Upcoming stable point release (11.1)`

2021-09-16 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The first point release for "bullseye" (11.1) is scheduled for
Saturday, October 9th. Processing of new uploads into bullseye-
proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming oldstable point release (10.11)

2021-09-16 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "buster" (10.11) is scheduled for Saturday,
October 9th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (10.10)

2021-06-01 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "buster" (10.10) is scheduled for Saturday
June 19th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will
be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (10.9)

2021-03-16 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "buster" (10.9) is scheduled for Saturday
March 27th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will
be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (10.8)

2021-01-19 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "buster" (10.8) is scheduled for Saturday
February 6th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (10.7)

2020-11-02 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "buster" (10.7) is scheduled for Saturday
December 5th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (10.6)

2020-09-13 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "buster" (10.6) is scheduled for Saturday
September 26th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Re: Upcoming stable point release (10.5)

2020-07-21 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

On Sun, 2020-07-12 at 15:37 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 14:35 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > The next point release for "buster" (10.5) is scheduled for
> > Saturday July 18th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-
> > updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend.
> 
> Unfortunately this has had to be delayed slightly.
> 
> A new date will be announced soon.

This will now be Saturday August 1st.

Regards,

Adam



Re: Upcoming stable point release (10.5)

2020-07-12 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 14:35 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> The next point release for "buster" (10.5) is scheduled for Saturday 
> July 18th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates
> will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Unfortunately this has had to be delayed slightly.

A new date will be announced soon.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (10.5)

2020-06-27 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "buster" (10.5) is scheduled for Saturday 
July 18th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will
be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming oldstable point release (9.13)

2020-06-27 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next - and final - point release for "stretch" (9.13) is scheduled
for Saturday, July 18th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-
proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (10.4)

2020-04-14 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "buster" (10.4) is scheduled for Saturday,
May 9th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates will be
frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming oldstable point release (9.12)

2020-01-12 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "stretch" (9.12) is scheduled for Saturday,
February 8th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (10.3)

2020-01-12 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "buster" (10.3) is scheduled for Saturday,
February 8th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (10.2)

2019-10-30 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "buster" (10.2) is scheduled for Saturday,
November 16th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (10.1)

2019-07-31 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The first point release for "buster" (10.1) is scheduled for Saturday,
September 7th. Processing of new uploads into buster-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming oldstable point release (9.10)

2019-07-31 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "stretch" (9.10) is scheduled for Saturday,
September 7th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (9.9)

2019-03-25 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "stretch" (9.9) is scheduled for Saturday,
April 27th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (9.8)

2019-01-31 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "stretch" (9.8) is scheduled for Saturday,
February 16th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (9.6)

2018-10-28 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "stretch" (9.6) is scheduled for Saturday, 
November 10th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

2018-06-29 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 11:44 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Adam D. Barratt
>  wrote:
> 
> > >  what is the reason why that package is not moving forward?
> > 
> > I assume you're referring to the dpkg upload that's in proposed-
> > updates
> > waiting for the point release in two weeks time?
> 
>  i don't know: i'm an outsider who doesn't have the information in
> short-term memory, which is why i cc'd the debian-riscv team as they
> have current facts and knowledge foremost in their minds.  which is
> why i included them.

It would have been wiser to do so *before* stating that nothing was
happening as if it were a fact.

> > I'm also getting very tired of the repeated vilification of SRM
> > over
> > this, and if there were any doubt can assure you that it is not
> > increasing at least my inclination to spend my already limited free
> > time on Debian activity.
> 
>  ah.  so what you're saying is, you could really do with some extra
> help?

I don't think that's ever been in dispute for basically any core team
in Debian.

That doesn't change the fact that the atmosphere around the change in
question has made me feel very uncomfortable and unenthused about SRM
work. (I realise that this is somewhat of a self-feeding energy
monster.)

Regards,

Adam



Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

2018-06-29 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 10:20 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
>  debian-riscv has been repeatedly asking for a single zero-impact
> line
> to be included in *one* file in *one* dpkg-related package which
> would
> allow riscv to stop being a NMU architecture and become part of
> debian/unstable (and quickly beyond), for at least six months, now.
> cc'ing the debian-riscv list because they will know the details about
> this.  it's really quite ridiculous that a single one-line change
> having absolutely no effect on any other architecture whatsover is
> not
> being actioned and is holding debian-riscv back because of that.
> 
>  what is the reason why that package is not moving forward?

I assume you're referring to the dpkg upload that's in proposed-updates 
waiting for the point release in two weeks time? Please check your
facts before ranting, particularly with such a wide cross-posting.

Also, ttbomk, the dpkg change landing in stable is not likely to
magically lead to the architecture being added to unstable - a decision
which is not the release team's to make or block. Again, please ensure
you've actually done your research.

I'm also getting very tired of the repeated vilification of SRM over
this, and if there were any doubt can assure you that it is not
increasing at least my inclination to spend my already limited free
time on Debian activity.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (9.5)

2018-06-25 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "stretch" (9.5) is scheduled for Saturday,
July 14th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates will
be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (9.4)

2018-02-21 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "stretch" (9.4) is scheduled for Saturday,
March 10th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Re: Bug#882158: stretch-pu: package glibc/2.24-11+deb9u2

2018-02-14 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Control: tags -1 + pending

On Sun, 2018-01-14 at 11:52 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2018-01-13 17:26, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Control: tag -1 confirmed
> > 
> > On Sat, Dec  9, 2017 at 14:22:45 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > 
> > > Unfortunately it didn't make in 9.3 due to the regression
> > > introduced wrt
> > > /etc/ld.so.nohwcap (see bug#883394). The issue is due to the
> > > conversion
> > > of libc6-i686 into a transitional package between jessie and
> > > stretch, and
> > > dropping the postinst and postrm script handling the removal of
> > > /etc/ld.so.nohwcap after the upgrade. The problem always existed
> > > in
> > > stretch, but the probability for it to happen has been greatly
> > > increased
> > > by the fix for #882272. The issue doesn't affect buster/sid as
> > > the
> > > transitional package has been removed.
> > > 
> > > I have fixed the issue in version 2.24-11+deb9u3 by reintroducing
> > > the
> > > postinst and postrm scripts in the transitional package. You will
> > > find
> > > below the corresponding patch.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for considering it for 9.4.
> > > 
> > 
> > Assuming that's been tested in all the various scenarios, please go
> > ahead.
> 
> Thanks, I have just uploaded it. Note that the issue with the nvidia
> drivers has been found (providing the default version of the
> libraries
> without TLS) and has already been fixed in sid.

Flagged for acceptance; sorry for the delay.

