Bug#825342: mips/mipsel: make sure all packages built with fpxx enabled

On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 09/06/16 21:13, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 07/06/16 19:38, YunQiang Su wrote: >>> After the 1st step of binNMU of mipsel (mips is still running), >> >> mips is finally catching up. >> >>> We still have

Bug#827111: jessie-pu: package exim4/4.84.2-2

Hi Adam, On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 08:50:47PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi Adam, > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 07:28:33PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, 2016-07-25 at 20:14 +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > > Hi Adam, > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at

Bug#832470: nmu: deal.ii_8.4.1-1

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016, at 16:05 CDT, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > What's the bug number? There is no reported bug so far. > A binNMU to workaround an ABI break is usually the wrong approach, > unless there has been a SONAME bump. libtrilinos-teuchos12 changed ABI from

Bug#832470: nmu: deal.ii_8.4.1-1

Hi Emilio The bug in trilinos is #830681. There wasn't a SONAME bump, libtrilinos_teuchoscore.so was dynamically linked against libbfd-2.26-system.so which is not allowed. This latest of version of deal.ii is the only reverse dependency of trilinos and only the amd64 build which I uploaded is

Re: RC bug status for perl packages (re '.' in @INC removal)

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 06:34:01PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 25/07/16 17:20, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > Hello, > > > > As you will see from the below DSA, a class of vulnerabilities in > > perl programs has been announced today. We have fixed the worst parts of > > this in

Bug#832477: pu: libtool

Package: release.debian.org Tags: jessie User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu Hi, I would like to fix #800446 in stable. It was caused by the uploader not using the current version of automake when uploading the binary package. The i386 and amd64 version need to be build

Bug#832470: nmu: deal.ii_8.4.1-1

On 25/07/16 22:51, Matthias Maier wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: binnmu > > nmu deal.ii_8.4.1-1 . amd64 . unstable . -m "Rebuild against trilinos > 12.6.3-2 due to ABI change" What's the bug number? A binNMU to

Bug#832470: nmu: deal.ii_8.4.1-1

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu deal.ii_8.4.1-1 . amd64 . unstable . -m "Rebuild against trilinos 12.6.3-2 due to ABI change" -- System Information: Debian Release: stretch/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy:

Re: Bug#830267: dpkg: Segmentation fault when purging package in APT test case

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:41:08 -0500 Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > [dropped #830267 from CC; it's not directly relevant to this branch of the > > discussion] So be it. [...] > > Does the BTS take account of entries in Sources marked > >

Bug#827111: jessie-pu: package exim4/4.84.2-2

Hi Adam, On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 07:28:33PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 2016-07-25 at 20:14 +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 06:54:08PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > [CC += team@security] > > > > > > On Mon, 2016-07-25 at

Bug#827111: jessie-pu: package exim4/4.84.2-2

Hi, On Mon, 2016-07-25 at 20:14 +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi Adam, > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 06:54:08PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > [CC += team@security] > > > > On Mon, 2016-07-25 at 19:35 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > > now we have 4.84.2-1+deb8u1 in stable security and

Bug#827111: jessie-pu: package exim4/4.84.2-2

Hi Adam, On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 06:54:08PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > [CC += team@security] > > On Mon, 2016-07-25 at 19:35 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > now we have 4.84.2-1+deb8u1 in stable security and 4.84.2-2 in spu would > > overwrite it at the next stable release. How do I fix

Bug#827111: jessie-pu: package exim4/4.84.2-2

[CC += team@security] On Mon, 2016-07-25 at 19:35 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > now we have 4.84.2-1+deb8u1 in stable security and 4.84.2-2 in spu would > overwrite it at the next stable release. How do I fix this properly? :-( The DSA claims -2+deb8u1 was released, but that's clearly

Bug#827111: jessie-pu: package exim4/4.84.2-2

On 2016-06-17 "Adam D. Barratt" wrote: > Control: tags -1 + pending > On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 18:38 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > On 2016-06-12 "Adam D. Barratt" wrote: > > > Control: tags -1 + confirmed > > > > > On Sun, 2016-06-12 at

Re: RC bug status for perl packages (re '.' in @INC removal)

On 25/07/16 17:20, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > Hello, > > As you will see from the below DSA, a class of vulnerabilities in > perl programs has been announced today. We have fixed the worst parts of > this in Debian, but ultimately we'd like to (in keeping with upstream's > intentions for 5.26)

Bug#832102: transition: ftplib

On 22/07/16 12:12, Raphaël Hertzog wrote: > I took this opportunity to rename "ftplib-dev" into "libftp-dev", > the latter providing the former so as to not break existing build > dependencies. Similarly ftplib3 morphed into libftp4. You should file bugs against the build-rdeps so they

