Dear release team,
I would like gap 4.9.3 to enter testing before I upload gap 4.10.0 to
unstable. Unfortunately it seems to be stuck due to autopkgtests
of other packages that are failing but that are fixed in unstable.
Could something be done do about that ?
Thanks in advance for your answers,
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:16:17PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Julien Cristau (2017-06-15):
> > It sounds like openjdk-8 added two Breaks recently, one or both of
> > which are causing trouble, and none of which fix anything as bad as
> > this. So I think we should remove the Breaks on tzdata
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:16:43AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>
> On 25/10/16 10:48, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:19:29AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 24/10/16
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:19:29AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 24/10/16 13:44, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: transition
> >
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Dear release team, I would like to upgrade PARI to the upcoming 2.9.0
stable version, which bump the soname of libpari-gmp-tls4 to
libpari-gmp-tls5.
libpari-gmp-tls5 is in the NEW queue.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> Just to make it clear:
>
> * You seem to be making the case that we have lost the ability to
>produce (truly) LSB compliant binaries and the tech-ctte were not
>fully informed about the true scope of the conseq
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 04:58:37PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2015-03-14 14:12, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:22:17AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> >> On 2015-02-23 17:49, Niels Thykier wrote:
> >>> Control: tags -1 wontfix
> >>
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:22:17AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2015-02-23 17:49, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 wontfix
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > As debated in #774737, we will only be shipping with one implementation
> > of libjpeg, so I am afraid I will have to decline this request.
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:54:16PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> I am sorry you feel that way. I assumed that you were aware, given that
> you replied to the tech-ctte decision in which our statement was
> included (in fact, you retained it in quoted part of your reply).
My understanding was and
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 08:02:38AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> I am afraid I do not see how removing libjpeg9 from testing is
> inconsistent with the tech-ctte decision.
You need to reread the full decision in context.
> The very first item of their
> resolution text states that:
>
> 1. [...
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 08:32:58PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Control: tags -1 moreinfo
>
> On 2015-01-28 00:34, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 08:02:38AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Could you list the features th
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 08:02:38AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could you list the features that the turbo-variant is missing, which are
> present in the current version of libjpeg-progs from Wheezy? Are there
> any lacking features beyond the "SmartScale" feature?
Yes, there are a numb
Control: tags -1 -moreinfo
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 05:39:46PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Control: tags -1 moreinfo
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Please forgive me if I misunderstood something; I was not too involved
> in the libjpeg transition.
>
> It is my understanding that there is all utilities / ser
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please allow libjpeg9 back in jessie.
The removal of libjpeg9 implies the removal of libjpeg-progs
which is in wheezy and used by a number of users, thus it
is not unused. It would be disru
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 06:45:12PM +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 07:33:00PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Please unblock package gap to fix bug #772869
>
> Already unblocked by Niels on 16th Dec, please check excuses output first
> next time.
So
gap-4r7p5/debian/changelog 2014-07-03 19:04:27.0 +0200
+++ gap-4r7p5/debian/changelog 2014-12-14 20:35:28.0 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+gap (4r7p5-2) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * gap-core.triggers: use interest-noawait. Thanks Guillem Jover.
+Closes: #772869
+
+ -- Bill Allombert S
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Dera release team,
Please unblock package libjpeg6b (and unstuck it from NEW).
libjpeg6b binaries were hijacked by the libjpeg-turbo source package, but this
have been resolved. So I made
. Thanks to David Bremner
for the help. Closes: #769219
-- Bill Allombert Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:55:55 +0100
I join the full diff. Note that there is two useless files that are removed
(they were included by mistake in the previous upload, sorry about that).
unblock debian-policy/3.9.6.1
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 03:04:56PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> Hello Tim Wootton, release-team, et.al.!
>
> Thanks for your bug report.
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:00:16AM +, Tim Wootton wrote:
> > Package: bsdutils
> > Version: 1:2.25.2-2
> > Severity: serious
> > Justification: Po
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:31:45AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014, at 21:14, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Version: 1:1.3.1-4
> > >
> > > My understanding is that this bug can be now closed as
> > > the libjpeg-progs are not built from src:li
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:03:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I hope we could leave it as that for the upload - nobody has a time
> machine to undo the upload, but we could try to make it better now and
> discuss where we should go.
Ok, let's focus on libjpeg-progs, since I do not think there i
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 12:37:09PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >>seemed like the sensible thing to do, and I didn't see any problem
> >>with the proposed plan. After all, libjpeg62 had been long
> >>deprecated in favor of libjpeg8. Neither of us thought you would
> >>care about libjpeg62
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 01:41:02AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 30/09/14 11:32, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 08:55:16PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> >>Bill,
> >>
> >>I am very sorry that I have not Cced everything related to the
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 08:55:16PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Bill,
>
> I am very sorry that I have not Cced everything related to the
> libjpeg-transition
> to you. I have honestly believed that you and everyone else involved was
> following the transition plan as mentioned in #717076#225. As fo
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 06:31:39PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 15.08.2014 18:10, schrieb Michael Biebl:
> > Am 15.08.2014 17:47, schrieb Gerrit Pape:
> >> Severity: serious
> >> Justification: Policy 2.5
>
> [..]
>
> > That this rule is violated in hundreds of cases [1] clearly shows that
>
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 07:27:14PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + pending
>
> On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 19:00 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 19:04 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 04:11:10PM +010
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 04:11:10PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + wheezy confirmed
> Control: clone -1 -2
> Control: retitle -2 pu: package libjpeg62/6b1-3
>
> On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 16:57 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I have been requested by the se
/debian/changelog 2012-01-29 19:51:42.0 +0100
+++ libjpeg8-8d/debian/changelog 2013-12-03 23:07:33.0 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+libjpeg8 (8d-2) unstable; urgency=high
+
+ * Apply upstream patch to fix CVE-2013-6629 and CVE-2013-6630.
+closes: #729867.
+
+ -- Bill Allombert Mon, 02
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 09:52:17AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a friendly reminder. If you are listed below, then the listed
> packages of yours will be automatically removed from testing within 15
> days. The "first batch" of automatic removals will happen in about 8
> days.
>
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:38:29AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> We also got a number of people interested in architectures not currently
> in unstable. These are:
>
> alpha: Bill MacAllister (!DD), Kieron Gillespie (!DD)
> arm64: Wookey (DD)
> parisc/hppa: Helge Deller (!DD)
> ppc64: Ste
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 08:30:15PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 07:15:11PM +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 08:47:16PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Le vendredi 25 janvier 2013 à 13:52 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 07:15:11PM +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 08:47:16PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le vendredi 25 janvier 2013 à 13:52 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> > > Le lundi 07 janvier 2013 à 11:41 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> > > > gnome-
[ Christian Perrier ]
[ Debconf translations ]
* Latvian (Rūdolfs Mazurs). Closes: #674661
* Lithuanian (Rimas Kudelis). Closes: #675629
* Galician (Jorge Barreiro). Closes: #676988
* Welsh (Daffyd Tomos).
* Uyghur (Sahran). Closes: #627009
-- Bill Allombert Tue, 25 Sep 2012
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: freeze-exception
Dear Release team.
Please unblock package menu-l10n.
This package is a pure l10n package containing the translation of all the menu
entries. I only update it during the freeze bec
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 08:50:54PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 18:19:20 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > Dear release team,
> >
> > I have NMUed most of the remaining packages that build-depended on
> > libjpeg62-dev.
> >
> &g
Dear release team,
I have NMUed most of the remaining packages that build-depended on
libjpeg62-dev.
I think the only remaining packages are:
compiz-fusion-plugins-main
kphotoalbum
but they seems quite old.
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a large red swirl here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Dear Debian release team,
In the interest of moving forward with the libjpeg8 migration, I suggest to
binNMU packages that depends on libjpeg62 but do not Build-Depends (directly)
on libjpeg62-dev
Please find the list below assuming my computation are correct.
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a large
Dear release team,
In the interest of moving forward with the libjpeg8 migration,
I suggest to binNMU packages that build-depends on libjpeg-dev but still depends
on libjpeg62.
Please find the list below assuming my computation are correct.
Furthermore how do you like to proceed with the remaini
Dear release team,
In the interest of moving forward with the libjpeg8 migration,
I suggest to binNMU packages that build-depends on libjpeg-dev but still depends
on libjpeg62.
Please find the list below assuming my computation are correct.
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a large red swirl here.
af
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 05:30:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 18/07/11 at 20:05 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 19:59:50 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 08:25:08AM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote:
>
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 08:25:08AM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> Package: libtiff4-dev
> Version: 3.9.5-1
> Severity: normal
>
> As the subject says, libtiff4 currently depends on libjpeg62, while
> libtiff4-dev
> depends on libjpeg-dev which is only provided by libjpeg8-dev. So there's a
>
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 08:33:18PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 15:47:27 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > There still remain 15 packages dependending on libjpeg62-dev, however I am
> > not sure it
> > is worth delaying the transition more. Ma
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 11:43:40PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 23:13:03 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > Given the large legacy of libjpeg62, it is probably safer to keep it.
> > Also having libjpeg62-dev an alias for libjpeg8-dev is going to be
>
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 11:43:40PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 23:13:03 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > Given the large legacy of libjpeg62, it is probably safer to keep it.
> > Also having libjpeg62-dev an alias for libjpeg8-dev is going to be
>
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 10:38:37PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 16:29:17 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > One issue with this transition is that a number of packages still depends
&
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:13:53PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > They'll still need to be fixed when we make the switch, since some of
> > them are libraries with a non-trivial number of reverse dependencies.
> > Of course one option could be to make them build-depend on
> > libjpeg62-dev, but i
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 01:53:03PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:13:08 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > Hi Bill,
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2011
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 18:08:21 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > Dear release team,
> >
> > I would like to proceed with the libjpeg8 transition. What are your plan ?
> >
Dear release team,
I would like to proceed with the libjpeg8 transition. What are your plan ?
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a large red swirl here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
A
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 09:27:52AM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Mehdi Dogguy (me...@debian.org):
>
> > Do you intend to fix that in unstable? Did you submit a bug so that it's
> > kept under someone's radar?
> >
> > In any case, like what jcristau said… so closing this bugreport.
>
]
* Pre-Depend on debconf (>= 1.5.34) to properly handle Serbian (Latin)
debconf translation
* Translations:
- Serbian (Janos Guljas). Closes: #600123
- Serbian in Latin script (Janos Guljas). Closes: #600124
-- Bill Allombert Thu, 23 Dec 2010 12:24:36 +0100
unblock popular
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 07:14:18PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 22:17 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Please unblock package gap. I have made this upload to fix an FTBFS on
> > kfreebsd-i386
> > and kfreebsd-amd64.
>
> Have the resulting packa
on kfreebsd.
-- Bill Allombert Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:07:30 +0100
unblock gap/4r4p12-2
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a large red swirl here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.o
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 09:24:25PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 21:48 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Please unblock package popularity-contest before the release.
> [...]
> > I have kept 1.49 only in sid for some times so that we can gather separate
[ Bill Allombert ]
* popcon.pl:
- sync with popcon.debian.org version: add source (max) ratings.
* debian/control:
- Build-Depends: raise debhelper version to (>=5) to match compat.
- Updated Standards-Version from 3.8.1 to 3.9.1. No change needed.
[ Christian Perr
by Christian Perrier (Closes: #599546)
-- Bill Allombert Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:21:58 +0200
menu-l10n (0.20101006) unstable; urgency=low
* Squeeze Translation update:
- Added: French translation by Christian Perrier (Closes: #597598)
- Updated: German translation by Chris Leick (Closes
Dear Debian release team,
I would like to enquire about the status of the libjpeg6b1 transition.
According to my computation, there 512 binaries packages in squeeze that link
against libjpeg62,
466 of them have been rebuild against libjpeg6b1. So it remains 46 packages
that did not.
This corresp
an/control:
- Suggests menu-l10n.
- Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.1.
* Fix spelling error in /usr/share/menu/README.
