Wrong link on testing download page

[Chris Mabon]

Greetings,
 I have found that on the download page...

http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/weekly-live-builds/amd64/iso-hybrid/

...the provided file debian-live-testing-amd64-kde-desktop+nonfree.iso is
actually pointing to an ISO for Jessie. I have confirmed this by running
the live iso from a USB and calling uname -r . I have not checked the other
iso files under that folder, but assume they are of the release Jessie
after considering the time stamps.

I am looking for the live cd image of the latest build of Stretch (testing)
with non-free firmware and KDE desktop for AMD64.

Thanks!

Chris


-- 
Christopher J. Mabon
christopherjma...@gmail.com

Uploading linux (4.7.6-1)

[Ben Hutchings]

I intend to upload linux version 4.7.6-1 to unstable early in the
coming week.  There's no ABI bump.

Aside from the upstream stable update, the pending changes include:
- Fix to fat-modules, needed for installation under EFI
- [armhf] Support for SolidRun ClearFog and similar machines
- [hppa] Build fix

We may queue up some more bug fixes before I upload.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
compatible: Gracefully accepts erroneous data from any source

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#837607: jessie-pu: package elog/2.9.2+2014.05.11git44800a7-2

[Axel Beckert]

Hi together,

Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 20:49 +0200, Roger Kalt wrote:
> > Find attached the proposed patch to form 2.9.2+2014.05.11git44800a7-2 to
> > 2.9.2+2014.05.11git44800a7-2+deb8u1.
> > 
> > The version number has been corrected.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> In case it wasn't clear from my previous mail, please go ahead with the
> upload.

Uploaded now.

Sorry for the delay, I'm in the middle of changing jobs and didn't
find time to do much for Debian in the past two weeks.

Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert , http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-|  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

Processed: Re: Bug#838234: transition: readline/readline6

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/readline7.html
Bug #838234 [release.debian.org] transition: readline/readline6
Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 
'https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/readline7.html'.

-- 
838234: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=838234
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#838234: transition: readline/readline6

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/readline7.html

Hi,

On 18/09/16 20:43, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> readline 7.0 is now released, changing the soversion. The idea is to upload 
> the
> readline package from experimental (plus providing the libreadline*6-dev
> packages), and stop building the -dev packages and common packages from
> readline6.  Afaics, the API didn't change; for rebuild tests I only see build
> failures for unrelated reasons.  readline and readline6 can stay in testing 
> for
> some time, but readline6 should be removed from testing before the stretch 
> release.
> 
> I haven't done a test rebuild on unstable, but building on Ubuntu yakkety. The
> current state of the transition can be seen at
> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/transitions/html/readline.html

Sounds good. I'd prefer to see a test rebuild on sid, but I think we could go
ahead with this as it's a separate source and shouldn't block anything.

Cheers,
Emilio

Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1

[Adam D. Barratt]

Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed

On Sun, 2016-10-02 at 16:43 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2016-10-02 12:40:47, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[..]
> > At first glance, I'm rather confused by:
> >
> > --- linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries  1969-12-31 
> > 19:00:00.0 -0500
> > +++ linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries  2016-05-19 
> > 14:33:11.0 -0400
> > @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
> >
> > particularly its appearance in an NMU. None of the paths sound like
> > files that you'd want to include in the source package, and indeed none
> > of them appear to have been included in the package in unstable; at
> > least most also appear to be automatically removed by upstream's clean
> > targets.
> 
> Uh. That *is* quite odd - I don't actually know where that is coming
> from. I agree it is out of scope for a NMU, but considering the poor
> state of the package (it's orphaned) I hope I can be forgiven,
> especially since others uploaded new NMUs on top of mine...
> 
> Anyways, here's a reduced diff that seems to compile well on my jessie
> chroot:

Thanks. With the changelog distribution changed to "jessie", please go
ahead.

Regards,

Adam

Processed: Re: Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed
Bug #839242 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
Bug #839242 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1
Added tag(s) confirmed.

