Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: gri...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:gringo
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu gringo_5.6.2-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against updated python3.11
for 64-bit time transition"
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu minc-tools_2.3.00+dfsg-9 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against updated
libminc"
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu elastix_5.0.1-3+b1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against updated
insighttoolkit5"
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu insighttoolkit5_5.2.1-5 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against updated
libminc"
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
New upstream, new soversion.
Ben file:
title = "exiv2";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libexiv2-14" | .depends ~ "libexiv2-27";
is_good = .depends ~ "libexiv2-27";
is_bad = .depends ~
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu berkeley-express_1.5.1-3 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild with current Boost
libraries"
-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500,
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:57:11AM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Hm, this makes no sense. I thought we want to _remove_ 1.61, not
> re-introduce it?!
Agreed. I did not request this, FWIW.
The previous removal message
https://packages.qa.debian.org/b/boost1.61/news/20170202T163914Z.html
On September 2, 2015 02:48:01 PM you wrote:
> > I haven't checked, but I will be conservative and assume it needs
> > transition. I have already staged v4.8 in experimental for that purpose;
> > see also #793250 and #796561.
>
> Thanks, I've noted those on the Titanpad. I will not open a
On September 3, 2014 03:22:38 PM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Since the .so file location changed, it is possible that the shared
library itself changed location or soname.
Both the location and the SONAME of libhdf5 changed.
So in addition to verifying that it still builds, you need to
The recent build failure of elastix (#759945) is caused by the
libhdf5.so path having changed, presumably due to #755539. The path
is encoded into insighttoolkit4-dev's file
/usr/lib/cmake/ITK-4.6/ITKTargets-none.cmake so Elastix will need a
binnmu as soon as insighttoolkit is rebuilt.
-Steve
On July 5, 2014 06:08:41 PM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 02/06/14 11:15, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 08:34:08 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On May 20, 2014 06:48:33 PM Julien Cristau wrote:
Are there bugs tracking packages with versioned boost
build-dependencies
On July 9, 2014 08:15:27 AM Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 01:03:49 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
That leaves two Boost versions 1.54 and 1.55, which made me realize that
the transition tracker is too pessimistic. Right now 1.54 is considered
bad, but it shouldn't
On July 9, 2014 08:55:04 AM Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 01:39:38 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On July 9, 2014 08:15:27 AM Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 01:03:49 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
That leaves two Boost versions 1.54 and 1.55, which made me
On May 20, 2014 06:48:33 PM Julien Cristau wrote:
Are there bugs tracking packages with versioned boost
build-dependencies?
I'm not aware of any such bugs.
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Hello Cyril,
Thanks for the fast action on this!
On April 11, 2014 10:41:45 AM Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Since there was an old boost1.54 ben file around, I've reused it,
tweaking the versions:
title = boost 1.55;
is_affected = .build-depends ~ /libboost[0-9\.a-z-]*-dev/;
is_good =
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
As previously requested on Feb 28 2014 (see
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=704032#220):
1.55 has been in testing for a month now and has somewhat better
Hi,
1.55 has been in testing for a month now and has somewhat better support for
recent glibc -- e.g. it doesn't suffer from .#739807 and #739904.
I'd like to switch the boost-defaults to 1.55. Any objections?
Thanks,
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
On December 1, 2013 03:57:10 PM Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 14:59:24 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Boost 1.54 is now in sid on all architectures, so we should transition to
that.
Hi Steve,
The build log at
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libzeeparch
On August 13, 2013 11:33:39 AM Julien Cristau wrote:
Control: tag -1 confirmed
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 14:59:24 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
retitle 704032 transition: boost-defaults 1.54
thanks
Boost 1.54 is now in sid on all architectures, so we should transition
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
Hi,
GCC has been updated to 4.8 since the last build of boost1.49 and the
old libraries cause build failures occasionally;
c.f.
retitle 704032 transition: boost-defaults 1.54
thanks
Boost 1.54 is now in sid on all architectures, so we should transition to
that.
