): replace apt-get build-deps with mk-build-deps

On 30/05/17 18:32, Ian Jackson wrote: > David Kalnischkies writes ("Re: Bug#863361: dgit-user(7): replace apt-get > build-deps with mk-build-deps"): >> I would recommend not to recommend it because apt follows the general >> recommendation of not recommending the installation of recommendations >>

Re: Firefox ESR large text file rendering problem

On 26/05/17 10:40, Jari Ruusu wrote: > This problem is now solved. > > The problem was that "offmainthread" rendering requires that SKIA [1] > graphics library must be compiled-in at compile time. > > In firefox-45-esr SKIA appears to be disabled by default, and requires > opt-in at compile time

Re: A proposal for a tool to build local testing debs

On 25/05/17 20:59, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On May 25 2017, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Then in dgit-user(7), the SUMMARY would become >> >> SUMMARY >>(These runes will be discussed later.) >> >>% dgit clone glibc jessie,-security >>% cd glibc >>% wget >> 'htt

Re: Firefox ESR large text file rendering problem

On 08/05/17 09:05, Jari Ruusu wrote: > On 5/7/17, Marc SCHAEFER wrote: >> I cannot reproduce that problem on: >> >> $ cat /etc/debian_version >> 7.11 >> >> firefox 52.1.1-ESR, installed manually from >> http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/52.1.1esr/linux-x86_64/en-US/firefox-52.1.1esr.tar.

Re: infinite number of Debian workflows (Re: Moving away from (unsupportable) FusionForge on Alioth?)

On 22/05/17 16:25, James Clarke wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 03:06:48PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: >> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:47:51PM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: >>> Someone else already had this idea: >>> >>> https://people.debian.org/~stapelberg//2016/11/25/build-tools.html >> >> Excell

Re: infinite number of Debian workflows (Re: Moving away from (unsupportable) FusionForge on Alioth?)

On 22/05/17 11:29, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > I often think about this problem, and I start to wonder if step 0 is to try > and > enumerate it properly. That is: I picture in my mind some kind of huge diagram > (perhaps generated from more structured data, I dunno, something into a > graphviz) > o

Re: De-Branding of Icedove, reintroducing Thunderbird packages into Debian

On 19/02/17 08:37, Carsten Schoenert wrote: > Hello, > > Am 19.02.2017 um 07:12 schrieb Josh Triplett: >> Mike Hommey wrote: >>> Why not just create a ~/.thunderbird symlink to ~/.icedove if >>> ~/.icedove exists? >> >> This seems like the right solution. (Or, equivalently, rename >> ~/.icedove t

Re: De-Branding of Icedove, reintroducing Thunderbird packages into Debian

On 16/02/17 20:14, Adam Borowski wrote: > Following good general practice and having the disk encrypted is of no > help as they force you to enter your password, often with multi-year jail > time (UK) if you fail to comply. Link?

Re: node-tty-browserify_0.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Hi, On 09/02/17 17:47, Pirate Praveen wrote: > Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > >> Hi, > >> I am sorry, but I don't understand why you module makes sense. >> Please add a more detailed description to your debian/control. > > This is seriously becoming too much. "This module is a dependency > for bro

Re: Where to report Wayland-related bugs

On 03/02/17 11:42, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > Dear fellow developers, > > I have started using GNOME Wayland possibly as my primary session. It > sort of feels different from the default X11 GNOME session in surprising > ways (overall rather more comfortable I would say). > > I am seeing issues in

Re: What is exactly the "canonical URI" for Vcs-{Git,Browser}?

On 20/01/17 13:43, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Boyuan Yang (2017-01-20 13:19:44) >> 在 2017年1月20日星期五 SGT 下午12:45:53，Sebastiaan Couwenberg 写道： >>> On 01/20/2017 11:56 AM, Boyuan Yang wrote: # This one seems acceptable, too Vcs-Browser: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-foo/bar.git >

Re: [RFC] The PIE unholy mess

On 18/01/17 18:23, Matthias Klose wrote: > At this point, I would prefer to revert the PIE changes for the release and > discuss these after the release with all parties involved. It's not the time to revert that, thanks. Emilio

Re: Bug#850182: Please disable TSX in stretch and backport to jessie

On 04/01/17 20:04, Ian Jackson wrote: > Package: eglibc eglibc got renamed back to src:glibc a while ago. Cheers, Emilio > > Gilles Filippini writes ("Request for help - scilab segfaults with TSX"): >> I've just noticed this RC bug [1] against scilab. [...] >> [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bi