Re: migration exception for mhap

Hi, On 25/07/16 11:13, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > On 2016-07-24 23:11, Afif Elghraoui wrote: >> not that it's supposed to be usable on >> every single one. > > It still has to be installable. > >> Barring porting libssw to i386 or reducing functionality of the package >> to remove dependency

Bug#819530: transition: icu

On 25/07/16 08:48, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort > wrote: >> On 22/07/16 09:26, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: >>> Back in time I had big hardware problems and only tested LibreOffice, >>> which was successful. HW

Re: Bug#830267: dpkg: Segmentation fault when purging package in APT test case

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > [dropped #830267 from CC; it's not directly relevant to this branch of the > discussion] > > On 2016-07-24 17:43, Don Armstrong wrote: > >On Sun, 24 Jul 2016, Francesco Poli wrote: > [...] > >>could you please investigate on what happened to bug

RC bug status for perl packages (re '.' in @INC removal)

Hello, As you will see from the below DSA, a class of vulnerabilities in perl programs has been announced today. We have fixed the worst parts of this in Debian, but ultimately we'd like to (in keeping with upstream's intentions for 5.26) remove the current directory from the module search path

Bug#827755: transition: kdepim-16.04

¡Hola Emilio! El 2016-07-25 a las 12:19 +0200, Maximiliano Curia escribió: ¡Hola Emilio! El 2016-07-13 a las 16:17 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort escribió: Just let me know when things are ready to migrate and I will lift the block. I think that every kdepim 16.04 package is ready to migrate

Bug#807654: jessie-pu: package python-django/1.7.11-1

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016, Julien Cristau wrote: > Please go ahead. Thanks, uploaded 1.7.11-1. Note that I had to merge in the latest security updates and due to git-dpm usage by the python team and its lack of proper merge support (#801667), there is some noise in the debdiff due to renamed patches.

Re: migration exception for mhap

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:13:13AM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Maybe you want "arch:any-amd64 x32" then? This is a side-issue nitpick, but FWIW, x32 satisfies the "any-amd64" wildcard (because the triplet is "gnux32-linux-amd64"), so "Architecture: any-amd64" would be sufficient. --

Bug#827755: transition: kdepim-16.04

¡Hola Emilio! El 2016-07-13 a las 16:17 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort escribió: Just let me know when things are ready to migrate and I will lift the block. I think that every kdepim 16.04 package is ready to migrate to testing, some of the issues have been addressed, and delaying the

Re: Bug#830267: dpkg: Segmentation fault when purging package in APT test case

[dropped #830267 from CC; it's not directly relevant to this branch of the discussion] On 2016-07-24 17:43, Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2016, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] could you please investigate on what happened to bug #830267 on 2016-07-19T10:00 ? Please take a look at

Re: gitlab is wrongly marked for autoremoval

On 2016-07-25 8:41, Pirate Praveen wrote: tracker.debian.org/gitlab [1] shows: Marked for autoremoval on 29 July: 827846, 827100, 830241, 830917 high Version of gitlab is marked for autoremoval from testing on Fri 29 Jul 2016. It is affected by 827846, 827100. It depends (transitively) on

Re: migration exception for mhap

On 2016-07-24 23:11, Afif Elghraoui wrote: على الأحد 24 تـمـوز 2016 ‫05:32، كتب Jonathan Wiltshire: On 2016-07-23 23:14, Afif Elghraoui wrote: mhap is arch:all. libssw-java contains Java bindings for its C library and is not supported on i386. The dependencies are not broken. I hope this is

gitlab is wrongly marked for autoremoval

Hi, tracker.debian.org/gitlab shows: Marked for autoremoval on 29 July: 827846, 827100, 830241, 830917 high Version of gitlab is marked for autoremoval from testing on Fri 29 Jul 2016. It is affected by 827846, 827100. It depends (transitively) on ruby-mechanize and ruby-omniauth-openid,

Bug#819530: transition: icu

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 22/07/16 09:26, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: >> Back in time I had big hardware problems and only tested LibreOffice, >> which was successful. HW issues is softened by Martin F. Krafft and >> Jeffrey Walton

Bug#828187: transition: rtmidi

On 2016-07-24 13:28, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: On 2016-07-24 13:18, Jaromír Mikeš wrote: all packages related to rtmidi transition are fixed and uploaded to unstable. Can I now upload rtmidi 2.1.1 to unstable? Yes please. I see the upload; rebuilds scheduled. -- Jonathan Wiltshire