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
failures. I
will make it a priority this weekend to analyze these 26, but I know
at least one is the UTC issue and several are due to Qt's moq parser
which are simple fixes (see also #704045).
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 08:49:09AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On May 15, 2013 04:28:59 AM Matthias
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 07:23:12PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Am 15.05.2013 15:49, schrieb Steve M. Robbins:
On May 15, 2013 04:28:59 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
Am 14.05.2013 09:00, schrieb Steve M. Robbins:
Note also that gcc 4.8 is going to break Boost 1.49 so my suggestion
On May 15, 2013 04:28:59 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
Am 14.05.2013 09:00, schrieb Steve M. Robbins:
Note also that gcc 4.8 is going to break Boost 1.49 so my suggestion
is that Boost transition before gcc does.
GCC 4.8 will add a handful of build failures to boost 1.49 based packages
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:30:58PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 07:05:39PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 23:08:15 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
I would like to change Debian's default boost version from 1.49 to
1.53 or later -- likely
On May 8, 2013 12:05:39 PM Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 23:08:15 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
I would like to change Debian's default boost version from 1.49 to
1.53 or later -- likely to the most current Boost at the time the
transition is scheduled. This change does
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi,
Clearly this transition won't be acted upon until after the wheezy
release is done. However, I'm filing the bug now so that we can track
the build failure bugs related to updating
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package nyquist
Upload fixed a FTBFS bug #622197 that prevented nyquist from building
on architectures hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-i386.
unblock nyquist/3.05-2
-- System
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 04:34:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 20:26:36 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Yes, it's a judgement call, I'd agree. My thinking is that (a) it's
already building on all architectures (low risk) and (b) has somewhat
better support
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:04:13AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Hi,
Steve M. Robbins s...@debian.org (22/07/2012):
Given the long lifetime of stable Debian, I expect users would
appreciate having the latest Boost available. This is a leaf package
so should have no impact on stability
Hi,
The output from dak for removing source boost1.46 lists a number of
broken r-deps, which is to be expected. I had expected that all such
packages should be part of the Boost transition tracker [1] but
surprisingly, two are missing:
gpsshogi: gpsshogi [amd64 i386]
libosl: libosl1 [amd64
Quoting Luca Falavigna:
we're struggling with a bunch of uncoordinated transitions at the
moment, with extra fun thanks to an uncoordinated switch to gcc
4.7, and its extra hundreds of RC bugs;
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/05/msg00632.html
Why don't you just
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 10:34:43PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
Maybe that does shed a bit more light onto the issue.
Yes. Thanks Medhi, Adam, and Philipp for the explanations!
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
With respect to the transition trackers, e.g. [1], parameters are
listed to determine Good, and Bad dependencies. However, the
dependency package listing has three categories: Good, Bad, and
Unknown. I don't understand what the third category means.
Presumably, a package can be categorized
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 08:11:06PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 13:21:19 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
kdebase-workspace: #none [SOVER] cp: cannot stat
`debian/tmp/usr/lib/libplasma_applet-system-monitor.so.4.6.0': No such file
or directory
kdeedu: #none
Hello Release Team,
On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 12:21:20PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
I need some guidance from the release team regarding Boost.
Last Sunday I uploaded another new version (1.49). It's still in NEW,
but I'd like to transition boost-defaults to 1.49 ASAP. I plan to do
Hello,
On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 06:09:33PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 01:29:58 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
I would like to change Debian's default boost version from 1.46.1 to
1.48. This change does not directly impact any binary packages.
However
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 07:57:01AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On 01.02.2012 07:09, ow...@bugs.debian.org wrote:
# Source package in NEW: boost-defaults
tags 653823 + pending
Bug #653823 [release.debian.org] transition: boost-defaults
Please don't do that. Aside from being arguably
Hi,
As previously mentioned, all known build failures have patches in the
BTS. This weekend, I ran a new rebuild of 241 packages that
build-depend on some part of boost-defaults. No new boost-related
failures were found.
I have uploaded six NMUs to delayed/10. There are only
three packages
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:38:44AM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
Steve,
Thanks for all the work.
It would be good to have ITK4 in 'experimental'. Having coexisting
packages is nice to have but will cause probably too much trouble
(especially if we build all the language wrappers
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 03:11:18PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
Since it's released, I was planning to upload straight to 'unstable'.
Do you think there's a need to stage in 'experimental' first?
ITK will be build against gdcm. I would prefer to see gdcm transition
(#657288) to have
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 01:25:46PM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:38:44AM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
Steve,
Thanks for all the work.
It would be good to have ITK4
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 09:07:34PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
Steve,
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 03:11:18PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
Since it's released, I was planning to upload straight to 'unstable
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 03:04:52PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
I will do a test build of ITK 4 against gdcm 2.2 and post the results
for discussion.
I took the source tree for gdcm 2.2.0-1 [1] and built it in a clean
SID chroot.
Then I took the ITK 4.0.0-1 sources [2] into a new clean SID
Hi,
As some of you know ITK, the Insight Toolkit, version 4.0.0 was
released last month [1]. This is a major update from the previous
version 3.20.1, and upstream deliberately broke the API in certain
cases [2].
As such, I think it would be a disservice to our users to force an
abrupt
Dear Release Team,
Thanks to the hard work of Tobias, all known build failures related to
Boost 1.48 are either pending or have a patch readily available.
Is there anything further you need me to do before flipping
the Boost Default and closing this bug?
Thanks,
-Steve
signature.asc
Status as of 2012-01-08: 5 of the 22 boost-related bugs have fixes
uploaded. Another (libreoffice) has been uploaded to experimental.
Fixed in Experimental (1):
--
libreoffice #652784 [fixed in 1.3.5.0~beta2-1] acceleratorcache.cxx:64:29:
error: no match for
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 12:13:46PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 01:29:58 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
There are 237 source packages in SID that build-depend on one of the
packages in boost-defaults. I have done a test-build with all 237
packages in a chroot sid
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Briefly, package boost-defaults provides libboost-dev and similar
unversioned -dev packages that depend on a default versioned package
such as libboost1.46-dev.
I would like to change
Some more info on items in the Known Fixes category follows.
Parse error at BOOST_JOIN
---
Tag [moc]
The parse error is from Qt's tools moc and lconvert. These tools do
not handle the entire C++ language; see the Qt issue
Hi,
Ipe 7.1.1-1 was uploaded 17 days ago with no RC bugs but has not made
it into testing. The excuse is below. Does this need some manual
intervention from the release team?
Excuse for ipe
17 days old (needed 10 days)
out of date on i386: libipe7.1.0 (from 7.1.0-1)
out of date
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 07:46:24PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:21:04 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Hi,
Ipe 7.1.1-1 was uploaded 17 days ago with no RC bugs but has not made
it into testing. The excuse is below. Does this need some manual
intervention
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 07:33:14PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Hi,
Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca (29/12/2011):
Ipe 7.1.1-1 was uploaded 17 days ago with no RC bugs but has not made
it into testing. The excuse is below. Does this need some manual
intervention from the release team
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu cgal_3.9-1 . ALL . -m rebuild against new libipe7.1.1
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:47:34PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
But what worries me more is that you AGAIN ignored
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652681.
I was working off a rebuild of SID. Perhaps my last message didn't
clearly state that. So all the bugs reported were
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:42:07AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to point out that any resulting build failures are quite easy
to fix: either
(a) contact package upstream for boost 1.48 changes; or
It is? #652681 doesn't look like it.
I'll just note that an Internal
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 04:45:21PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 26/12/11 at 22:40 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
It would be quite helpful to do a rebuild of the 237 boost reverse
dependencies. Lucas Nussbaum seems to be able to do this: can you run
a rebuild with updated boost
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:28:14AM +0100, Thomas Krennwallner wrote:
As long as something depends on 1.46, I assume that it should be
around. The current situation is sub-optimal, because almost everything
depends on the non-versioned boost libs of boost-defaults, despite
boost's tendency to
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 06:32:16PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Tue, 2011-12-27 at 10:52 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:42:07AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Will 1.46 be around long enough that reverting to 1.46 is an option there?
Absolutely, 1.46
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:20:16AM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 04:45:21PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 26/12/11 at 22:40 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
It would be quite helpful to do a rebuild of the 237 boost reverse
dependencies. Lucas Nussbaum seems
-0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:33:26PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
I heard of at least two failures in the last couple of hours:
libreoffice (#652681), and wesnoth (#652677). As such, I'd appreciate
if you could:
- revert boost-defaults to 1.46 for the time
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:33:26PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 21:23:49 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Hi,
Boost 1.48 was uploaded to sid about 9 days ago so it should
transition to testing in the next day or so.
My plan is to update the default boost
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 08:43:16AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 23:34:37 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
If the API has changed, as Nobuhiro states above, it would be
incorrect for the new -dev package to provide the old, wouldn't it?
No. It would only
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:30:19AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 09:16:41 +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
Libpng maintainers want to update libpng from 1.2 to 1.5.
libpng of ABI and API has been changed by change of 1.2 to 1.5, so it
needs a transition from libopng12 to
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu tiff_3.9.5-1 . ALL . -m Rebuild against libjpeg8
Currently, linking using both -ltiff and -ljpeg produces a warning:
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libjpeg.so.62, needed by
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:29:41PM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
Uhm... It doesn't look, like boost1.42 is obsolete. Even if I ignore
non-release architectures, there's quite a lot of stuff left:
Checking reverse dependencies...
# Broken Depends: [...]
# Broken
severity 625521 normal
thanks
First: thanks again to all who helped me with this bug.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 03:50:57PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
Hi Steve,
sorry if you already received my last mail, but could you please
justify severity critical for this bug?
Thanks to the help of
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:52:06AM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 05/03/2011 02:51 AM, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
The testing migration excuses [1] claims insighttoolkit is out of
date on kfreebsd-amd64 and mipsel. In fact, however, both arches
are installed in the pool [2].
Can
Hi,
The testing migration excuses [1] claims insighttoolkit is out of
date on kfreebsd-amd64 and mipsel. In fact, however, both arches
are installed in the pool [2].
Can someone help this package to transition, please?
Thanks,
-Steve
[1]
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 08:22:15PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 13:23:41 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
1. Upload gmp4, as described above.
In progress, will upload shortly.
2. Upload gmp introducing libgmp-dev as the real package, providing
virtual packages
Hi Julien,
First, thanks for looking into the GMP issue.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 03:30:45PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
As far as I can tell, the
incompatibilities introduced in gmp 5 are the removal of mpn_bdivmod and
mpn_neg_n, and the rest of the functions should
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:24:15AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 21:17:47 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
I'm working my way through the dependent packages shown at
http://release.debian.org/transitions/gmp5.html uploading
new versions with the build-dep changed
Dear GMP Developers,
Is the following characterization of the changes between
4.3.2 and 5.0.1 accurate?
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 03:30:45PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
As far as I can tell, the
incompatibilities introduced in gmp 5 are the removal of mpn_bdivmod and
mpn_neg_n, and the rest
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 08:56:10PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Why don't you actually ship the libgmp-dev package instead of using
a virtual package?
I have no issue with doing that.
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi Julien,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 07:42:13PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
So this is going pretty badly. gmp has a *lot* of reverse dependencies.
[ ... ]
I'm not sure what to do at this point.
I'm working my way through the dependent packages shown at
Hi,
I checked with the GMP experts [1] and found no reason to expect
insurmountable problems so I'm preparing the GMP upload now.
[1] http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-discuss/2011-February/004526.html
Cheers,
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
The newly-released Boost is in the NEW queue. It'd be good to have it
accepted into SID quickly, so that I can update the boost-defaults and
get 1.42 out of the archive.