-- 
839242: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839242
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1

[Antoine Beaupré]

On 2016-10-02 12:40:47, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-10-02 at 12:21 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2016-10-01 13:08:06, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
>> >
>> > On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 11:38 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> >> Attached is a debdiff between the -1 and -1.1 version.
>> >
>> > Apparently not.
>> 
>> Sorry.
>
> Thanks.
>
> At first glance, I'm rather confused by:
>
> --- linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries  1969-12-31 
> 19:00:00.0 -0500
> +++ linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries  2016-05-19 
> 14:33:11.0 -0400
> @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
>
> particularly its appearance in an NMU. None of the paths sound like
> files that you'd want to include in the source package, and indeed none
> of them appear to have been included in the package in unstable; at
> least most also appear to be automatically removed by upstream's clean
> targets.

Uh. That *is* quite odd - I don't actually know where that is coming
from. I agree it is out of scope for a NMU, but considering the poor
state of the package (it's orphaned) I hope I can be forgiven,
especially since others uploaded new NMUs on top of mine...

Anyways, here's a reduced diff that seems to compile well on my jessie
chroot:



linkchecker_9.3-1+deb8u1.debdiff
Description: Binary data

a.

-- 
Prolétaires de tous les pays, qui lave vos chaussettes?
- Audrey Lorde

Bug#837728: RM: heimdal/1.7~git20150920+dfsg-4

[Russ Allbery]

Jelmer Vernooij  writes:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 06:28:05PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:

>> Please make those bugs block this one so we can track progress.

> I've added them as blockers. There are four still open.

I can drop libpam-heimdal from the libpam-krb5 source package (and will
get that in the next upload, hopefully pretty soon).  For
libheimdal-kadm5-perl, there isn't really anything one can do with the
package, since it's Heimdal-specific.  Should I open a separate bug to
remove it from testing as well, or do you want to just handle that as part
of this report?

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Bug#837728: RM: heimdal/1.7~git20150920+dfsg-4

[Jelmer Vernooij]

Hi Emilio,

On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 06:28:05PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 14/09/16 01:23, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: rm
> > 
> > Please remove the heimdal source package from testing. As maintainers,
> > we believe that Heimdal is not in a good enough state to be included in
> > a stable release.
> > 
> > There is still some activity in the upstream Git master branch. However:
> > 
> > * The last regular release (1.5) was in 2011, last RC was in 2012
> > * No security releases since Jan 2012, despite various recent security
> >   releases for MIT Kerberos since and occasional security releases while 
> > Heimdal
> >   was active
> > * There is no noticeable QA happening upstream. Tests fail on 32 bit,
> >   regressions have been introduced.
> > * Nobody upstream is interested in release management; we have asked
> >   about this on the development list multiple times.
> > 
> > I have filed bugs against the packages that depend on Heimdal to
> > either switch to building against Heimdal OR MIT or to drop their
> > Heimdal dependencies altogether.
> 
> The build dependency should prefer MIT kerberos in that case, as 
> sbuild/buildds
> only look at the first alternative.
That is the case.

> Please make those bugs block this one so we can track progress.
I've added them as blockers. There are four still open.

Thanks,

Jelmer


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Processed: block 837728 with 806264

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> block 837728 with 806264
Bug #837728 [release.debian.org] RM: heimdal/1.7~git20150920+dfsg-4
837728 was blocked by: 837716 837724 837628 836885
837728 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 837728: 806264
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
837728: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837728
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: block 837728 with 836885

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> block 837728 with 836885
Bug #837728 [release.debian.org] RM: heimdal/1.7~git20150920+dfsg-4
837728 was blocked by: 837724 837628 837716
837728 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 837728: 836885
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
837728: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837728
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: block 837728 with 837628

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> block 837728 with 837628
Bug #837728 [release.debian.org] RM: heimdal/1.7~git20150920+dfsg-4
837728 was blocked by: 837724
837728 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 837728: 837628
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
837728: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837728
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: block 837728 with 837716

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> block 837728 with 837716
Bug #837728 [release.debian.org] RM: heimdal/1.7~git20150920+dfsg-4
837728 was blocked by: 837724 837628
837728 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 837728: 837716
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
837728: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837728
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: block 837728 with 837724