Regards,

Adam



Re: Bug#882158: stretch-pu: package glibc/2.24-11+deb9u2

2017-12-02 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Control: tags -1 + pending

On Fri, 2017-12-01 at 21:15 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2017-12-01 19:49, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> (2017-11-24):
> > > This looks OK to me, but will need a KiBi-ack; CCing.
> > 
> > lgtm; apologies for the delay.
> 
> Thanks, I have just uploaded it.

Flagged for acceptance.

Regards,

Adam



Re: Bug#882158: stretch-pu: package glibc/2.24-11+deb9u2

2017-11-24 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Control: tags -1 + confirmed d-i

On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 18:02 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2017-11-19 18:36, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
[...]
> > I would like to upload a new glibc package for the next stretch
> > release.
> > It mostly consists in pulling the release/2.24/master upstream
> > branch.
[...]
> > I would also like to add the attached an additional patch to fix a
> critical bug which has been filled recently, breaking some systems
> during jessie to stretch upgrades (see bug#882272).

This looks OK to me, but will need a KiBi-ack; CCing.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming oldstable point release

2017-11-19 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "jessie" (8.10) is scheduled for Saturday,
December 9th. Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release

2017-11-19 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "stretch" (9.3) is scheduled for Saturday,
December 9th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (9.1)

2017-07-09 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The first point release for "stretch" (9.1) is scheduled for Saturday,
July 22nd. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates will
be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming oldstable point release (8.9)

2017-07-09 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "jessie" (8.9) is scheduled for Saturday,
July 22nd. Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates will
be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (8.8)

2017-04-11 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "jessie" (8.8) is scheduled for Saturday, May
6th. Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates will be
frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Bug#845721: Cannot install libc6:i386 -- Breaks: libc6:i386 (!= 2.24-7) but -7 does not exist

2016-11-26 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sat, 2016-11-26 at 01:02 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  cli-common : Depends: perl but it is not going to be installed
>  libc6 : Breaks: libc6:i386 (!= 2.24-7) but 2.24-5 is to be installed
>  libc6:i386 : Breaks: libc6 (!= 2.24-5) but 2.24-7 is to be installed
> [...]

That normally means that apt is seeing libc6 2.24-7 as available on
amd64 and 2.24-5 as available on i386 and is refusing to install the
combination, as they're different versions and libc6 is marked
Multi-Arch:same.

> I don't know how to make sense of these "breaks" versions.  libc6
> doesn't even have a revision -7.  Should both of those be
> "breaks ... != 2.24-6"?

-7 was uploaded a little over 10 hours ago. Looking at the dak log that
would make sense in terms of what you're seeing - the amd64 build of -7
made it into the 0152UTC dinstall by a few minutes, so would have been
available on mirrors when you filed this report, with the i386 build
being part of the subsequent 0752 dinstall.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (8.6)

2016-09-02 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "jessie" (8.6) is scheduled for Saturday,
September 17th. Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (8.4)

2016-03-12 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "jessie" (8.4) is scheduled for Saturday,
April 2nd. Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming oldstable point release (7.10)

2016-03-12 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "wheezy" (7.10) is scheduled for Saturday,
April 2nd. Processing of new uploads into wheezy-proposed-updates will
be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming stable point release (8.3)

2015-12-17 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for "jessie" (8.3) is scheduled for Saturday,
January 23rd. Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam



Upcoming oldstable point release (7.9)

2015-08-25 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for wheezy (7.9) is scheduled for Saturday,
September 5th.  Processing of new uploads into wheezy-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Upcoming stable point release (8.2)

2015-08-25 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for jessie (8.2) is scheduled for Saturday,
September 5th.  Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates
will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Upcoming stable point release (8.1)

2015-05-24 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The first point release for jessie (8.1) is scheduled for Saturday,
June 6th.  Stable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Upcoming stable point release (7.8)

2014-12-27 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for wheezy (7.8) is scheduled for Saturday,
January 10th.  Stable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Upcoming stable point release (7.7)

2014-09-24 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for wheezy (7.7) is scheduled for Saturday,
October 18th.  Stable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/1411585956.15708.2.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Upcoming stable point release (7.6)

2014-06-11 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for wheezy (7.6) is scheduled for Saturday,
July 12th.  Stable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

As usual, base-files can be uploaded at any point before the freeze.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/1402513678.4620.13.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Upcoming oldstable point release (6.0.10)

2014-06-11 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next (and final) point release for squeeze (6.0.10) is scheduled
for Saturday, July 19th.  Oldstable NEW will be frozen during the
preceding weekend.

As usual, base-files can be uploaded at any point before the freeze.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/1402513777.4620.15.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Upcoming stable point release (7.5)

2014-03-23 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for wheezy (7.5) is scheduled for Saturday,
April 26th.  Stable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

As usual, base-files can be uploaded at any point before the freeze.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/1395609622.12119.11.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Upcoming stable point release (7.4)

2014-01-23 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for wheezy (7.4) is scheduled for Saturday 
February 8th.  Stable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

As usual, base-files can be uploaded at any point before the freeze.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1390507736.6444.23.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Upcoming oldstable point release (6.0.9)

2014-01-23 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

The next point release for squeeze (6.0.9) is scheduled for Saturday 
February 15th.  Stable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend.

As usual, base-files can be uploaded at any point before the freeze.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1390507759.6444.24.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: Bug#699818: pre-approval for pu: eglibc - timer_settime broken on kfreebsd-amd64

2014-01-21 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 19:00 +0100, intrigeri wrote:
 Julien Cristau wrote (04 Dec 2013 14:00:10 GMT) :
  On Wed, Oct  2, 2013 at 16:44:41 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
  If someone puts together a debdiff including them, I'm more than
  happy to look at that and we can make a call from there. (Bearing in
  mind that the window for 7.2 closes over the coming weekend.)
  
  Any news here?  We're now nearing the end of the window for 7.3.
 
 Ping? The next point-release is coming soon.

I suspect all of the changes made it in to the 2.13-38+deb7u1 upload,
but confirmation of that would be appreciated.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1390330351.15719.16.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: Bug#699818: pre-approval for pu: eglibc - timer_settime broken on kfreebsd-amd64

2014-01-21 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 12:23 -0700, Adam Conrad wrote:
 On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 06:52:31PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
  
  I suspect all of the changes made it in to the 2.13-38+deb7u1 upload,
  but confirmation of that would be appreciated.
 
 Yeah, I'm inclined to say that upload covered everything that mattered.
 
 I believe all that was culled was Hurd stuff, and the Hurd guys tend to
 not care terribly much about stables anyway and focus entirely on sid,
 so that works.

In which case, let's go with #731512 to cover the changes.

Cheers,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1390334018.15719.18.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: Bug#699818: pre-approval for pu: eglibc - timer_settime broken on kfreebsd-amd64

2013-10-02 Thread Adam D. Barratt

On 2013-10-02 16:14, Adam Conrad wrote:

On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:23:22PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:


That looks okay. In terms of the other suggested updates, as a
non-release architecture for wheezy, hurd-specific patches aren't 
really

appropriate for a stable update.


