Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u3_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u3_armel.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u3_armhf.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file:
Processing changes file: debian-installer_20170615+deb9u8_ppc64el.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: debian-installer_20170615+deb9u8_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: debian-installer_20170615+deb9u8_armel.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: debian-installer_20170615+deb9u8_armhf.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file:
Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u3_i386.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u3_mips.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u3_mips64el.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file:
Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u3_arm64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u3_s390x.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: debian-installer_20170615+deb9u8_arm64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: debian-installer_20170615+deb9u8_s390x.changes
ACCEPT
On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 21:05 +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Hallo,
> * Adam D. Barratt [Tue, Jan 28 2020, 10:28:08PM]:
>
> > > I can, of course, convert all that into debian/patches/XXX but
> > > honestly, that would really feel like greenwashing.
> > >
> > > The changes reported here can be
Matthias Klose wrote:
On 2/3/20 8:22 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: >> Meanwhile, multiple packages seem to FTBFS on s390x with the new
libgcc_s
(I've just opened the bug for that, so no bug number known yet), which is
going to limit the ability to get things into testing.
please retry your
Processing changes file: debian-installer_20170615+deb9u8_source.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: debian-installer_20190702+deb10u3_source.changes
ACCEPT
On 2/3/20 2:57 PM, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 03.02.20 um 13:08 schrieb Sylvestre Ledru:
> ...
>> I have been told that the transition of one of the build-dep is blocked by
>> packages blocked in NEW...
>> Not sure which one.
>
> this is more or less what I mean, we should get
Hallo,
* Adam D. Barratt [Tue, Jan 28 2020, 10:28:08PM]:
> > I can, of course, convert all that into debian/patches/XXX but
> > honestly, that would really feel like greenwashing.
> >
> > The changes reported here can be reviewed at
> >
Hi Stéphane,
On 03-02-2020 10:30, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Currently, ocaml-dune/2.1.3-1 is blocked in unstable because of
> autopkgtest failure of ocaml-sedlex/2.1-3. However, this test failure
> has been fixed in ocaml-sedlex/2.1-4. Likewise, ocaml-sedlex/2.1-4 is
> bloked in unstable because
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 at 09:35:04 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I think this is now in shape to be started.
Please can this wait until the remaining bits of the libffi7 transition
and the restructuring of the libgcc_s packaging have settled down?
I'm still trying to sort out the missing Breaks
On 2/3/20 8:22 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 at 09:35:04 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> I think this is now in shape to be started.
>
> Please can this wait until the remaining bits of the libffi7 transition
> and the restructuring of the libgcc_s packaging have settled down?
>
Hi,
Am 03.02.20 um 13:08 schrieb Sylvestre Ledru:
...
> I have been told that the transition of one of the build-dep is blocked by
> packages blocked in NEW...
> Not sure which one.
this is more or less what I mean, we should get clearance about the root
of problems.
> We already started a
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: buster
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Hi, the release team,
I'd like to update package mew-beta in buster to fix a security issue,
managed as no advisory by the security team.
See this changelog and the attached
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 948638 by 922583 950545
Bug #948638 [release.debian.org] transition: opencv
948638 was blocked by: 950310
948638 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 948638: 950545 and 922583
> tags 950545 + ftbfs
Bug #950545 [src:eviacam]
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: buster
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Hi, the release team,
I'd like to update package mew in buster to fix a security issue,
managed as no advisory by the security team.
See this changelog and the attached debdiff.
Processing changes file: glib2.0_2.50.3-2+deb9u2_mipsel.changes
ACCEPT
Le 03/02/2020 à 10:47, Carsten Schoenert a écrit :
Hi Sylvestre,
Am 04.01.20 um 17:19 schrieb Sylvestre Ledru:
Honestly, (shame on me) I didn't pay much attention to the cbindgen
migration
or other migrations of rust binaries.
Mostly because when I look at the transition dashboard, I don't
Hi Sylvestre,
Am 04.01.20 um 17:19 schrieb Sylvestre Ledru:
> Honestly, (shame on me) I didn't pay much attention to the cbindgen
> migration
> or other migrations of rust binaries.
>
> Mostly because when I look at the transition dashboard, I don't
> understand why they are blocked. For
Dear Release Managers,
Currently, ocaml-dune/2.1.3-1 is blocked in unstable because of
autopkgtest failure of ocaml-sedlex/2.1-3. However, this test failure
has been fixed in ocaml-sedlex/2.1-4. Likewise, ocaml-sedlex/2.1-4 is
bloked in unstable because of autopkgtest failure of itself, but this
24 matches
Mail list logo
