Re: canu - not migrating to testing despite several weeks of no excuses

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 00:39 -0400, Afif Elghraoui wrote: > > على الخميس 12 تشرين الأول 2017 ‫01:48، كتب Adam D. Barratt: > > The britney log says: > > > > trying: canu > > skipped: canu (0, 2975, 79) > > got: 43+0: a-4:i-26:a-2:a-1:a-1:m-1:m-4:m-1:p-1:s-2 > > * arm64: canu > > > > Which

Re: canu - not migrating to testing despite several weeks of no excuses

على الخميس 12 تشرين الأول 2017 ‫01:48، كتب Adam D. Barratt: > The britney log says: > > trying: canu > skipped: canu (0, 2975, 79) > got: 43+0: a-4:i-26:a-2:a-1:a-1:m-1:m-4:m-1:p-1:s-2 > * arm64: canu > > Which indicates that the binary package "canu" would be uninstallable > on (at

Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

On 12 October 2017 at 22:32, Johannes Ranke wrote: | Am Donnerstag, 12. Oktober 2017, 12:01:14 CEST schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel: | | > So we did this 71 times, but stopped 4+ years ago. Not sure what got the | > toolchain coughing, but I guess we could try again. | | texi2dvi used to trip over ~

Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

Am Donnerstag, 12. Oktober 2017, 12:01:14 CEST schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel: > So we did this 71 times, but stopped 4+ years ago. Not sure what got the > toolchain coughing, but I guess we could try again. texi2dvi used to trip over ~ in path names, so for locally building backports we used to

Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

On 12 October 2017 at 19:01, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > So we did this 71 times, but stopped 4+ years ago. Not sure what got the > toolchain coughing, but I guess we could try again. That would be great, thanks!

Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

On 12 October 2017 at 17:45, Graham Inggs wrote: | Hi Dirk | | On 12/10/2017 16:37, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > And yes, the hint re 3.5 being shaky leads itself to uploading to experimental. | | Would you please consider versioning such uploads as 3.5~something | instead of 3.4.something? |

Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

Hi Dirk On 12/10/2017 16:37, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: And yes, the hint re 3.5 being shaky leads itself to uploading to experimental. Would you please consider versioning such uploads as 3.5~something instead of 3.4.something? e.g. your second-to-last upload of r-base was 3.4.1.20170921-1

Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

On 12 October 2017 at 16:18, Sébastien Villemot wrote: | On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:13:54AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > | > On 12 October 2017 at 15:58, Sébastien Villemot wrote: | > | Thanks Charles for explaining this. | > | | > | Actually the migration has already happened, thanks to

Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:13:54AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 12 October 2017 at 15:58, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > | Thanks Charles for explaining this. > | > | Actually the migration has already happened, thanks to the Release Team that > | took appropriate action to mitigate the

Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

On 12 October 2017 at 15:58, Sébastien Villemot wrote: | Thanks Charles for explaining this. | | Actually the migration has already happened, thanks to the Release Team that | took appropriate action to mitigate the impact of the most recent uploads. | | This will soon be reflected in the

Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:40:00PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > the point is that r-base and all the other packages will only migrate to > testing when all of them will be ready at the same time. Packages need > 5 days to migrate to Testing and each upload resets the counter, thus > blocking

Bug#868558: Transition finalised (Was: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised)

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 07:41:35AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > | > | In the interest to close the transition bug opened you opened yourself > | > > | > s/opened// to make it a sentence > | > > | > s/you/Seb/ to make it correct. Not my transition at all. > ... > > You. Still, Don't.

Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

Hi Dirk and everybody the point is that r-base and all the other packages will only migrate to testing when all of them will be ready at the same time. Packages need 5 days to migrate to Testing and each upload resets the counter, thus blocking the migration of all. Therefore, a break of 5 days

Re: Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

Hello Dirk, >The "tag" you kids you badly wanted was introduced with 3.4.2, and hence as a >test with the to-be-replaced-anyway 3.4.1.20170921. > >In short, you seem to not really know what you're talking about. But at >least you make up for in volume. > >No, I played along as maintainer of

Re: Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

On 12 October 2017 at 14:38, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: | Hello, | | >s/you/Seb/ to make it correct. Not my transition at all. | | who-uploads r-base | Uploads for r-base: | 3.4.2-1 to unstable: Dirk Eddelbuettel | 3.4.1.20170921-1 to unstable: Dirk Eddelbuettel

Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

On 12 October 2017 at 14:26, Andreas Tille wrote: | On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 07:06:33AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > | > On 12 October 2017 at 11:36, Andreas Tille wrote: | > | yesterday you uploaded | > | | > | r-cran-rcpparmadillo 0.8.100.1.0-1 | > | | > | In the interest to

Bug#868558: marked as done (transition: r-api-3.4)

Your message dated Thu, 12 Oct 2017 14:38:42 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4) has caused the Debian Bug report #868558, regarding

Re: Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

Hello, >s/you/Seb/ to make it correct. Not my transition at all. who-uploads r-base Uploads for r-base: 3.4.2-1 to unstable: Dirk Eddelbuettel 3.4.1.20170921-1 to unstable: Dirk Eddelbuettel 3.4.1-2 to unstable: Dirk Eddelbuettel yes, I

Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 07:06:33AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 12 October 2017 at 11:36, Andreas Tille wrote: > | yesterday you uploaded > | > | r-cran-rcpparmadillo 0.8.100.1.0-1 > | > | In the interest to close the transition bug opened you opened yourself > >

Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

On 12 October 2017 at 11:36, Andreas Tille wrote: | Hi Dirk, | | yesterday you uploaded | | r-cran-rcpparmadillo 0.8.100.1.0-1 | | In the interest to close the transition bug opened you opened yourself s/opened// to make it a sentence s/you/Seb/ to make it correct. Not my

Bug#868558: Would you please not upload new r-* packages until transition is finalised (Re: r-api-3.4)

Hi Dirk, yesterday you uploaded r-cran-rcpparmadillo 0.8.100.1.0-1 In the interest to close the transition bug opened you opened yourself it would be helpful if you would not upload r-* packages as long as the testing migration has not happened. Thank you Andreas. On Sat, Sep

Bug#871056: transition: openssl

On 21/09/17 21:39, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-09-13 18:51:43 [+0200], Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> tags 871056 confirmed >> thanks > > just noticed that this bug has been confirmed. Does this mean anything > for the openssl transition? Usually this confirmed comes with "Go

Bug#878275: marked as done (nmu: gnss-sdr_0.0.9-5)

Your message dated Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:51:19 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#878275: nmu: gnss-sdr_0.0.9-5 has caused the Debian Bug report #878275, regarding nmu: gnss-sdr_0.0.9-5 to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Bug#878008: marked as done (nmu: eclib_20171002-1)

Your message dated Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:52:51 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#878008: nmu: eclib_20171002-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #878008, regarding nmu: eclib_20171002-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Bug#878187: marked as done (nmu: simbody_3.5.4+dfsg-1)

Your message dated Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:51:59 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#878187: nmu: simbody_3.5.4+dfsg-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #878187, regarding nmu: simbody_3.5.4+dfsg-1 to be marked as done. This means that you

Turnitin Plagiarism Checker account available

Turnitin Plagiarism Checker available If you think Turnitin store the file in the database, then you are wrong. Why? Read it below: There are two types of settings in Turnitin, One is known as repository setting, and another one is known as no repository. The institute’s use repository