Perhaps not appropriate to upload just for Hurd, but hurd-specific
patches that don't touch other arches also seem harmless.  I'm happy
to back them out, though, if it's a sticking point.


Well, they don't really meet the definition of minimal changes. :-) If 
someone puts together a debdiff including them, I'm more than happy to 
look at that and we can make a call from there. (Bearing in mind that 
the window for 7.2 closes over the coming weekend.)


  * debian/testsuite-checking/compare.sh: Disable failing the build 
on test
regressions to ease the pain of ongoing stable/security 
maintenance.


This has historically always been done for stable releases.  I'm not
going to argue if that's right or wrong, just history.


Indeed, I plead senility. Well, that and for squeeze the change was 
made before the release; the initial release shipped with tests 
disabled, so we didn't then have to do it in a stable update.


Regards,

Adam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/a6fabaf14c879179987357d831b63...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org



Re: Bug#699818: pre-approval for pu: eglibc - timer_settime broken on kfreebsd-amd64

2013-10-01 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you about this.

On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 14:15 +0200, Petr Salinger wrote:
 One more problem popped up - #712196
 
 The fix is one-liner:
 
 --- kfreebsd/syscalls.list
 +++ kfreebsd/syscalls.list
 -sys_ktimer_settime -   ktimer_settime  i:ip
 __syscall_ktimer_settime
 +sys_ktimer_settime -   ktimer_settime  i:iipp  
 __syscall_ktimer_settime

That looks okay. In terms of the other suggested updates, as a
non-release architecture for wheezy, hurd-specific patches aren't really
appropriate for a stable update.

  * debian/testsuite-checking/compare.sh: Disable failing the build on test
regressions to ease the pain of ongoing stable/security maintenance.

It does slightly worry me here that real regressions might get missed,
as the chances of anyone combing through the build logs are small. I do
realise that the change has been in unstable and testing for a while
now.

  * debian/debhelper.in/libc.preinst: Remove ld.so's aux-cache on upgrades.

This looks reasonable enough.

In any case, if someone would still like to take this forward, please
could we have a debdiff for the proposed upload.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1380662602.5700.24.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Bug#724692: tzdata-java: tzdata version 2013d-0wheezy1 breaks tzdata-java 2013c-0wheezy1

2013-09-26 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 12:31 -0500, Matthew P Zagrabelny wrote:
 It looks like tzdata was updated in wheezy/updates from 2013c-0wheezy1
 to 2013d-0wheezy1. This looks to break tzdata-java:

(Small but important point - you mean wheezy-updates; wheezy/updates
would be part of a security.d.o path.)

 $ dpkg-deb -f /var/cache/apt/archives/tzdata-java_2013c-0wheezy1_all.deb
 depends
 tzdata (= 2013c-0wheezy1)
 
 as tzdata-java has a hard dependency on version 2013c-0wheezy1 of
 tzdata.
 
 I suppose tzdata-java should get updated for wheezy/updates.

It already has been, as part of the update you refer to above (it's
built from the tzdata source package):

tzdata-java |  2013d-0wheezy1 | wheezy-updates | all

So you should already have the new tzdata-java available to you for a
couple of weeks now.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1380219078.11131.12.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: tzdata stable/testing update

2012-10-20 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 19:04 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 05:06:15PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
  On 19.10.2012 15:43, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
  I have uploaded a new version of tzdata to both wheezy (2012g-1) and
  squeeze (2012g-0squeeze1). This upload has been triggered by a DST
  change this week-end in some parts of Brazil (see bug#690606), but I
  have realized at the same occasion that both squeeze and wheezy are
  quite outdated.
[...]
  and the stable package to reach squeeze-proposed-update?
  
  I'm guessing that given the timing this could also do with going via
  squeeze-updates? (rather than just p-u.)
 
 Yes, it's actually what I meant, but typed it wrong.

For the record, that was released last night as SUA 28-1.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1350725677.8831.19.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: tzdata stable/testing update

2012-10-19 Thread Adam D. Barratt

On 19.10.2012 15:43, Aurelien Jarno wrote:

I have uploaded a new version of tzdata to both wheezy (2012g-1) and
squeeze (2012g-0squeeze1). This upload has been triggered by a DST
change this week-end in some parts of Brazil (see bug#690606), but I
have realized at the same occasion that both squeeze and wheezy are
quite outdated.

Would it be possible to allow the sid version to enter testing


Unblocked and aged.


and the stable package to reach squeeze-proposed-update?


I'm guessing that given the timing this could also do with going via 
squeeze-updates? (rather than just p-u.)


There has been no change to the packaging, the changes only concerns 
the timezones

definitions.


Well, there's the new makefile. I realise it's upstream, but it's not 
technically just a defintion change.


Regards,

Adam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/91ac7110a3d9e6cc653618c0908a3...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org



Bug#669858: eglibc FTBFS on mips and mipsel, Encountered regressions that don't match expected failures:

2012-04-21 Thread Adam D. Barratt
reassign 669858 src:eglibc
tags 669858 + wheezy sid
found 669858 2.13-30
thanks

On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 13:07 +0100, peter green wrote:
 Package: eglibc
 Severity: serious

Thanks for filing this and other FTBFS reports recently.  A couple of
comments / requests:

Please include version information in bug reports; this issue doesn't
affect every upload of eglibc ever made.  It's also conventional to file
bugs that relate to package build issues against the source package and
tag them wheezy sid when one can be sure they don't affect the version
of the package in stable (where the versions differ between stable and
testing/unstable then version tracking will also dtrt but including the
tags won't hurt).

Regards,

Adam




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1335029135.26539.25.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: transition status

2012-02-25 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 12:20 +, Robert Millan wrote:
 660403: cdparanoia: FTFBS on kfreebsd-*
 - Unless there's further activity I recommend removing of kfreebsd-*
 binaries from testing. See
 http://bugs.debian.org./cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660403#12

That doesn't work.  The choices would be removing the kfreebsd-*
binaries from unstable, and letting that propagate, or removing the
entire package from testing.

 660397: qpxtool: FTBFS on kfreebsd-*
 660401: dvd+rw-tools: FTBFS on kfreebsd-*
 - (eglibc bug) Tagged pending by maintainer since 20th Feb. Should it
 be NMUed? CCing maintainer.

That's still less than a week.  Aurelien, are there any plans for an
upload in the near future?

 660396: sane-backends: FTBFS on kfreebsd-*
 - (kfreebsd-kernel-headers bug) Fixed today in 0.75. BinNMU?

