Stable update for python-recaptcha

2011-08-31 Thread Vincent Bernat
Hi! python-recaptcha uses a webservice whose URL have changed. A fixed version has been uploaded to sid but since the package in stable is not usable anymore because of this change, I have prepared an upload for stable. Attached is the diff to the current version in squeeze. May I

Bug#639871: transition: gssdp/gupnp

2011-08-31 Thread Andreas Henriksson
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition The GUPnP stack has been released in a new major upstream versions and the two base components (gssdp gupnp) have bumped their sonames now that we're breaking API/ABI[1][2]. The new

Removal of linux-modules-di-* packages

2011-08-31 Thread Philipp Kern
Hi, can the linux-modules-di-* packages be removed from unstable? They seem to be built against 2.6.30 anyway and hence not useful. If so I can file the RM bugs. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- .''`. Philipp KernDebian Developer : :' : http://philkern.de

Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting [and 1 more messages]

2011-08-31 Thread Ian Jackson
Lucas Nussbaum writes (Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting): However, issues such as miscompilation or broken syscall or libc semantics are largely undetected. To illustrate this, you can have a look at #635126 (miscompilation on armel and sparc) and #639658 (forks+threads fun on

Re: Removal of linux-modules-di-* packages

2011-08-31 Thread Otavio Salvador
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:58, Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org wrote: can the linux-modules-di-* packages be removed from unstable?  They seem to be built against 2.6.30 anyway and hence not useful.  If so I can file the RM bugs. Yes; those can be removed. Thanks by handling it. -- Otavio

Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting [and 1 more messages]

2011-08-31 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: Let me make an alternative proposal: * The root cause bug in the BTS would be given a special tag (arch-blocker:arch or something). I will call such a bug which is open and has existed in this state for 30 days a ripe arch

NEW changes in proposedupdates

2011-08-31 Thread Debian FTP Masters
Processing changes file: nss_3.12.8-1+squeeze2_amd64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: nss_3.12.8-1+squeeze2_armel.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: nss_3.12.8-1+squeeze2_i386.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: nss_3.12.8-1+squeeze2_ia64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes

NEW changes in oldproposedupdates

2011-08-31 Thread Debian FTP Masters
Processing changes file: nss_3.12.3.1-0lenny5_amd64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: nss_3.12.3.1-0lenny5_alpha.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: nss_3.12.3.1-0lenny5_arm.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: nss_3.12.3.1-0lenny5_armel.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file:

ca-certificates version number reuse

2011-08-31 Thread Thijs Kinkhorst
Hi, After the ca-certficates update to stable was installed into the archive, it was found out that its version number 20090814+nmu3 had already been used in the first upload to unstable after the squeeze release. This is unfortunate, but because the update has already been installed into the