On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 08:38:40PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Control: tag -1 confirmed
>
> Hi,
>
> On 31-01-2021 21:50, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > please consider approving 5.32.1. I think it would be
> > better to release bullseye with that than a Debian-specific 5.32.0 with
> > the patches from
Processing changes file: linux_4.19.171-1_source.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: linux_4.19.171-1_all-buildd.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: linux_4.19.171-1_amd64-buildd.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: linux_4.19.171-1_arm64-buildd.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes
On Tuesday, 2 February 2021 4:18:02 PM AEDT Anthony Fok wrote:
> Would both podman 2 and podman 3 be a possibility?
> I.e., we could keep the existing "podman" package at 2.1.1, while
> creating a new "podman3" or "podman-3" package?
>
> Feasible solution? :-)
IMHO definitely not worth the
Dear all,
Would both podman 2 and podman 3 be a possibility?
I.e., we could keep the existing "podman" package at 2.1.1, while
creating a new "podman3" or "podman-3" package?
This way, both the stable podman 2 and the new podman 3 can be
released for Debian 11.
The two packages will likely
Hi Reinhard,
Thank you for your concerns, feedback and kind words.
On Tuesday, 2 February 2021 12:04:35 PM AEDT Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> The thing is, this thread didn't
> convince me so far that nomad-driver-podman with the varlink interface
> provides as much value as I wish it had.
Fair
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:58 PM Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>
> > The fact that as has been mentioned in this thread a) bullseye is around
> > the corner b) nomad-driver-podman isn't even in testing right now, c)
> > podman itself is a much more popular package than nomad-driver-podman
> > (or nomad
On 2021-01-29 20:35:52 [+0100], To Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On 2021-01-28 00:28:03 [+0100], Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 07:03:37PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > There are a whole bunch of other issues and pull requests related to
> > > this. I hope this is the end of the
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 05:29:37PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 5:03 PM Antonio Terceiro
> wrote:
>
> > FWIW I have been using podman 3.0.0~rc1 from experimental for a few days
> > and haven't noticed anything wrong with it. I hope we can have that
> > version in
Hi Faidon,
On Tuesday, 2 February 2021 4:37:14 AM AEDT Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> 2) upgrading both nomad-driver-podman and podman to their latest
> upstream releases. These are seemingly compatible with each other, but
> breaking one particular use case, which while niche, happens to be
>
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 confirmed
Bug #981232 [release.debian.org] unblock: perl/5.32.1-1
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
981232: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=981232
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tag -1 confirmed
Hi,
On 31-01-2021 21:50, Niko Tyni wrote:
> please consider approving 5.32.1. I think it would be
> better to release bullseye with that than a Debian-specific 5.32.0 with
> the patches from 5.32.1 (but both options are better than not having
> the patches at all.)
Your message dated Mon, 1 Feb 2021 20:03:20 +0100
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#981581: nmu: sa-exim_4.2.1-19
has caused the Debian Bug report #981581,
regarding nmu: sa-exim_4.2.1-19
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not
Hi
On 29-01-2021 12:13, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> We would be happy with either of the following:
>> 1) upload to unstable with PR27218 only
>> 2) upload to experimental first (with a 2.36+really2.35.2 version) to
>> check all is fine.
>
> so I don't see what an upload for 2) would provide you
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 06:47:25AM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On the tradeoff "podman 3.0 with docker-compose" support vs.
> a "nomad driver for podman", I see more value for (more of)
> our users for the newer podman. I base that on popcon numbers:
>
> - nomand: 35
> -
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu sa-exim_4.2.1-19 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against current exim
localscan ABI. (See #981398)"
That is necessary to let sa-exim work again in sid and bulleye. The
wrong Provides of
Your message dated Mon, 1 Feb 2021 09:38:41 +0100
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#981541: nmu: kontrast_20.12.1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #981541,
regarding nmu: kontrast_20.12.1-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
X-Debbugs-Cc: Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers
nmu kontrast_20.12.1-1 . amd64 . unstable . -m "Rebuild amd64 on buildds after
clearing NEW."
-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
17 matches
Mail list logo