They were already binNMUed, that's how I discovered the bug. ;-p  I'll
give them back with a dependency on the new k-k-h.

btw, http://bugs.debian.org/src:kfreebsd-kernel-headers still lists two
outstanding RC bugs.  You need to use versioned -done mails, not just
add fixed versions.

There's also mednafen and xine-lib, which I think have transitive
dependencies via libsdl1.2?  The latter still seems to be FTBFS on
kfreebsd-amd64, despite the patch from #659615 being applied.  I've just
given it back for one last try.

fwiw, there's a possibility that vlc might be a blocker, given that the
new upstream version is FTBFS on multiple architectures (including
kfreebsd-*).

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1330177567.27081.51.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Bug#658171: Bug#658424: pu: package eglibc/2.11.3-3

2012-02-16 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 12:54 +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
 * Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk [120212 22:06]:
  As I mentioned previously: Bernhard, JBK (and anyone else affected and
  watching the bugs) - once the package is available for your architecture
  via proposed-updates, please test it and let us know whether it resolves
  the issue for you.
 
 As far as I can tell from a short testing, it seems to work.

Thanks.  I've pushed the package to squeeze-updates, so it will start
hit mirrors with the next dinstall.

Regards,

Adam




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1329419367.17190.7.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Bug#658171: Bug#658424: pu: package eglibc/2.11.3-3

2012-02-12 Thread Adam D. Barratt
tag 658424 + pending
thanks

On Sun, 2012-02-12 at 20:38 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:09:49AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
  That's unfortunate, but I'm not sure we should let it block getting the
  fix to stable users any further.  Please go ahead with the upload.
 
 I have just done the upload. As told on IRC, it also includes fixes for
 the gai.conf manpage.

Thanks.  I've flagged it for acceptance.

As I mentioned previously: Bernhard, JBK (and anyone else affected and
watching the bugs) - once the package is available for your architecture
via proposed-updates, please test it and let us know whether it resolves
the issue for you.

Regards,

Adam




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1329080754.27786.72.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Bug#658171: Bug#658424: pu: package eglibc/2.11.3-3

2012-02-11 Thread Adam D. Barratt
tag 658424 + confirmed squeeze
thanks

On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 22:48 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:45:12PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
  On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 23:11 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
   eglibc 2.11.3-2 shipped in Debian Squeeze 6.0.4 suffers from a 
   regression in the resolver code with broken DNS server not answering
   correctly to  requests. It causes the first or sometimes more DNS
   resolving requests to fail. See bug#658171 for more details.
[...]
  Has there been any feedback as a result of the sid upload, whether
  positive or otherwise?
  
 Nothing so far :-(

That's unfortunate, but I'm not sure we should let it block getting the
fix to stable users any further.  Please go ahead with the upload.

Bernhard, JBK - once the package is available for your architecture
via proposed-updates, please test it and let us know whether it resolves
the issue for you.

Regards,

Adam




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1328958589.27786.16.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?

2011-12-17 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 12:36 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 As you pointed me on IRC, the build failed on arm, mips and mipsel. It's
 due to a file out of sync between the main repository and the ports
 repository hosting theses architectures. I have backported the missing
 change to version 2.11.3-2 and uploaded it.

Thanks.  I've flagged the package for acceptance at the next dinstall.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1324136807.1324.12.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?

2011-12-14 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 07:54 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 06:41:54PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
  On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 17:55 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
   Would it be possible to upload this, and do a call for test for people
   wanting to test it before the actual point release? That would also help
   people having problems due the bugs mentioned above.
  
  Ack, please go ahead.
  
 
 Thanks, I have just done the upload.

Thanks; I've marked the package for acceptance at the next dinstall.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1323891654.427.2.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?

2011-12-13 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 17:55 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 I have attached a new version of what we plan to upload. It includes a
 few more fixes backported from the unstable version (look at the end of
 the changelog), and also a few more fixes from upstream (no new stable 
 version have been released, but the stable branch has still evolved a 
 bit). I am using this version (actually this one minus the two last 
 commits) for a few weeks at home and on a dozen of computers at work, so
 it's already a bit tested.
 
 Would it be possible to upload this, and do a call for test for people
 wanting to test it before the actual point release? That would also help
 people having problems due the bugs mentioned above.

Ack, please go ahead.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1323801715.12813.1.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?

2011-12-12 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sun, 2011-10-30 at 19:27 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 05:36:27PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
  Did the 2.11.4 release happen?  I'm conscious of the fact that we're now
  a little way past 6.0.3; apologies for not following up again sooner.
 
 I have asked for it, but I have no answer so far. That said everything
 is already committed in the upstream git/svn, the only difference with
 version 2.11.4 will be the version number. Maybe we should just upload
 the current version without waiting so that it is widely tested, and
 later upload the final 2.11.4 if released in time.

Ugh, I hadn't realised this was so long ago. :-(  Last time we discussed
this on IRC, iirc you mentioned that there were a few more commits you
were planning on including?

  If you're happy to include the patch for #640922 in the upstream stable
  branch then feel free to also include it in a stable upload.

 Ok, will include it.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1323731030.28289.23.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: tzdata 2011n uploaded to lenny-volatile and squeeze

2011-11-02 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 00:10 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 As part of the weekly tzdata upload (well I hope things will slow down
 soon), I have just uploaded tzdata 2011n to both lenny-volatile and 
 squeeze. It includes DST fixes for:
   - Cuba.
   - Fidji.
   - Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.
 
 The first and last changes are already effective.

For the record, a changelog/.changes urgency disconnect meant that 2011n
also hit testing yesterday.  For (old)stable, Phil released the {S,V}UAs
yesterday.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1320259958.6262.2.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?

2011-10-30 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 22:53 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 The status is that glibc 2.11.4 will be released when Debian feels it
 is ready, as we are the main testers here. I am planning to do some more
 testing of the current SVN on more machines, and everything seems fine
 around the release of 6.0.3, I'll ask around for the release of 2.11.4. 
 
 I can then upload it to stable just after the release of 6.0.3, which 
 should give us sufficient additional testing before the release of 
 6.0.4.

Did the 2.11.4 release happen?  I'm conscious of the fact that we're now
a little way past 6.0.3; apologies for not following up again sooner.

If you're happy to include the patch for #640922 in the upstream stable
branch then feel free to also include it in a stable upload.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1319996187.26970.18.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: tzdata 2011m uploaded to lenny-volatile and squeeze

2011-10-26 Thread Adam D. Barratt

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:22:57 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:

On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 21:27 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 07:22:37PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
 On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 05:39 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
  I have just uploaded tzdata 2011m to both lenny-volatile and 
squeeze.

[...]
 squeeze, it appears that the ever-helpful queued on ftp-master ate 
the
 upload, as the .orig.tar.gz was still in unchecked from the 
unstable

 upload - it's not there now, so please could you re-upload?


I have just reuploaded it.


