Re: Proposed update to python-debian

2011-12-29 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On 28.12.2011 23:45, John Wright wrote: Attached is a patch to the python-debian package which I intend to upload to stable. Apparently you already _have_ uploaded it. Eight hours is really not a long enough time to have waited for a response, particularly when practically all of the release

Re: Proposed update to python-debian

2011-12-29 Thread John Wright
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 08:10:11AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On 28.12.2011 23:45, John Wright wrote: Attached is a patch to the python-debian package which I intend to upload to stable. Apparently you already _have_ uploaded it. Eight hours is really not a long enough time to have

Re: Proposed update to python-debian

2011-12-29 Thread John Wright
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 01:04:48AM -0800, John Wright wrote: On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 08:10:11AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On 28.12.2011 23:45, John Wright wrote: Attached is a patch to the python-debian package which I intend to upload to stable. Apparently you already _have_

Re: potential tiff transition, tiff 4.0.0 strategy

2011-12-29 Thread Julien Cristau
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 09:02:50 -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: So, what is the recommendation of the release team? If you agree that we should do a transition as soon as possible after the final 4.0.0 is released (so that wheezy can have 4.x), do you have any guesses as to when you would be

Re: [SRM] updating ia32-libs and ia32-libs-gtk

2011-12-29 Thread Philipp Kern
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:51:23PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: Given that this will be the final point release for lenny, might it be worth making an exception this time and also including packages from o-p-u? We could also consider to make it not the exception but the rule. The packages

Re: potential tiff transition, tiff 4.0.0 strategy

2011-12-29 Thread Julien Cristau
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:02:17 -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: I'm planning on uploading the new version to unstable but not having it provide libtiff-dev until I hear from the release time how the transition should be handled. That way at least those packages that are already including their

Re: potential tiff transition, tiff 4.0.0 strategy

2011-12-29 Thread Bernhard R. Link
* Jay Berkenbilt q...@debian.org [111229 17:26]: Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote: FWIW, I think it should be required for such a library to use versioned symbols if it doesn't care to keep its ABI stable. While I agree in principle, this is the first ABI change in the over 10

Re: potential tiff transition, tiff 4.0.0 strategy

2011-12-29 Thread Jay Berkenbilt
Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 09:02:50 -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: So, what is the recommendation of the release team? If you agree that we should do a transition as soon as possible after the final 4.0.0 is released (so that wheezy can have 4.x), do you

Re: [SRM] updating ia32-libs and ia32-libs-gtk

2011-12-29 Thread Thijs Kinkhorst
On Wed, December 28, 2011 21:04, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 18:04 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: As for lenny, only an update to ia32-libs is needed: ia32-libs (2.7+lenny3) oldstable; urgency=low * Update packages to their current versions in oldstable: - cups

Re: Ipe transition needs some help

2011-12-29 Thread Julien Cristau
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:21:04 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Hi, Ipe 7.1.1-1 was uploaded 17 days ago with no RC bugs but has not made it into testing. The excuse is below. Does this need some manual intervention from the release team? No, libipe7.1.0 needs to stop having reverse

Ipe transition needs some help

2011-12-29 Thread Steve M. Robbins
Hi, Ipe 7.1.1-1 was uploaded 17 days ago with no RC bugs but has not made it into testing. The excuse is below. Does this need some manual intervention from the release team? Excuse for ipe 17 days old (needed 10 days) out of date on i386: libipe7.1.0 (from 7.1.0-1) out of date

Re: Ipe transition needs some help

2011-12-29 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Hi, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca (29/12/2011): Ipe 7.1.1-1 was uploaded 17 days ago with no RC bugs but has not made it into testing. The excuse is below. Does this need some manual intervention from the release team? Excuse for ipe 17 days old (needed 10 days) out of

Re: Proposed update to python-debian

2011-12-29 Thread Philipp Kern
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:50:00PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: This problem seems to occur with regular intervals. Wouldn't it be possible to change dak so that uploads are queued in a way that makes it less of a problem should they not be accepted lateron? Also makes it easier for the

Re: Proposed update to python-debian

2011-12-29 Thread Moritz Mühlenhoff
Thijs Kinkhorst th...@debian.org schrieb: On Thu, December 29, 2011 09:10, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On 28.12.2011 23:45, John Wright wrote: Attached is a patch to the python-debian package which I intend to upload to stable. Apparently you already _have_ uploaded it. Eight hours is really

Re: Proposed update to python-debian

2011-12-29 Thread Thijs Kinkhorst
On Thu, December 29, 2011 09:10, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On 28.12.2011 23:45, John Wright wrote: Attached is a patch to the python-debian package which I intend to upload to stable. Apparently you already _have_ uploaded it. Eight hours is really not a long enough time to have waited for a

Re: [SRM] updating ia32-libs and ia32-libs-gtk

2011-12-29 Thread Thijs Kinkhorst
On Thu, December 29, 2011 13:18, Philipp Kern wrote: On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:51:23PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: Given that this will be the final point release for lenny, might it be worth making an exception this time and also including packages from o-p-u? We could also consider to

Re: Ipe transition needs some help

2011-12-29 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 07:46:24PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:21:04 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Hi, Ipe 7.1.1-1 was uploaded 17 days ago with no RC bugs but has not made it into testing. The excuse is below. Does this need some manual intervention

Re: Ipe transition needs some help

2011-12-29 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 07:33:14PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hi, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca (29/12/2011): Ipe 7.1.1-1 was uploaded 17 days ago with no RC bugs but has not made it into testing. The excuse is below. Does this need some manual intervention from the release team?

Re: Ipe transition needs some help

2011-12-29 Thread Julien Cristau
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 14:34:21 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 07:46:24PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: Which means libcgal-ipelets needs to be built against the new version. The libcgal-ipelets package is non-free. I would not have expected non-free to be

Re: potential tiff transition, tiff 4.0.0 strategy

2011-12-29 Thread Paul Wise
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Julien Cristau wrote: That makes me kind of nervous.  Which packages are those? Potential packages from the security team's embedded-code-copies file: tiff - wxwindows2.4 2.2.1 (embed) - gamera 3.2.3-1 (embed) - freeimage unfixed (embed)

Bug#653665: nmu: cgal_3.9-1

2011-12-29 Thread Steve M. Robbins
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu cgal_3.9-1 . ALL . -m rebuild against new libipe7.1.1 -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')

Re: potential tiff transition, tiff 4.0.0 strategy

2011-12-29 Thread Russ Allbery
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes: On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Julien Cristau wrote: That makes me kind of nervous.  Which packages are those? Potential packages from the security team's embedded-code-copies file: tiff - wxwindows2.4 2.2.1 (embed) - gamera 3.2.3-1