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> block 837728 with 837724
Bug #837728 [release.debian.org] RM: heimdal/1.7~git20150920+dfsg-4
837728 was not blocked by any bugs.
837728 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 837728: 837724
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
837728: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837728
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

[Santiago Vila]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:

> > It is resolved in the sense it was agreed to make this RC,
> > but I still expected the release policy to be updated accordingly:
> > 
> > https://release.debian.org/stretch/rc_policy.txt
> > 
> > before closing this report.
> 
> I looked at that when I acked this, but I concluded that the policy already
> includes arch:all as there really is nothing arch:any specific. My attempts at
> mentioning arch:all only made the text too complicated.
> 
> I think things are fine as is.

Ok, I understand (and share) the goal of keeping the wording simple.

Now we "just" need to agree on the meaning of "packages must autobuild".

Some people still claim (even if it's not written anywhere) that it's
ok to downgrade FTBFS bugs when they didn't happen in buildd.debian.org.

My understanding of "packages must autobuild" is that the build should
succeed on any policy-compliant autobuilder which is sane and not
misconfigured.

Do I need another bug like this one so that Release Managers clarify
the meaning of "packages must autobuild"?

Thanks.

Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Sun, 2016-10-02 at 12:21 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2016-10-01 13:08:06, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
> >
> > On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 11:38 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> >> Attached is a debdiff between the -1 and -1.1 version.
> >
> > Apparently not.
> 
> Sorry.

Thanks.

At first glance, I'm rather confused by:

--- linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries  1969-12-31 
19:00:00.0 -0500
+++ linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries  2016-05-19 
14:33:11.0 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@

particularly its appearance in an NMU. None of the paths sound like
files that you'd want to include in the source package, and indeed none
of them appear to have been included in the package in unstable; at
least most also appear to be automatically removed by upstream's clean
targets.

Regards,

Adam

Bug#837728: RM: heimdal/1.7~git20150920+dfsg-4

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

On 14/09/16 01:23, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: rm
> 
> Please remove the heimdal source package from testing. As maintainers,
> we believe that Heimdal is not in a good enough state to be included in
> a stable release.
> 
> There is still some activity in the upstream Git master branch. However:
> 
> * The last regular release (1.5) was in 2011, last RC was in 2012
> * No security releases since Jan 2012, despite various recent security
>   releases for MIT Kerberos since and occasional security releases while 
> Heimdal
>   was active
> * There is no noticeable QA happening upstream. Tests fail on 32 bit,
>   regressions have been introduced.
> * Nobody upstream is interested in release management; we have asked
>   about this on the development list multiple times.
> 
> I have filed bugs against the packages that depend on Heimdal to
> either switch to building against Heimdal OR MIT or to drop their
> Heimdal dependencies altogether.

The build dependency should prefer MIT kerberos in that case, as sbuild/buildds
only look at the first alternative.

Please make those bugs block this one so we can track progress.

Thanks,
Emilio

Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1

[Antoine Beaupré]

On 2016-10-01 13:08:06, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
>
> On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 11:38 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> Attached is a debdiff between the -1 and -1.1 version.
>
> Apparently not.

Sorry.



linkchecker_9.3-1.1.debdiff
Description: Binary data

>> I suggest
>> uploading the -1.1 version straight to stable since newer releases
>> were done in stable. I am concerned by a subsequent QA upload that
>> fixed a related issue, however:
>> 
>> https://packages.qa.debian.org/l/linkchecker/news/20160723T130426Z.html
>> 
>> I am not sure this bugfix applies to jessie, however, as I am using
>> -1.1 here in jessie without problems.
>
> Confirming one way or the other would be appreciated.

At first glance, it seems unrelated.

A.
-- 
Prolétaires de tous les pays, qui lave vos chaussettes?
- Audrey Lorde

Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

On 11/09/16 14:50, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Niels Thykier wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 23:23:14 +0200 (CEST) Santiago Vila 
>> wrote:
>>> Greetings.
>>>
>>> I've finally raised to "serious" all the known bugs regarding
>>> "dpkg-buildpackage -A" that were still open.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> AFAICT, this bug is now resolved - closing accordingly. :)
> 
> It is resolved in the sense it was agreed to make this RC,
> but I still expected the release policy to be updated accordingly:
> 
> https://release.debian.org/stretch/rc_policy.txt
> 
> before closing this report.