Re: wanna-build doesn't email the maintainer on build failures by default

On 31/12/16 10:40, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 12/31/2016 09:58 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> Somewhat related, and something I think ought to be changed... wanna-build >> doesn't email the maintainer when a package fails to build... you have to >> explicitly subsc

wanna-build doesn't email the maintainer on build failures by default

On 26/12/16 17:29, Samuel Thibault wrote: > This happens again and again... Quite a few maintainers don't seem to > realize that mails sent to n...@bugs.debian.org are not sent to the bug > submitter, and the bug tracking thus halts down completely when the > maintainer asks for information only t

Re: Specification of FTP upload queue management commands

On 29/12/16 20:49, Ben Finney wrote: > Afif Elghraoui writes: > >> Hi, Ben, > > Thanks for the feedback. One specific suggestion appears to already have > a bug report; I'm redirecting this sub-thread there. > >> على الثلاثاء 27 كانون الأول 2016 ‫20:31، كتب Ben Finney: >>> The ‘dput-ng’ package

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

On 29/12/16 23:36, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote... > >> Unforunately, the BTS exported a broken/incomplete RC bug list, and britney >> used >> that and didn't see that some packages had an RC bug, so it allowed them to >> migrate.

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

On 29/12/16 17:24, Ole Streicher wrote: > Hi, > > the python-numpy package in unstable has an RC bug: > > https://bugs.debian.org/849196 > > however, today it migrated to testing, the migration status still says > however "valid candidate". > > I thought that RC bugs would prevent packages from

Re: python3 reportbug in experimental: call for testing

On 14/12/16 09:22, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Hi Sandro, > > On 14/12/16 00:40, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> i intend to upload reportbug 7.x series (python3 only) to unstable >> this coming weekend, so it'd be really great if you could give it a >> shot from ex

Re: python3 reportbug in experimental: call for testing

Hi Sandro, On 14/12/16 00:40, Sandro Tosi wrote: > i intend to upload reportbug 7.x series (python3 only) to unstable > this coming weekend, so it'd be really great if you could give it a > shot from experimental before then -- thanks!! I've been using it (the ncurses interface) since you uploade

Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies

On 08/12/16 13:02, Daniel Pocock wrote: > I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga > > nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still available, so why > can't my packages continue to list nagios3 as a possible dependency for > the convenience of those people who continue to use i

Re: armel after Stretch

On 07/12/16 16:53, Steve McIntyre wrote: > * It will need somebody happy to dive into the lower levels of the >various toolchains to verify support for atomics and make things >work where it's not already, by adding support for the kernel >helpers. There has been some recent work on t

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

On 06/12/16 09:21, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino wrote: > Dear Geert, > > On 3 December 2016 at 14:33, Geert Stappers > wrote: > > Hi, > > The URL https://manpages.debian.org/man/1/uscan > gives me a 403 error. > >

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

On 03/12/16 14:40, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 02:33:44PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: >> The URL https://manpages.debian.org/man/1/uscan gives me a 403 error. > https://manpages.debian.org/ gives me "The service you have requested is > currently disabled." > Googling for "m

Re: MIA maintainers and RC-buggy packages

On 03/12/16 11:42, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 10:56:07PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >> * So, the final question: how much time should pass since the last >> maintainer upload (since removal from testing, since the first still >> unfixed RC bug, how many NMUs should exist

[MBF] mysql meta-packages

-mysql (U) Dmitry E. Oboukhov tarantool-lts Dmitry Smirnov zoneminder Dominic Hargreaves anope Dominik George python-testing.mysqld (U) Emilio Pozuelo Monfort libgda5 (U) Enrico Tassi lua-dbi lua-sql Enrico Zini dballe Ernesto Nadir Crespo Avila flow-tool

Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus

On 10/11/16 10:33, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:01:55AM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> These days, a changelog entry is added to a changelog.$arch. This is to avoid >> problems when co-installing ma:same packages, as the changelog entries >&g

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule [and 1 more messages]

On 10/11/16 08:26, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Ian Jackson wrote... > >> I think what is really worrying people is the fear that they might >> miss something, for good reasons, and then find that their work that >> they care about is thrown out of stretch. >> >> It is difficult to address this fear w

Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus

On 10/11/16 10:00, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 10:04 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: >> On 2016-11-08 22:30 -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: >>> It seems that sbuild indeed re-uses the timestamp from the last >>> debian/changelog entry in the binNMU changelog entry. >> >> This has been

Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus

On 10/11/16 00:53, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 10:41:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Is this a recommended recipe ? AIUI a buildd doing a binnmu will not >> modify the debian/changelog file. > > Are you sure? When last I checked, this was not true (it may have > changed sin

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On 09/11/16 04:16, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >> Right. We want auto-removals to be useful for the release process, so that we >> don't end up with a thousand of RC bugs in testing when we freeze, most of >> th

