Re: Bug#927667: gnome: please confirm or revert choice of Wayland for default desktop

nal Debian conservative, when-its-ready approach would be the distribution status quo (Xorg), but I recognise the concerns about the proposed patch, further work needed, lack of testing etc.; and those are not issues I think I can resolve alone. -- Jonathan Dowland

Re: Bug#927667: gnome: please confirm or revert choice of Wayland for default desktop

Hi Andrew So far as I am aware there is still radio silence from active GNOME packaging team members regarding this issue. No comment yet on the patch I adapted, positive or negative; this bug (#927667) remains at an RC severity. I've not yet read all the thread that Samuel linked to[1] but it

appropriate priority for bugs under Wayland?

. [1] https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bts-usertags.cgi?tag=wayland=pkg-gnome-maintainers%40lists.alioth.debian.org Best wishes -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

Bug#926455: mail_autoremovals: incorrect version number in email warning

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal I received the following warning mail regarding an autoremoval: > Subject: duc is marked for autoremoval from testing > Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 04:39:19 + > > duc 1.4.3-6 is marked for autoremoval from testing on 2019-04-20 > > It is affected by

Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental

years ago, IIRC. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

Bug#905385: stretch-pu: package weboob/1.2-1

, probably unrelated to these changes). So basically I think if you can take a look at my changes and if you are happy the ball is then back in the release team's court. Thanks, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄

Bug#905385: stretch-pu: package weboob/1.2-1

, I will rework the branches in my Salsa fork for stable and oldstable to backport the patch committed to sid, and do an additional grep-check for anything missing, then I'll ping you. Best wishes -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄

Bug#905385: stretch-pu: package weboob/1.2-1

e it's LTS status. But in any case we shall just ignore oldoldstable for this bug. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄

Bug#905385: stretch-pu: package weboob/1.2-1

nother bug to manage an old-oldstable update to fix this? [1] https://salsa.debian.org/jmtd/weboob/commit/5feca16265b0ce689df1d1c0c4dd61f824af0c34 [2] https://salsa.debian.org/jmtd/weboob/commit/1729299187743a45c08bf6c987d2f95581a9cad1 Thanks -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄

Bug#854457: unblock: chocolate-doom/2.3.0-3

oses: #850427. + + -- Jonathan Dowland <j...@debian.org> Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:37:30 + + chocolate-doom (2.3.0-2) unstable; urgency=medium * Upload to unstable. diff -Nru chocolate-doom-2.3.0/debian/control chocolate-doom-2.3.0/debian/control --- chocolate-doom-2.3.0/debian/contr

heads up: packages blocked from testing due to infrastructure bugs

lease know and see if we can get some kind of assurance that freeze "exceptions" might be granted for packages in this situation, as we do not know how long it will take to fix the problem and have no experience or expertise in the ftp.debian.org infrastructure scripts. Thanks, -- Jonath

unblock for chocolate-doom?

822845,822847 However, unrelated to the above, I see in https://release.debian.org/britney/hints/jcristau "# 20160508 # breaks dak block chocolate-doom" Is this still the case? It would be great if chocolate-doom could be unblocked. Thanks, -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am

software-properties-gtk: #666869 (Ubuntu bits): stable backport?

Hi Julian/debian-release, Pleased to see that #666869 (mildly embarrassing presence of Notify me of a new Ubuntu version in the Debian package which got some exposure on reddit and other places) was fixed for sid (on Aug 23, my birthday no less ☺) Julian's fix is quite small/self-contained¹. I

Re: ports and multiarch

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:22:06PM +, Bill Allombert wrote: We should add official support for ppc64 and maybe sparc64 at least for use as a multiarch extension to ppc/sparc, even if we do not have time to make a full port. Otherwise the introduction of multiarch will likely result in a

Re: Bug#702787: pre-approval: unblock: python-pyrrd/0.1.0-2

On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 11:55:17AM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: I think this was the upload, still on mentors.d.o though: http://mentors.debian.net/package/pyrrd I know this is not -mentors, but CHECK_THIS_BEFORE_UPLOAD.txt looked suspicious. (I went looking to see what suite the

Bug#692506: unblock: chocolate-doom/1.7.0-2 (but please see inside!)

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 10:24:03PM +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: Yes, I'll take those too. Thanks Jonathan, upload made. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: