any idea why xz-utils 4.999.9beta+20091016-1 and shogun 0.9.1-1 are not yet in unstable?

Dear all, Page http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=xz-utils lists xz-utils to be out of date on all archs even though it built everywhere according to https://buildd.debian.org/~luk/status/package.php?suite=unstablep=xz-utils Same for shogun http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=shogun

Re: any idea why xz-utils 4.999.9beta+20091016-1 and shogun 0.9.1-1 are not yet in unstable?

Soeren Sonnenburg so...@debian.org (10/12/2009): Page http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=xz-utils lists xz-utils to be out of date on all archs even though it built everywhere according to https://buildd.debian.org/~luk/status/package.php?suite=unstablep=xz-utils liblzma0 got replaced

Re: any idea why xz-utils 4.999.9beta+20091016-1 and shogun 0.9.1-1 are not yet in unstable?

On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 11:51 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Soeren Sonnenburg so...@debian.org (10/12/2009): Dear Cyril, I am afraid I don't fully understand. Page http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=xz-utils lists xz-utils to be out of date on all archs even though it built

Re: any idea why xz-utils 4.999.9beta+20091016-1 and shogun 0.9.1-1 are not yet in unstable?

Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 11:51 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Soeren Sonnenburg so...@debian.org (10/12/2009): Dear Cyril, I am afraid I don't fully understand. Page http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=xz-utils lists xz-utils to be out of date on all archs

Re: any idea why xz-utils 4.999.9beta+20091016-1 and shogun 0.9.1-1 are not yet in unstable?

Hi, Luk Claes schrieb: The semi-automatic cruft removal seems to not have happened yet. yes, cruft-report is still broken due to the new arch: all handling. I am working on it. I'll remove liblzma0 and libshogun5 that after the next dinstall run. Let me know if you are aware of other cruft in

Re: any idea why xz-utils 4.999.9beta+20091016-1 and shogun 0.9.1-1 are not yet in unstable?

Torsten Werner wrote: Hi, Luk Claes schrieb: The semi-automatic cruft removal seems to not have happened yet. yes, cruft-report is still broken due to the new arch: all handling. I am working on it. I'll remove liblzma0 and libshogun5 that after the next dinstall run. Let me know if you

Re: any idea why xz-utils 4.999.9beta+20091016-1 and shogun 0.9.1-1 are not yet in unstable?

Hi Luk, Luk Claes schrieb: libming0, libprotobuf4 and libprotoc4, python-nautilusburn done, but the following packages need binNMUs: salasaga [alpha amd64 armel hppa i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc] protobuf-c [mips] Cheers, Torsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: any idea why xz-utils 4.999.9beta+20091016-1 and shogun 0.9.1-1 are not yet in unstable?

Torsten Werner wrote: Hi Luk, Luk Claes schrieb: libming0, libprotobuf4 and libprotoc4, python-nautilusburn done, but the following packages need binNMUs: Thanks! salasaga [alpha amd64 armel hppa i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc] binNMUs scheduled. protobuf-c [mips] It's