Re: Newer version of xz-utils for Stretch / NMU a wishlist bug

On 25/09/16 23:57, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Hi, > > we have xz-utils 5.1.1alpha+20120614 since Wheezy. Upstream ist at > 5.2.2 right now. There is a wishlist bug #731634 [0] asking for > something newer. By the end of JAN I prepared a 5.2.2 package and > pointed Jonathan to it and from h

Re: liblemon_1.3.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED [and 2 more messages]

On 09/08/16 19:40, Ian Jackson wrote: > Do we _usually_ have files in .debs which are *derived from* (not just > generated by) files from other packages, whose authorship is not > represented in the resulting .deb ? > > (I think it is fair to disregard things like libgcc, whose authors > have expl

Re: [Pkg-sugar-devel] MBF: Removing old GNOME python bindings

On 01/08/16 17:37, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Yes, most of those activities are not in Debian - just as most of shell > scripts depending on Zsh is not in Debian, but it would still be a bad > idea to kick that package judging from its reverse dependencies (I > guess: I am not a Zsh user myself).

Re: MBF: Removing old GNOME python bindings

On 29/07/16 00:20, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (2016-07-28 23:29:00) >> It is high time that we remove the old GNOME python bindings. We have >> had the "new" GObject introspection support since at least Squeeze. >> The old ones

MBF: Removing old GNOME python bindings

Hi, It is high time that we remove the old GNOME python bindings. We have had the "new" GObject introspection support since at least Squeeze. The old ones are completely unmaintained and unsupported. I'd like to get gnome-python, gnome-python-extras, pyorbit, nautilus-python and pygtksourceview r

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

On 11/07/16 18:48, Michael Biebl wrote: > Hi > > Am 11.07.2016 um 18:41 schrieb Raphael Hertzog: >> On Mon, 11 Jul 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>> The other good option I can think of is to make GNOME prefer libinput by >>> passing >>> some opti

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

On 11/07/16 16:34, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > [ Bcc debian-x and debian-gtk-gnome, discussion on -devel as the topic > crosses the boundaries of multiple teams ] > > Hello, > > it has been some time that GNOME 3.20 users have been unable to configure > their touchpad[1] because: > 1/ xserver-xorg

Re: Bug#830624: ITP: xplayer -- Simple media player based on GStreamer.

On 10/07/16 15:14, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes: >> On 09/07/16 22:31, Franciscarlos Santos Soares wrote: >>> Hi Emilio! >>> >>> Thank you for contacting us. In fact, like independent application of any >>> DE, >>>

Re: Bug#830624: ITP: xplayer -- Simple media player based on GStreamer.

Hi, Please keep the bug report and debian-devel@ in Cc. On 09/07/16 22:31, Franciscarlos Santos Soares wrote: > Hi Emilio! > > Thank you for contacting us. In fact, like independent application of any DE, > but they were compatible with the traditional look of windows and based on > the > GTK

Re: [MBF] Obsoleting Source-Version substvar

On 10/07/16 02:16, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to obsolete the ${Source-Version} substvar, which has very > misleading semantics, and has been deprecated since dpkg 1.13.19 in > 2006-05-04. This currently emits warnings from various dpkg-dev > scripts and from lintian. > >

Re: Bug#830624: ITP: xplayer -- Simple media player based on GStreamer.

On 09/07/16 22:05, Franciscarlos Santos Soares wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Franciscarlos Santos Soares > > * Package name: xplayer > Version : 1.0.7 > Upstream Author : Bastien Nocera > * URL : https://github.com/linuxmint/xplayer > * License

Re: preparing for GCC 5, especially libstdc++6

On 01/07/15 14:39, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 06/26/2015 03:01 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 25/06/15 17:44, Matthias Klose wrote: >>> On 06/25/2015 01:20 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >>>> On 06/25/2015 11:23 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>>>&g

Re: preparing for GCC 5, especially libstdc++6

On 25/06/15 17:44, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 06/25/2015 01:20 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >> On 06/25/2015 11:23 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>> - You suggest that some libraries may need to be renamed due to the ABI >>> breaks. >>> Do you have a list of a

Re: preparing for GCC 5, especially libstdc++6

On 16/06/15 23:37, Matthias Klose wrote: > Hi, > > it's time to prepare for GCC 5 as the default compiler in unstable. Compared > to > earlier version bumps, the switch to GCC 5 is a bit more complicated because > libstdc++6 sees a few ABI incompatibilities, partially depending on the C++ > stan

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

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

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

On 22/06/15 13:43, Hideki Yamane wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 23:13:53 +0200 > Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>> $ dch -r -D jessie >>> dch warning: Recognised distributions are: unstable, testing, >>> stable, >>> oldstable, expe

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

On 21/06/15 10:39, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 16:37 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Hideki Yamane wrote: >> Which is suitable "distribution" in changelog for Jessie and wheezy >> point release? (and why) I just looked debian-release posts and >> con

  1   2   3   >