See http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/boost1.46_1.46.0-1.html
Thanks,
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:49:49PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 26.02.2011 04:42, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Clearly one should be mindful of the effect on GCC -- that's why I
asked
Hi Adam,
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:15:44PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 04:48 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:39:39PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Have any of the reverse-dependencies been test-built against the new
version? Does
Dear Matthias,
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 06:10:54PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 26.02.2011 18:08, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Instead of asking cryptic questions, could you please spell out your
concerns in detail so that we could address them.
what is cryptic about the question?
Thanks
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Clearly one should be mindful of the effect on GCC -- that's why I
asked the question on debian-gcc. Do you have any specific concerns?
Have any concerns been raised on the GCC
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:15:44PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 04:48 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:39:39PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Have any of the reverse-dependencies been test-built against the new
version? Does the move
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:39:39PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 12:39 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Looking at the package names of the unstable and experimental versions,
it looks like the main change is libgmp3c2 to libgmp3? (There is also
lib{32,64}gmp3 - lib{32,64
Hi,
Now that squeeze is out, I'd like to move from GMP 4 to GMP 5. The
latter was released upstream about a year ago and the gmp lists
aren't buzzing with outrageous bugs, so it appears stable enough.
I know GMP is used in gcc itself, so I'd appreciate some guidance
from the gcc team as well,
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package denyhosts
Fixes bug #607207 that prevents denyhosts being upgraded.
unblock denyhosts/2.6-8.1
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0
APT prefers unstable
Hi Julien,
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 02:00:49PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 03:41:09 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
unblock denyhosts/2.6-8.1
I'm not convinced the changes in 2.6-8 are appropriate, and 607207 is
only in that version (not in testing).
OK, makes
... according to maintainer: #608176
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
... due to #607598
-S
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 07:53:06PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 18:41:55 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 16:45 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Please unblock package mgltools-utpackages
Fixed RC bug #592417.
Thanks for applying Tim's
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package mgltools-utpackages
Fixed RC bug #592417.
unblock mgltools-utpackages/1.5.4.cvs.20100912-1.1
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 07:32:01PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 10:35:06PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Looking at the diff, either the original code is more broken than the
general case, or it's intentionally adding an empty entry to PYTHONPATH.
It seems
Hello Matthias,
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 08:01:52PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 23.11.2010 19:18, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:27:48PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Alternatively, Jakub Wilk suggested that Python maintainers can make
python2.6-minimal break (or conflict
Dear Release Team, Python Maintainers,
I just received notice (bug 603579) that upgrade lenny to squeeze will
break if a boost package containing an rtupdate script is installed.
In stable there are four such packages:
libboost-python-dev
libboost-dbg
libboost-python1.35-dev
Dear Release Team,
Please unblock soqt to fix bug #593798 as described below.
The change is only in debian files (control and rules).
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 04:43:40PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 09:36 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
libsoqt3 should be linked
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 05:18:09PM +0100, David Claughton wrote:
FWIW, I could be wrong, but it looks like configure is invoking
pkgconfig to determine the QT version and it's always finding QT4
regardless of what QTDIR is set to.
Maybe --enable-pkgconfig wasn't the default in the previous
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 02:52:48AM +0200, Gerhard Dirschl wrote:
Package: libsoqt3-20
Version: 1.4.2~svn20090224-2
libsoqt3 should be linked against Qt 3 but actually it is linked
against Qt 4 (apart from the suffix, there is no difference between
libsoqt3 and libsoqt4).
Wow. This was
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu igstk_4.2.0-3 . ALL . -m Rebuild against current insighttoolkit SOVERSION.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 10:36:56AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 19:49 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
nmu insighttoolkit_3.18.0-2 . ALL . -m Rebuild with gccxml
0.9.0+cvs20100501-2
I assume this is intended to fix the gccxml-related complex.h FTBFS
mentioned
Hi,
I just saw that buildd is reporting a maybe successful
build on s390! So we can go for the other architectures
any time you're ready.
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 07:10:35PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
I've given it back on all of the failing architectures.
Several of the architectures on which it originally succeeded do not
have the spare capacity to justify a rebuild just to check -
particularly not when the build takes
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