Thanks.  Everything went okay that time and the package is in 
p-u-NEW.
Unfortunately the timing means that the earliest we can accept it is 
now
the 01:52 dinstall and squeeze-updates then requires a further 
dinstall.


I'll aim to send the announcement mail before work tomorrow morning, 
and

get the package pushed to mirrors with the 07:52 dinstall.


This happened as planned, with the release of SUA 18-1.

Regards,

Adam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/219cd3a8b2170270f72b117a93439...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org



Re: tzdata 2011m uploaded to lenny-volatile and squeeze

2011-10-25 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 05:39 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 I have just uploaded tzdata 2011m to both lenny-volatile and squeeze.

Thanks.  fwiw, it's also transitioned to testing.  (although I'm not
convinced that it justified urgency=critical, with four days before
the new changes take effect :P)

 It includes the following changes:
 
* New upstream version, fix DST for:
  - Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.
  - Ukraine (Closes: #645783).
  - Bahia, Brazil. Drop debian/patches/bahia.diff.
 
 The two first changes will happen on the night from Saturday to Sunday.

I'm hoping to get the VUA for lenny released later tonight.  For
squeeze, it appears that the ever-helpful queued on ftp-master ate the
upload, as the .orig.tar.gz was still in unchecked from the unstable
upload - it's not there now, so please could you re-upload?

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1319566957.26526.5.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: tzdata 2011m uploaded to lenny-volatile and squeeze

2011-10-25 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 21:27 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 07:22:37PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
  On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 05:39 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
   I have just uploaded tzdata 2011m to both lenny-volatile and squeeze.
[...]
  I'm hoping to get the VUA for lenny released later tonight.  For
 
 Thanks.

As you may have noticed, this has now been done, as VUA 83-1.

  squeeze, it appears that the ever-helpful queued on ftp-master ate the
  upload, as the .orig.tar.gz was still in unchecked from the unstable
  upload - it's not there now, so please could you re-upload?
  
 
 I have just reuploaded it.

Thanks.  Everything went okay that time and the package is in p-u-NEW.
Unfortunately the timing means that the earliest we can accept it is now
the 01:52 dinstall and squeeze-updates then requires a further dinstall.

I'll aim to send the announcement mail before work tomorrow morning, and
get the package pushed to mirrors with the 07:52 dinstall.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1319574177.26526.38.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Bug#645638: tzdata update for (old)stable and lenny-volatile

2011-10-21 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 09:04 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 07:49:50AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
  On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:17:48 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
  Due to change in one of the Brazilian timezone last week-end, I have
  uploaded version 2011l-0squeeze1 of tzdata to
  stable-proposed-updates.
[...]
  Please go ahead.  As dicussed on IRC, it probably makes more sense
  to just target volatile for now, if there's going to be a 2011m in
  the near future.
 
 I have just uploaded tzdata_2011l-0lenny1 to lenny-volatile.

VUA 82-1 has just been released for this; thanks.

Regards,

Adam




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1319222550.9165.8.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Bug#645638: tzdata update for (old)stable and lenny-volatile

2011-10-19 Thread Adam D. Barratt

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:17:48 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:

Due to change in one of the Brazilian timezone last week-end, I have
uploaded version 2011l-0squeeze1 of tzdata to 
stable-proposed-updates.


For the record, I pushed this via squeeze-updates overnight (see 
SUA17-1).



Technically only a patch was needed, but I preferred to upload a new
version so that we don't need a later upload for Asia/Hebron and
Pacific/Fiji. I have also changed the debian/copyright and
debian/watch files as they pointed to inexistant URL / email 
following

the current lawsuit. IANA is the new upstream.

Please find the diff below. If you are fine with all these changes, 
I'll

do the same for oldstable and lenny-volatile


Please go ahead.  As dicussed on IRC, it probably makes more sense to 
just target volatile for now, if there's going to be a 2011m in the near 
future.


Regards,

Adam



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/08d945542a4b74288afe4172b554c...@adsl153.funky-badger.org



Re: Bug#637664: Re: Bug#637664: pu: package tzdata/2011h-0squeeze1

2011-09-23 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sun, 2011-09-18 at 23:52 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 On my side can only confirm that upgrading from 2011d to 2011h indeed
 changes the Egyptian timezone. So maybe we can simply push it to
 proposed-updates. 

Assuming squeeze-updates, I'll have a look at that in the next day or
so.

 Anyway for the current status, 2011h is in s-p-u, while sid has 2011j,
 bringing DST changes for Samoa, New Foundland and creating a South
 Soudan entry. 2011k is going to be released on September 26th, bringing 
 changes to Palestine and Belarus. So it looks like we can already upload
 2011i for Lenny, and push 2011j to volatile just after. For Squeeze we 
 can go directly to 2011j.

2011k?

 Can I already start with the upload to o-s-p-u or should I open a bug
 for that?

Feel free to upload if you wish.  fwiw, although uploads for 5.0.9
officially close over the weekend, I'd be minded to make an exception
for a tzdata upload if it could made as early in the week as reasonably
possible.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1316801187.2091.9.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: Bug#637664: Re: Bug#637664: pu: package tzdata/2011h-0squeeze1

2011-09-17 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 16:40 +0200, Youssef Eldakar wrote:
 On 01/-10/-28163 09:59 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
  On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 17:23 +0400, Eugene Barbashin wrote:
[Russian law changes on October 30th]
  For the record, after some discussion with the maintainers on IRC and as
  the next point releases for both stable and oldstable are due to occur
  before mid-October, we've decided not to push an update earlier.  There
  may be an update to either package before the point release in order to
  incorporate any further changes.
 
 Well, in Egypt, as of the last Friday of April 2011, a Squeeze 
 installation has incorrect time. I believe pushing an update is worth 
 reconsidering.

If it's broken for more than four months now, why has nobody mentioned
the issue before?

tzdata maintainers - any thoughts here?  I know Aurelien mentioned that
there was probably another update for lenny/squeeze appearing before the
point releases in any case, but I'm not sure what the status is there.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1316282221.21594.98.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?

2011-09-12 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 20:27 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
 On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 22:53:15 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 
  The status is that glibc 2.11.4 will be released when Debian feels it
  is ready, as we are the main testers here. I am planning to do some more
  testing of the current SVN on more machines, and everything seems fine
  around the release of 6.0.3, I'll ask around for the release of 2.11.4. 
  
  I can then upload it to stable just after the release of 6.0.3, which 
  should give us sufficient additional testing before the release of 
  6.0.4.
  
  How does it sound to you?
  
 Seems reasonable to me fwiw.

Me too; thanks.  (and I assume others will yell if they disagree...)

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1315852308.7688.7.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: Bug#637664: pu: package tzdata/2011h-0squeeze1

2011-09-12 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 17:23 +0400, Eugene Barbashin wrote:
  I don't think there is a real need to push to to -updates. Nobody
  requested about this changes in lenny or squeeze, so I guess they are
  not that important.
 It's very important update for everyone using debian in Russia, so
 please, consider to push it to -updates and include in oldstable.
 Our law on this matter become effective next week (September, 7) and
 all systems where patch will not be installed on October, 30 will have
 incorrect time.

For the record, after some discussion with the maintainers on IRC and as
the next point releases for both stable and oldstable are due to occur
before mid-October, we've decided not to push an update earlier.  There
may be an update to either package before the point release in order to
incorporate any further changes.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1315855713.7688.17.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?

2011-09-01 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 23:30 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:30:41PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
  On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 14:47 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
   On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:48:51AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Given the timescales of the upcoming 6.0.2 and the larger-than-usual
size of the diff, we'd prefer to look at getting this uploaded early in
the 6.0.3 cycle, to give us a longer period with the updated version
available for testing.
  
  We're now rather late in the 6.0.3 cycle - in fact, the point release
  should already have happened (there's been a small amount of scheduling
  fail).
 
 Does it mean we should consider it for the 6.0.4 cycle instead?

That might be a better idea, but possibly depends on when the 6.0.3
release ends up being, which is somewhat up in the air still; sorry for
messing you around on this.  Hopefully we'll have more of a plan soon.

   Unfortunately the 2.11.4 release never happened upstream, it's seems to
   be blocked currently.
  
  Is there any hint as to whether that's likely to be a short-term issue,
  or to persist for some time?
  
 Given I haven't got any answer to the mails I sent to the call for
 testing thread, I don't expect this issue will be fixed soon.

That is rather unfortunate, indeed. :-(

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1314911082.15526.5.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?

2011-08-29 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 14:47 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:48:51AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
  Thanks.  From what I've seen, I'd be interested in seeing the fixes
  applied to p-u.
  
  Given the timescales of the upcoming 6.0.2 and the larger-than-usual
  size of the diff, we'd prefer to look at getting this uploaded early in
  the 6.0.3 cycle, to give us a longer period with the updated version
  available for testing.

We're now rather late in the 6.0.3 cycle - in fact, the point release
should already have happened (there's been a small amount of scheduling
fail).

 Unfortunately the 2.11.4 release never happened upstream, it's seems to
 be blocked currently.

Is there any hint as to whether that's likely to be a short-term issue,
or to persist for some time?

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1314631842.3574.23.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?

2011-06-17 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 21:27 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:12:57PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
  Aurelien,
  
  On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 12:23:51PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
   I am therefore thinking about uploading the next upstream stable version
   (2.11.4 is currently in test period, it will be released in the next
   days), similarly to what is currently done for the kernel. What's your
   opinion on that, is it something that you would allow?
  
  [3] and [4] look fine, I'd like to see the whole diff against Squeeze, 
  though.
  Is it reviewable?  (Added test cases also seem like a great idea, FWIW.)
[..]
 If it is possible to upload such a version, I'll integrate that in the
 SVN and I'll provide a full diff of the debian/ directory for final 
 review. We'll include some small other changes (e.g. support for kernel 
 3.0 in the preinst script).

Thanks.  From what I've seen, I'd be interested in seeing the fixes
applied to p-u.

Given the timescales of the upcoming 6.0.2 and the larger-than-usual
size of the diff, we'd prefer to look at getting this uploaded early in
the 6.0.3 cycle, to give us a longer period with the updated version
available for testing.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1308304131.19409.12.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: Fwd: tzdata-2011d in volatile

2011-03-23 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 19:31 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 01:26:41PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
  we just received the following request for 2011d in lenny-volatile and
  squeeze-updates.  Could you prepare the uploads?
 
 I should have a bit of time tonight to work on that, unless Clint does
 it before. I have already something ready (but currently a too bad 
 connection to do something else than mail).

Thanks.

 However I have to say I am a bit lost with volatile, updates and so on.
 If I understand correctly, we should have a new version in
 lenny-volatile and squeeze-updates, and in fine also in lenny and
 squeeze. What are the required uploads to reach this state, which suites
 to target and in which case should I include a .orig.tar.gz with the
 upload?

Taking the easy one first :-)

volatile


Target either lenny-volatile or oldstable; the latter means you can
re-use the upload for ftp-master.  This should include the .orig.tar.gz

ftp-master
==

lenny: Target lenny or oldstable.
squeeze: Target squeeze or stable; SRM will then add it to
squeeze-updates.

As a general rule, when you're uploading the same upstream version to
multiple distributions at the same time only one of them should include
the .orig.tar.gz; otherwise queued on ftp-master will helpfully silently
delete the second and subsequent uploads before they even reach dak.

In this case I'd suggest including the .orig.tar.gz in the lenny upload,
so that you can simply re-upload that to volatile.

As an added note to the above, same time is potentially a period
lasting several days.  If, for example, you'd uploaded the unstable
package yesterday, the .orig.tar.gz would still be visible on
http://incoming.debian.org/ and should not be included.

In summary for this upload:

- volatile - lenny-volatile or oldstable, include .orig
- lenny - lenny or oldstable, include .orig
- squeeze - squeeze or stable, don't include .orig

Hope that helped.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1300910099.8249.160.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Bug#617331: Pushing tzdata updates to stable in time

2011-03-12 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 20:07 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
 Assuming everything goes according to plan (adding packages to
 squeeze-updates hasn't actually been tested yet) I'm planning on pushing
 the tzdata update in tomorrow morning.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen yet.  Adding packages to
squeeze-updates appears to work now, but an issue with this morning's
dinstall means we won't be able to add tzdata in until after the
13:52UTC dinstall has finished happily, so it won't start getting pushed
out until during the 19:52UTC dinstall.

Regards,

Adam




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1299931744.22892.618.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Bug#617331: Pushing tzdata updates to stable in time

2011-03-12 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 12:09 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
 On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 20:07 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
  Assuming everything goes according to plan (adding packages to
  squeeze-updates hasn't actually been tested yet) I'm planning on pushing
  the tzdata update in tomorrow morning.
 
 Unfortunately, that didn't happen yet.  Adding packages to
 squeeze-updates appears to work now, but an issue with this morning's
 dinstall means we won't be able to add tzdata in until after the
 13:52UTC dinstall has finished happily, so it won't start getting pushed
 out until during the 19:52UTC dinstall.

Actually, thanks to ftp-master, it made the 1352 dinstall after all, so
should start appearing on mirrors within a couple of hours or so.