Thanks to Filipus Klutiero. Closes: #592114
-- Bill Allombert Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:48:27 +0200
unblock menu/2.1.44
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a large red swirl here.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:41:14PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> I'd say just bump it to 6b1 to avoid spurious ld.so warnings. If
> there's no other change than the versioning in the new libjpeg then it
> will go in testing in 10 days so shouldn't hold up too much stuff.
I reached the same concl
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:05:54AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 01:28:46 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > A new upstream release that provides versionned symbols has been released
> > (6b1) and I have prepared the Debian packages. This release has an
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 07:21:07PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 01:28 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:57:42AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 19:54:25 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > >
&g
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:57:42AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 19:54:25 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > Well, at this stage I have discussed with upstream. There is a new (non
> > Debian specific) tarball prepared that provides versionned symb
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 09:50:29PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 21:13:25 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > Dear Debian release team,
> >
> > I like to do a transition to libjpeg6b-with-versionned symbols before
> > the freeze to open
Dear Debian release team,
I like to do a transition to libjpeg6b-with-versionned symbols before
the freeze to open the possibility for moving to libjpeg8 in squeeze+1.
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a large red swirl here.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 01:03:19AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 00:29:45 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 09:44:57PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Sune Vuorela (nos...@vuorela.dk) [100214 21:32]:
> > > I fea
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 09:42:58PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Dear fellow developers,
>
> We would like to know what needs attention, what bugs still need to be
> fixed in your package before squeeze is released, which features or new
> upstream versions you want to see in squeeze which are not
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 09:44:57PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sune Vuorela (nos...@vuorela.dk) [100214 21:32]:
> I fear I need to agree with you. We should have libjpeg62 with
> symbols, recompile every package build-depending on libjpeg*-dev after
> that till the release, and then move to lib
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 12:17:42PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Bill Allombert (bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr) [100214 10:19]:
> > The second step would be to fix packages that Build-Depend on
> > 'libjpeg62-dev'
> > to Build-Depend on 'libjpeg-dev&
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 08:00:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Sven Joachim wrote:
> > On 2010-02-11 19:38 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> >
> >> Bill Allombert wrote:
> >>> libjpeg62-dev need to be kept for LSB compatibility.
> >> Can you point me to the se
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 07:38:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:54:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> >> Julien Cristau wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 23:08:41 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >>>
>
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:54:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 23:08:41 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >
> >> It is API compatible. As I said, I have rebuilt locally the 311 packages
> >> that build-depends on libjp
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:45:50PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:40:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 03:27:06PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >>> jpeg8 is now in testing and libterralib a
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:12:08AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Are any of these packages actually buildable now? For instance,
>
> This is a good question. Please postpone the binNMU.
Also, it appears my list was truncated.
> I will report the full list of packages th
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:53:17AM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2010-02-09 23:39 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:40:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 03:27:06PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >> >
&
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:40:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 03:27:06PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >
> > jpeg8 is now in testing and libterralib and sdop has been fixed already,
> > so I would like to start the transition by uploading a versio
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 03:27:06PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:52:48AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 02:01:44PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Dear Debian release team,
> > >
> > > I like to
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:52:48AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 02:01:44PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Dear Debian release team,
> >
> > I like to proceed with the libjpeg8 transition, skipping libjpeg7 entirely.
> >
> > libjpeg8
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 02:01:44PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Dear Debian release team,
>
> I like to proceed with the libjpeg8 transition, skipping libjpeg7 entirely.
>
> libjpeg8 packages are in the NEW queue. I have rebuild the 271 packages that
> Build-Depends
Dear Debian release team,
I like to proceed with the libjpeg8 transition, skipping libjpeg7 entirely.
libjpeg8 packages are in the NEW queue. I have rebuild the 271 packages that
Build-Depends on libjpeg-dev and libjpeg62-dev against libjpeg8-dev and I
will soon send to the BTS the 7 FTBFS I fou
> Heya,
>
> As announced on dda [RT1], we want to get an impression when releasing
> Squeeze is feasible. We have proposed a (quite ambitious) freeze in December
> 2009, and some developers have noted that their planned changes wouldn't be
> possible in this time frame.
