Am 28.06.22 um 22:15 schrieb julien.pu...@gmail.com:
Le mardi 28 juin 2022 à 22:08 +0200, Bastian Venthur a écrit :
Wild guess: were your new uploads _*source-only*_ ?
Good point! I totally forgot about that :)
Thanks,
Bastian
--
Dr. Bastian Venthur
On Tue, 2022-06-28 at 22:23 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> There are patches to support throw away binaries, but as far as I'm
> aware they haven't been merged and I don't know the status of the
> patches. That won't remove the need for binary uploads, but it would
> remove the need for a
Hi
On 28-06-2022 22:17, Scott Talbert wrote:
All uploads need to be source-only (since
bullseye?).
To be more correct, all package that are intended to migrate to testing
need to be source-only. However, in the review process of NEW binaries,
the upload still needs to contain all (and one
Le mardi 28 juin 2022 à 16:17 -0400, Scott Talbert a écrit :
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022, julien.pu...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Wild guess: were your new uploads _*source-only*_ ?
>
> I looked at a couple of them and they were (source all) so that does
> appear to be the problem. All uploads need to
On Tue, 28 Jun 2022, julien.pu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
sorry I didn't follow the conversation but it seems that all my
Python
packages are still not migrating to testing and I don't really
understand how to fix it. The error I see consistently in my Python
packages is:
> Issues preventing
Le mardi 28 juin 2022 à 22:08 +0200, Bastian Venthur a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> sorry I didn't follow the conversation but it seems that all my
> Python
> packages are still not migrating to testing and I don't really
> understand how to fix it. The error I see consistently in my Python
> packages
Hi,
sorry I didn't follow the conversation but it seems that all my Python
packages are still not migrating to testing and I don't really
understand how to fix it. The error I see consistently in my Python
packages is:
> Issues preventing migration:
> Not built on buildd: arch all binaries
On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 01:03:11PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> 2022, മേയ് 28 8:42:22 PM IST, Thomas Goirand ൽ എഴുതി
> >On 5/27/22 09:48, Paul Gevers wrote:
> >> Patches welcome. Code is here:
> >> https://salsa.debian.org/release-team/release-tools/-/blob/master/mailer/mail_autoremovals.pl
> >>
2022, മേയ് 28 8:42:22 PM IST, Thomas Goirand ൽ എഴുതി
>On 5/27/22 09:26, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> Am Thu, May 26, 2022 at 08:47:20AM +0200 schrieb Nilesh Patra:
>>> Would it be possible to manually remove this item from the list that
>>> generates
>>> autoremovals?
>>
>> ... or generate a
On 5/27/22 09:26, Andreas Tille wrote:
Am Thu, May 26, 2022 at 08:47:20AM +0200 schrieb Nilesh Patra:
Would it be possible to manually remove this item from the list that generates
autoremovals?
... or generate a blacklist of packages that should not trigger those removals.
The autoremoval
Hi all,
On 27-05-2022 09:42, Julien Puydt wrote:
... or generate a blacklist of packages that should not trigger
those removals.
That exists: key packages.
Or the removal watcher could have a cap on the number of warnings it
sends per sensible period of time. If it exceeds this
Hi
Le ven. 27 mai 2022 à 09:27, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> Am Thu, May 26, 2022 at 08:47:20AM +0200 schrieb Nilesh Patra:
> > Would it be possible to manually remove this item from the list that
> generates
> > autoremovals?
>
> ... or generate a blacklist of packages that should not trigger
Am Thu, May 26, 2022 at 08:47:20AM +0200 schrieb Nilesh Patra:
> Would it be possible to manually remove this item from the list that generates
> autoremovals?
... or generate a blacklist of packages that should not trigger those removals.
The autoremoval warnings are pretty helpful in general
Would it be possible to manually remove this item from the list that generates autoremovals?This is creating an insane amount of noise and emails too.--Best,NileshOn 26/05/22, 12:11 pm Timo Lindfors wrote:
On 5/24/22 21:34, Paul Gevers wrote:
> https://bugs.debian.org/1011268 (but
Le jeudi 26 mai 2022 à 09:32 +0300, Timo Lindfors a écrit :
>
> On 5/24/22 21:34, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > https://bugs.debian.org/1011268 (but apparently my first assumption
> > was wrong and it's another bug, most likely Simon was right.
>
> Thanks for the link. I was quite puzzled this morning
On 5/24/22 21:34, Paul Gevers wrote:
https://bugs.debian.org/1011268 (but apparently my first assumption
was wrong and it's another bug, most likely Simon was right.
Thanks for the link. I was quite puzzled this morning when I saw several
removals messages. I guess I should just wait and
Hi,
On 24-05-2022 20:07, M. Zhou wrote:
I wonder why an irrelevant package suddenly triggered autoremoval
of a very large portion of packages from testing.
https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/autoremovals.cgi
Searched for keyword nvidia-graphics-drivers-tesla-470, and I got
68866 entries. There
17 matches
Mail list logo
