On 12/26/18 3:39 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 24/12/2018 20:30, Simon Quigley wrote:
>> Package: release.debian.org
>> Severity: normal
>> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
>> Usertags: transition
>>
>> Hello Release Team,
>>
>> I would like to do a yaml-cpp transition to 0.6.2
On 12/25/18 3:46 PM, Dominik George wrote:
[...]
>
> Name of the new repository
> ==
>
> In the past, the name “volatile” was used for a similar repository, but
> with a different scope (limited to data packages for things like virus
> scanners). I will thus use the work
Hi,
> How to handle upgrades from stable to stable+1. Packages from backports
> upgrade with no issues as stable+1 contains the same packages already
> compiled for the stable+1.
As long as the package is in -volatile, it is not in stable+1, and
upgrades are ensured by the volatile maintainer. If
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forwarded 917323 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/gdal-2-4-0.html
Bug #917323 [release.debian.org] transition: gdal
Set Bug forwarded-to-address to
'https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/gdal-2-4-0.html'.
> thanks
Stopping proces
> - Should the package begin to migrate to testing again, it must
>be moved to stable-backports.
>
> - Using the same ~bpo version namespace
Both of these poitns are there to *not* change anything about backports.
If a package stops qualifying for -volatile, and starts qualifying for
-backp
Dominik George wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> 2. I am happy with the current charter of backports and I think it's
>> possible to move forward with fastpaced without having to change
>> that charter.
>
> Yep. That's exactly why the proposal changes nothing about -backports. I
> am sti
Hi,
> 2. I am happy with the current charter of backports and I think it's
> possible to move forward with fastpaced without having to change
> that charter.
Yep. That's exactly why the proposal changes nothing about -backports. I
am still confused why Alex and you keep insisting that an
On 2018, ഡിസംബർ 26 10:15:35 PM IST, Dominik George
wrote:
>No. The dpendencies of gitlab not being accepted into backports right
>now is an entirely different issue. I am repeating myself: This
>proposal
>is not intended to ease the life of maintainers whose packages qulify
>for -backports. Th
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Dominik George wrote:
> > >If there are other issues to solve than the lifespan of the package
> > >version, they must be solved in another way.
> >
> > I agree with you, it is the best outcome. But when people with power
> > (-backports ftp masters) are not willing to consid
Hi,
Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I agree with you, it is the best outcome. But when people with power
> (-backports ftp masters) are not willing to consider it, we have to
> go with plan B, which is less than ideal, but can move things
> forward.
Just to avoid this being thought of as an idiosyncrasy
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>
>
> On 2018, ഡിസംബർ 26 10:15:35 PM IST, Dominik George
> wrote:
> >No. The dpendencies of gitlab not being accepted into backports right
> >now is an entirely different issue. I am repeating myself: This
> >proposal
> >is not intended to ease the li
> >If there are other issues to solve than the lifespan of the package
> >version, they must be solved in another way.
>
> I agree with you, it is the best outcome. But when people with power
> (-backports ftp masters) are not willing to consider it, we have to go
> with plan B, which is less than
Processing control commands:
> block 916817 by -1
Bug #916817 [release.debian.org] transition: remove python3.6
916817 was not blocked by any bugs.
916817 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 916817: 917369
--
916817: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=916817
917369
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Dominik George wrote:
> > I don't want backports to contain things are are not suited for a
> > release.
>
> That's why we are doing all this. It is NOT about anything to backports.
> It is about adding something new that uses the same RULES as backports,
> with a slight dive
> I don't want backports to contain things are are not suited for a
> release.
That's why we are doing all this. It is NOT about anything to backports.
It is about adding something new that uses the same RULES as backports,
with a slight diversion, and thus can also make use of infrastructure
alre
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Dominik George wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 03:05:55PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > (Can we keep this on one mailing list, please? /me restricts this to
> > -devel)
>
> No. This has the potential of keeping people who are directly impacted
> by this proposal
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 03:05:55PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> (Can we keep this on one mailing list, please? /me restricts this to
> -devel)
No. This has the potential of keeping people who are directly impacted
by this proposal out of the loop.
> And besides that, I think the more univ
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>
>
> On 2018, ഡിസംബർ 26 2:16:07 AM IST, Dominik George
> wrote:
> >Heisann, alle sammen,
> >
> >as announced in the recent thread about maintaining, I hereby propose a
> >repository that allows making “backports” of packages available to
> >users
> >
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 01:04:44PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> If it has to be completely separate from -backports, it means some packages
> will need to be maintained twice, even when they meet the criteria for
> backports fully, just because a package in volatile declare a dependency on
> t
>> I actually think volatile is a good name. After all, it's not so far
>from the previous volatile.
>
>volatile is a very bad name for this because we've used it already for
>something else.
Well, I consider it more or less the same basic idea. The old and new ideas
have more in common than not,
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #917196 [release.debian.org] transition: qtbase-opensource-src
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
917196: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=917196
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 25/12/2018 16:10, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> We are ready to go.
Go ahead.
Emilio
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 12:07:42AM +0100, Dominik George wrote:
> I actually think volatile is a good name. After all, it's not so far from the
> previous volatile.
volatile is a very bad name for this because we've used it already for
something else.
--
cheers,
Holger
---
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 05:46:59PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > I'd like to update debian-security-support in Stretch to the version
> Please go ahead.
uploaded & accepted, thanks.
--
cheers,
Holger
---
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 07/12/2018 20:01, Birger Schacht wrote:
> hi,
>
> i did a rebuild of all reverse dependencies using ratt and submitted bug
> reports to the packages i found to fail rebuild:
> bti_034-3: #915839
> opensips_2.2.2-3 #904660
> ptask_1.0.0-1 #915840
> hhvm_3.24.7+dfsg-2:
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #904418 [release.debian.org] transition: json-c
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
904418: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=904418
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
On 24/12/2018 20:30, Simon Quigley wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
>
> Hello Release Team,
>
> I would like to do a yaml-cpp transition to 0.6.2 before the
> Transition Freeze. It has been in Experimenta
On 19/12/2018 09:33, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 19.12.18 04:54, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> that's what I used for Ubuntu:
>>
>> title = "Drop Python3.6 compiled extensions";
>> is_affected = .build-depends ~
>> /python3(-all)?-dev|python3|python3.6|python3.7/;
>> is_good = .depends ~ /python3 \(>= 3
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #917289 [release.debian.org] transition: ntfs-3g
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
917289: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=917289
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 25/12/2018 17:44, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
>
> Hi RMs,
>
> Small transition of ntfs-3g from 2017.3.23 to 2017.3.23AR.3 and
> involves the fo
Your message dated Wed, 26 Dec 2018 10:21:01 +0100
with message-id <1cc801ed-21bb-a56a-5381-c89e1fd22...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#917053: nmu: openmsx_0.15.0-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #917053,
regarding nmu: openmsx_0.15.0-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
31 matches
Mail list logo
