Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 05:10:54PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 02/03/16 13:25, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > > Emilio, > > > > I think we're quite close to be able to drop 2.2 - it's already in > > experimental, we're quite confident it works, etc. > > > > Right now we know that

Re: Bug#814589: otrs2: source-less files; undocumented copyrights/licenses; abuse of lintian-overrides; systematic DFSG violations

Dear Patrick, On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:36:46 PM Patrick Matthäi wrote: > Am 15.02.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Dmitry Smirnov: > > And this is why I provided some hints how you can address those problems > > in my bug report. This is why I wrote to you after when I stabilised > > "ckeditor" so you could

Bug#814930: marked as done (jessie-pu: package hplip/3.15.11+repack0-1)

Your message dated Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:51:26 -0800 with message-id <20160302205126.ga13...@smetana.kardiogramm.net> and subject line Re: Bug#814930: jessie-pu: package hplip/3.15.11+repack0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #814930, regarding jessie-pu: package hplip/3.15.11+repack0-1 to be marked

Re: Opinion about linux-grsec in a stable release

On mer., 2016-03-02 at 20:06 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Before considering that, did anyone approch grsecurity whether we can get > access to the grsecurity stable patches? We would most definitely have Debian > funds to become grsecurity sponsors to obtain access to stable patches. I

Re: Opinion about linux-grsec in a stable release

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 10:09:47AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > Hi teams, > > [first of all, I'm writing this with my linux-grsec hat, not my Debian > security team member hat, obviously] > > As you may know, src:linux-grsec was accepted in unstable earlier this year. > As a quick summary,

Re: Bug#816500: linux-tools: should not migrate to testing before the corresponding src:linux

Control: tag -1 wontfix On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 17:47 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: [...] > > Does that mean there was manual intervention?  Or is that automatic > > behaviour?  Does it ignore all->any dependencies on !x86? > > It was all automatic. britney only requires that arch:all packages are 

Bug#816428: nmu: hugin_2015.0.0+dfsg-1

On 2016-03-01 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 01/03/16 20:25, Andreas Metzler wrote: >> nmu hugin_2015.0.0+dfsg-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against >> libvigraimpex6" >> nmu enblend-enfuse_4.1.4+dfsg-5 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against >> libvigraimpex6" >> both

Re: Bug#816500: linux-tools: should not migrate to testing before the corresponding src:linux

On 2016-03-02 17:22, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 17:21 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: On 02/03/16 13:24, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 12:31 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > > Source: linux-tools > > Version: 4.4-4 > > Severity: important > > > > Hi, > > > >

Re: Bug#816500: linux-tools: should not migrate to testing before the corresponding src:linux

On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 17:21 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 02/03/16 13:24, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 12:31 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > > > Source: linux-tools > > > Version: 4.4-4 > > > Severity: important > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > new major upstream

Bug#813916: transition: gdal

On 01/03/16 20:18, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > Thanks. I'll upload gdal (2.0.2+dfsg-1) to unstable shortly. binNMUs scheduled. Emilio

Re: Bug#816500: linux-tools: should not migrate to testing before the corresponding src:linux

On 02/03/16 13:24, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 12:31 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: >> Source: linux-tools >> Version: 4.4-4 >> Severity: important >> >> Hi, >> >> new major upstream releases (e.g. 4.4) of src:linux and src:linux-tools >> should migrate together to testing. Right

Bug#816499: marked as done (nmu: votca-csg_1.2.4-2.1)

Your message dated Wed, 2 Mar 2016 17:15:52 +0100 with message-id <56d711b8.6010...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#816499: nmu: votca-csg_1.2.4-2.1 has caused the Debian Bug report #816499, regarding nmu: votca-csg_1.2.4-2.1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

On 02/03/16 13:25, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > Emilio, > > I think we're quite close to be able to drop 2.2 - it's already in > experimental, we're quite confident it works, etc. > > Right now we know that uwsgi and weechat will need manual fixing and > there are open bugs against them