I looked at that when I acked this, but I concluded that the policy already
includes arch:all as there really is nothing arch:any specific. My attempts at
mentioning arch:all only made the text too complicated.

I think things are fine as is.

Cheers,
Emilio

Re: ltrace is marked for autoremoval from testing

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

On 30/09/16 00:37, Juan Céspedes wrote:
> Hi everybody.  I have received this mail a few days ago:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Debian testing autoremoval watch 
> > wrote:
> 
> ltrace 0.7.3-6 is marked for autoremoval from testing on 2016-10-06
> 
> It is affected by these RC bugs:
> 837011: ltrace: FTBFS: proc.c:245:3: error: 'readdir_r' is deprecated
> [-Werror=deprecated-declarations]
> 
> 
> But that RC bug (837011) is fixed in the version for ltrace in testing (0 
> 7.3-6).  Is there a problem with testing-autoremoval?  Should I file a bug 
> report?  Or is there something else?
> 
> The page https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/ltrace shows the same info.

There was a problem with the (outdated) metadata, but that is updated now and
your package is no longer a candidate for autoremoval.

Cheers,
Emilio

Bug#839531: jessie-pu: package asused/3.72-11

[Adam D. Barratt]

Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed

On Sun, 2016-10-02 at 02:05 +0200, Sebastien Badia wrote:
> Pff really sorry for the waste time… I was too fast on this one…

No problem.

> Just fixed the version number, and re-builded/uploaded to mentors.d.n
> https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/asused/asused_3.72-11+deb8u1.dsc
> (build and tested in a clean env on Debian jessie).
> 
> The debdiff against 3.72-11 version in jessie is now attached.

Thanks; please feel free to upload that (or get it uploaded via a
sponsor, if needed).

Regards,

Adam

Processed: Re: Bug#839531: jessie-pu: package asused/3.72-11

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed
Bug #839531 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package asused/3.72-11
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
Bug #839531 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package asused/3.72-11
Added tag(s) confirmed.

-- 
839531: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839531
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#655976: queue-viewer: support binary debdiffs

[Julien Cristau]

Hi Adam,

thanks for getting this rolling.

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 20:35:43 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:

> - How should we invoke debdiff? We can avoid multiple debdiff
> invocations via "debdiff --show-moved --controlfiles=ALL --from
> base1.deb base2.deb --to new1.deb new2.deb" or, if we want to make the
> command line shorter, generate .changes files for the two sets of
> packages and then feed those to debdiff. In the latter case, we'd want
> to create symlink farms, as the .deb files would need to be in the same
> directory as the .changes files.
> 
I don't think length of the command line is a big concern?

> - Is there a way we can make the wdiff output easier to review? We need
> to consider both on-screen display (presumably primarily via a web
> browser) and the possibility of mailing the result, as we do for source
> uploads.
> 
If the html part could have some colors to show added/removed bits,
that'd be nice.

> - Should queue-viewer always display links to debdiffs for every
> architecture, or only those where those is an "interesting" difference?
> What would be a useful UI for that?
> 
> - What differences are we interested in? Some will always occur -
> version number changes from $old_source_ver to $new_source_ver (with
> adjustment for binNMUs); the addition of a "Source" header for a
> newly-binNMUed package; a change in Size / Installed-Size within a
> certain delta.

Also adjusting for epoch, and binary packages with different versioning
schemes from the source.  diffpackages doesn't quite deal with that,
yet...  I think it's ok to leave filtering to a later date though, if we
can get something it'll be better than the current "notice issues on the
point release Saturday".

> - What should happen if the list of binary packages is different between
> the two versions? While still an exception, this happens often enough
> with e.g. firefox updates, that we need to consider it.
> 
I think big fat "Removed binary package(s)" and "Added binary
package(s)" warnings together with the debdiff for common packages would
be enough, at least initially.  Otherwise you'd have to manually tell
the tool which binary package was renamed to show the debdiff between
old and new.

Cheers,
Julien