Unfortunately, a lot of d
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 01:01:38PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:47:35AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Actually, I have already done a test-rebuild of all the packages that
> > build-depends on libjpeg62-dev or libjpeg-dev against a modified
&
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 01:08:12AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:04:32AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Dear developers,
> >
> > There is a new version of libjpeg in the archive (JPEG7), but is it
> > not yet cleared for building packa
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 01:50:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 10:20:37PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 07:21:17PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > Bill Allombert wrote:
> > >
> > > Please upload to experiment
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 07:21:17PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> Please upload to experimental so we get an idea on the possible impact
> and have it NEW processed etc, TIA.
Actually I uploaded libjpeg7 to sid one month ago. It is still in the NEW
queue.
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 09:30:33PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 08:22:04PM +0100, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 07:30:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 03:48:28PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> &g
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 08:01:21PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 03:48:28PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > This version is ABI-incompatible with libjpeg6b.
> > However it should be fully API compatible.
> > To avoid symbol conflicts with libjpe
Dear release team,
libjpeg v7 is likely to be released at the end of June.
A prerelease tarball is available.
This version is ABI-incompatible with libjpeg6b.
However it should be fully API compatible.
To avoid symbol conflicts with libjpeg v6, the symbols are versionned.
This means the transiti
Dear Release team,
please unblock menu 2.1.41 for a l10n-only update:
menu (2.1.41) unstable; urgency=low
* The "true bubulle never burst" release
* Handling of l10n by Christian Perrier:
+ Menu sections translations:
- Brazilian Portuguese updated by Eder Marques. Closes: #494159
Hello,
Please unblock menu 2.1.40 which was uploaded the 24/07/2008 and closes
bug #489040 (issue with dpkg trigger handling).
Cheers,
--
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 05:27:12PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > > Please also remember that xdg-utils is Priority: optional while
> > debianutils
> > > is Essential: yes, Priority: required; meaning that if packages were to
> > > use 'xdg-su-wrapper' they would have to Depend on xdg-utils
On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 11:58:49AM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> Which as far as I'm aware of it doesn't exist.
It used to. Actually su-to-root desktop guessing code was lifted from
the script in xdg-menu. I do not know why it was removed, thou
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 09:25:40PM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> so.. what is the status of this? bill, do you intend to hand over
> su-to-root to debianutils?
At tis point, I do not intend to do that, no.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
--
To UNSUBSCRI
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 02:59:11PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hello Bill,
>
> Some weeks ago I proposed a new release goal which goal is to use su-to-root
> instead of a custom *su wrapper in menu and .desktop files[1].
>
> As Armin Berres stated on his message[2] there are some
> depende
Dear stable release managers,
I have made a non-change-upload of viewcvs to stable to bump the version
to something valid for Etch.
Etch includes 0.9.2+cvs.1.0.dev.2004.07.28-4.1 which is broken.
Proposed-updates includes 0.9.2+cvs.1.0.dev.2004.07.28-4.1~0etch1
which is fixed but whose version i
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:23:52PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> N-14 = 19 Mar 2007:
>
> 20 RC bugs. D-I RC2 releases. Users are encouraged to use the
> debian-installer for new installs and to begin upgrading systems
> from sarge to the security-supported etch, and report any
>
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 07:52:42AM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:47:25PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 06:12:28 +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >
> > > Is there a way for me to access a testing machine for builds?
> > >
> > There's deboo
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 09:14:51AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Please consider for testing:
>
> gcc-4.1:
>
> 4.1.1ds2-20 is for four weeks in the archive without regressions
> report to the BTS, -21 fixes important bugs for non-release archs.
> Maybe Lucas could rebuild the testing archive wit
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:32:30AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 15:46 +, Alex Owen wrote:
>
> > This patch should fix the problem. I guess the opotions are to aply
> > this patch to 1.16 or package 1.16.1. I guess applying the patch is
> > the better option if we wnat to
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 02:58:27PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But madison is not available currently and brute-forcing the Packages
> > seems rather awkward, especially when a single SQL query would do
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:22:31AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 06:35:48PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > Etch is frozen but some architectures have been ignored for testing
> > propagation in the past.
>
> > 1) is there a convenient wa
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