Regards,

Adam




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1299941051.22892.1121.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Bug#617331: Pushing tzdata updates to stable in time

2011-03-11 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 16:54 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
 On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
  On Fri Mar 11, 2011 at 13:11:52 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
   Chile was supposed to leave the Summer daylight savings period this
   coming weekend, but it was pushed to April 2nd. The fixes have been
   accepted to the package in Sid, but many users will undoubtely
   appreciate it if it can be updated as well in stable-updates.
[...]
  the correct way would be to ask the release team for a release of tzdata
  on stable-updates (formerly known as volatile) and get it updated in the
  next point release as well.
[...]
 Is there a special process for this? or should we just make the DDs aware of
 the fact [by an email to d-d-a] that when one does a s-p-u upload which
 likely needs expedited handling, they should be very clear about that fact
 and email the stable release team ASAP?

Those steps are backward, fwiw; the mail should come first for a p-u
upload, not after the fact.  I've made a note to mention stable-updates
in an upcoming bits-from-SRM; now I just need to write one. :-)

Regards,

Adam




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1299873562.24129.116.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Bug#617331: Pushing tzdata updates to stable in time

2011-03-11 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 13:54 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
 Martin Zobel-Helas dijo [Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 08:31:36PM +0100]:
   Chile was supposed to leave the Summer daylight savings period this
   coming weekend, but it was pushed to April 2nd. The fixes have been
   accepted to the package in Sid, but many users will undoubtely
   appreciate it if it can be updated as well in stable-updates.
[...]
  the correct way would be to ask the release team for a release of tzdata
  on stable-updates (formerly known as volatile) and get it updated in the
  next point release as well.
 
 Yes - although that should be preceded with a suitable package built
 targetted at Squeeze, preferrably by the package maintainers, right? 

There's a tzdata package in the p-u-NEW queue which includes the change.
Unfortunately it was uploaded slightly too late to make it in to the
1952 dinstall but I'll check the diff this evening and get it marked for
acceptance in to p-u in the 0152.

Assuming everything goes according to plan (adding packages to
squeeze-updates hasn't actually been tested yet) I'm planning on pushing
the tzdata update in tomorrow morning.

Regards,

Adam




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1299874042.24129.141.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Bug#611629: libc6: fail to upgrade with Can't locate auto/Hash/Util/bootstpap.al in @INC

2011-01-31 Thread Adam D. Barratt
tag 611629 + moreinfo
thanks

On Mon, January 31, 2011 12:46, Teodor wrote:
 An almost up-to-date system upgraded last week cannot be upgraded today
 due to
 libc6 configuration errors:

Looking at the log, it doesn't appear the errors are actually due to
libc6, however.  This section suggests a broken package; it would be
interesting to narrow down which package caused it, so we can determine
whether it is a local or mirror issue:

 | dpkg-deb (subprocess): data: internal bzip2 read error: 'DATA_ERROR'
 | dpkg-deb: subprocess decompress returned error exit status 2
 | dpkg-deb (subprocess): failed in write on buffer copy for failed to
 write to pipe in copy: Broken pipe

The appearance of this error also points towards a likely local problem:

 | Can't locate auto/Hash/Util/bootstpap.al in @INC (@INC contains:

The copy of /usr/lib/perl/5.10/Hash/Util.pm shipped by perl-base 5.10.1-17
(the version in both squeeze and sid) has line 34 as:

bootstrap Hash::Util $VERSION;

rather than the bootstpap in your error log.

 /etc/perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.10.1 /usr/local/share/perl/5.10.1
 /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.10 /usr/share/perl/5.10
 /usr/local/lib/site_perl .) at /usr/lib/perl/5.10/Hash/Util.pm line 34
 | Compilation failed in require at /usr/share/perl/5.10/fields.pm line
 122.

Regards,

Adam




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/5f3be00d8d848791c2e5b544d19490d0.squir...@adsl.funky-badger.org



Bug#611411: glibc-doc-reference: FTBFS: texi2dvi fails

2011-01-29 Thread Adam D. Barratt
user release.debian@packages.debian.org
usertag 611411 + squeeze-can-defer
tag 611411 + squeeze-ignore
thanks

On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 01:08 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
 glibc-doc-reference FTBFS in a clean squeeze chroot. Tail of the build 
 log:
 
 | texi2dvi --pdf libc.texinfo
 | make[1]: *** [libc.pdf] Error 1
 | make[1]: Leaving directory 
 `/build/sbuild-glibc-doc-reference_2.11.1-1-i386-6OZu9C/glibc-doc-reference-2.11.1/manual'
 | make: *** [build-stamp] Error 2
 
 If texi2dvi weren't buggy (#611408), the error message would be:
 
 | This is pdfTeX, Version 3.1415926-1.40.10 (TeX Live 2009/Debian)
 |  restricted \write18 enabled.
 | I can't find the format file `etex.fmt'!

It's rather unlikely we're going to need to rebuild glibc-doc-reference
in squeeze during its lifetime as a stable release and it's arch:all so
this also won't affect autobuilding; marking as not a blocker.

Regards,

Adam




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1296297094.3206.263.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Re: squeeze upload for eglibc due to DSA-2122-2

2011-01-11 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 21:35 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
 I would like to make an upload of eglibc to address DSA-2122-2 (the
 first round of patches for the $ORIGIN/LD_AUDIT issue does not cover
 all corner cases, unfortunately).
[...]
 Should I push this through testing-security, testing-proposed-updates
 or unstable?  Have you got any preferences about version numbers?

t-p-u won't work, as the versions in testing and unstable are currently
in sync.  As this will need fixing in unstable anyway and there don't
seem to be any blockers, my preference would be to follow the normal
unstable upload and migration route.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1294781195.24716.795.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Bug#603921: tzdata tries to execute under /tmp during install

2010-11-18 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 15:31 +0100, Jan Rasche wrote:
 tzdata tries to execute stuff under /tmp during install. As lot of people 
 used to mount /tmp 
 noexec for security reasons this will raise errors.

tzdata does no such thing.  The culprit is clearly visible:

[...]
 Can't exec /tmp/tzdata.config.308321: Keine Berechtigung
 at /usr/share/perl/5.10/IPC/Open3.pm line 168.
 open2: exec of /tmp/tzdata.config.308321 configure 2010j-0lenny1 failed
 at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/ConfModule.pm line 59

See debconf #223683 and the several other bugs merged with it.

Regards,

Adam




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1290123881.9499.143.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org



Bug#550625: [Stable] Bug#550625: libc6: Realloc sometimes fails to copy all memory correctly

2009-10-16 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 11:10 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: 
 Would it be possible to do a stable upload to fix this problem (see
 below)?

From the bug log I'd say this should indeed be fixed in stable.  Please
could you supply the proposed debdiff for confirmation?

Thanks,

Adam



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#550625: [Stable] Bug#550625: libc6: Realloc sometimes fails to copy all memory correctly

2009-10-16 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 16:19 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
 Adam D. Barratt a écrit :
  Hi,
  
  On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 11:10 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: 
  Would it be possible to do a stable upload to fix this problem (see
  below)?
  