Re: Debian Jessie - Incorrect permissions on /bin directory

On 02/03/16 12:46, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > On mer., 2016-02-03 at 14:37 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: >> [Context: packages shipping /bin with “funny” permissions, seen in stable.] >> >> Yves-Alexis Perez (2016-02-03): >>> >>> On mar., 2016-02-02 at 17:16 +0100, Cyril

Re: Debian Jessie - Incorrect permissions on /bin directory

* Yves-Alexis Perez , 2016-03-02, 12:46: I did a quick check on a local mirror (which might be incomplete), and found three packages with errors: dpkg -c debian/pool/main/s/sed/sed_4.2.2-4+b1_amd64.deb |grep bin/$ drwxrwxr-x root/root 0 2014-11-08 19:28 ./bin/ dpkg

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

* Christian Hofstaedtler [160302 13:25]: > When do you think it would be ok for us to drop 2.2? We'll need > another round of binNMUs for all the packages listed on the tracker. > (We're running another test rebuild of those right now.) >From our test rebuild, those packages

Bug#650601: libpng1.6 transistin (Was: Processed: fvwm: diff for NMU version 1:2.6.5.ds-4.1)

Hi Emilio, > > (My*) plan'd be to upload (1) libpng12 WITHOUT providing libpng-dev and > > (2) libpng16 WITH providing it. > This hasn't been answered yet. That should be dealt with and a package should > be > uploaded to experimental with the necessary changes. my opinion is: remove

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

Emilio, I think we're quite close to be able to drop 2.2 - it's already in experimental, we're quite confident it works, etc. Right now we know that uwsgi and weechat will need manual fixing and there are open bugs against them (#816315, #816312). When do you think it would be ok for us to drop

Re: Bug#816500: linux-tools: should not migrate to testing before the corresponding src:linux

On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 12:31 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Source: linux-tools > Version: 4.4-4 > Severity: important > > Hi, > > new major upstream releases (e.g. 4.4) of src:linux and src:linux-tools  > should migrate together to testing. Right now src:linux-tools 4.4-4 is > already in

Re: Debian Jessie - Incorrect permissions on /bin directory

On mer., 2016-02-03 at 14:37 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > [Context: packages shipping /bin with “funny” permissions, seen in stable.] > > Yves-Alexis Perez (2016-02-03): > > > > On mar., 2016-02-02 at 17:16 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > > > > > I didn't check the

Re: Bug#814589: otrs2: source-less files; undocumented copyrights/licenses; abuse of lintian-overrides; systematic DFSG violations

Am 15.02.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Dmitry Smirnov: I am aware of those issues, that is also why the embedded-code-copies bug is marked as "need help". And this is why I provided some hints how you can address those problems in my bug report. This is why I wrote to you after when I stabilised

Re: [Decision] Kernel version for stretch

I read this last week just before slipping into a fever in which I had recurring dreams about the relations of unnameable abstract entities that seemed later to correspond to software components. On recovering from the flu, I was pleased to find that I hadn't imagined that Niels Thykier wrote: >

Bug#816499: nmu: votca-csg_1.2.4-2.1

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu votca-csg_1.2.4-2.1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against votca-tools 1.3.0" The last votca-tools upload started an (uncoordinated) mini-transition from libvotca-tools2 to

Opinion about linux-grsec in a stable release

Hi teams, [first of all, I'm writing this with my linux-grsec hat, not my Debian security team member hat, obviously] As you may know, src:linux-grsec was accepted in unstable earlier this year. As a quick summary, this is a source linux package (forked from and periodically rebased against

Bug#815720: transition: python3.5-only

On 02/03/16 08:19, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 at 01:49:08 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: >> python3-defaults now no longer depends on python3.4, making python3.5 the >> only supported python3 version. python3.4 should be removed before stretch >> is released (mostly by binNMUing,

Bug#813916: Retry gdal (2.0.2+dfsg-1) on mips64el

On 02/03/16 08:53, Bas Couwenberg wrote: > Dear wanna-build team, > > gdal (2.0.2+dfsg-1) FTBFS on mips64el due to a compiler segfault: > > In file included from /usr/include/c++/5/vector:69:0, > from sdk/pcidsk_segment.h:34, > from sdk/pcidsk_file.h:30, >