 From the bug log I'd say this should indeed be fixed in stable.  Please
  could you supply the proposed debdiff for confirmation?
 
 We plan to use the one from Peter Palfrader, see:
 
 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=550625#15

Please go ahead.

Regards,

Adam



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: Processed: reassigning to glibc

2008-06-26 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 12:51 +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
 reassign 312314 glibc
 thanks
 
 On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Bug#312314: w3m: Absurd stack bottom value error on a Grsecurity 
  hardened system
  Bug reassigned from package `w3m' to `glibc'.
 
 
  I don't really understand why this bug has been reassigned to glibc. The
  bug log only mentions libgc.
[...]
 Because, as confirmed by a comment in the bug, this is a libc issue.
 If you think that another library is the cause, please reassign to
 that.

No, as Aurelien said, the bug log mentions libgc. libgc is not part of
glibc. If you believe the bug to be caused by libgc, reassign it there.

 At any rate, it's been confirmed that this is not caused by w3m code
 itself, so it's pointless to reassing back to w3m.

As the maintainer to whom the bug was reported, it's your responsibility
to ensure that the bug is reassigned to the correct package if so
required. Reassigning it to an unrelated package and saying not my
fault, you fix it doesn't do that.

Adam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Processed: reassigning to glibc

2008-06-26 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 20:00 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
 As the maintainer to whom the bug was reported, it's your responsibility
 to ensure that the bug is reassigned to the correct package if so
 required.

I've just re-read the report and realised that you were the submitter,
not the maintainer. Apologies for the mistake.

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: r2197 - in glibc-package/trunk/debian: . local/etc_init.d

2007-05-07 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 09:46 +, Aurelien Jarno wrote: 
 Author: aurel32
 Date: 2007-05-07 09:46:44 + (Mon, 07 May 2007)
 New Revision: 2197
 
 Modified:
glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
glibc-package/trunk/debian/local/etc_init.d/glibc.sh
 Log:
   * debian/local/etc_init.d/glibc.sh: fix the broken comment. Closes: 
 #422587.
[...]
 +# This script detects depreciated kernel versions incompatible with
 +# the current version of the glibc

Sorry to be a pain, but that should be deprecated. Depreciated means
lessened in price or value, whereas deprecated means disapproved of or
(albeit only in jargon) obsolete.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Bug#330897: locales: POSIX used, but not chosen

2005-09-30 Thread Adam D. Barratt
reassign 330897 libpam-modules
close 330897 0.79-2
merge 330897 330458
thanks

Hi,

On Friday, September 30, 2005 11:52 AM, Calum Mackay
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Package: locales
 Version: 2.3.5-6
 Severity: normal

 Something odd seems to have happened to my locales, today. Although I
 didn't ask for it, the LC settings have changed to POSIX:

This isn't a bug in locales, but in libpam-modules. The fixed package was
uploaded yesterday.

Reassigning, merging with the earlier reports and closing.

Regards,

Adam



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Bug#330701: locales: LANG from /etc/environment is not chosen, always LANG= and POSIX

2005-09-29 Thread Adam D. Barratt
reassign 330701 libpam-modules
close 330701 0.79-2
merge 330701 330458
thanks

Hi,

On Thursday, September 29, 2005 12:47 PM, Luca Capello [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
[...]
 I don't know exactly since when (I upgrade my Debian unstable every
 morning and anyway since no more than a week), but now the LANG
 variable is no more set (and so the locales):

This isn't a bug in locales, but in libpam-modules. The fixed package has
already been uploaded, and should hit mirrors tonight.

Reassigning, merging with the earlier reports and closing.

Regards,

Adam



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Bug#330701:

2005-09-29 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi,

On Thursday, September 29, 2005 3:36 PM, Michael Setzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
 This means that you have to add something like

 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 to your /etc/security/pam_env.conf and everything should work again as
 usual.

That's a workaround, not a solution. The correct solution is to upgrade to
the fixed version of libpam-modules - the package that caused the problem -
which should hit mirrors tonight (0.79-2)

 Maybe this issue should be reflected in the next version of the
 locales package so that the pam_env.conf file will be upgraded
 properly by any `dpkg-reconfigure locales`.

No. locales shouldn't, and more to the point *can't*, touch pam_env.conf, as
it belongs to an entirely different package.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg -S /etc/security/pam_env.conf
libpam-modules: /etc/security/pam_env.conf

(Hence the first paragraph above, and the fact that I reassigned and closed
this bug earlier).

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Bug#310477: localedef: typo in --help

2005-08-17 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:59 AM, GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 At Mon, 23 May 2005 23:28:01 +0300,
 Lars Wirzenius wrote:
 The English output of localedef --help contains this:

   --posixBe strictly POSIX conform

 The last word should surely be conforming.

 You'll find POSIX conform has been used like a noun via google.

That Google indexes pages containing broken English does not make that
English correct. :-)

 I think this trivial change is not needed.

The current wording certainly does not make sense in English. Either the
suggested wording or, for instance, Conform strictly to POSIX does.

Regards,

Adam



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Bug#321263: libc6-dev: broken header file: linux/joystick.h

2005-08-04 Thread Adam D. Barratt
package libc6-dev
severity 321263 serious
reassign 321263 linux-kernel-headers  2.6.13+0rc3-1
merge 321263 320515
thanks

On Thursday, August 04, 2005 3:15 PM, Bill Currie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Package: libc6-dev
 Version: 2.3.2.ds1-22
 Severity: normal
 Tags: patch


 /usr/include/linux/joystick.h:142:2: error: #error Unexpected
 BITS_PER_LONG

/usr/include/linux/joystick.h is in linux-kernel-headers, not libc6-dev.
This has already been reported against the former, as #320515.

Reassigning and merging.

Regards,

Adam



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Bug#286659: libc6-dev: strtof does not work, strtod works

2004-12-21 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:53 AM, Igor Pesando [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

strtof() works fine, you've just missed a key note at the foot of strtof(3):

CONFORMING TO
   ANSI C describes strtod, C99 describes the other two functions.

By default, gcc will use `gnu89' (ISO C90 plus some GNU extensions) as the
standard to compile against (see gcc(1)). Those extensions *don't* include
strtof() or strtold().

 Try to run
[...]

Compiling the provided sample with saner flags should have highlighted the
fact that there was an issue:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc -Wall -o 286659 286659.c
286659.c: In function `main':
286659.c:14: warning: implicit declaration of function `strtof'

At this point, examining stdlib.h will show that the definition of strtof is
wrapped in a `#ifdef  __USE_ISOC99'. So...

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc -Wall -std=c99 -o 286659 286659.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ./286659
S0=12.30
S1=12.30

IMHO, this bug should be closed as due to user error.

Regards,

Adam



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]