Just one thing could you please pull all world wide repos so the repos that are
new are there and defunct repositories don’t appear. My repositories have been
registered repositories for years and newer been in one release
Mike Hosken
Sent via my iPhone
> On 3 Apr 2024, at 08:40, Jonathan
Processing changes file: gnutls28_3.7.1-5+deb11u5_all-buildd.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: gnutls28_3.7.1-5+deb11u5_mips64el-buildd.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: gnutls28_3.7.1-5+deb11u5_mipsel-buildd.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file:
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 01:07:27PM +0100, Adam Barratt wrote:
>Hi,
>
>As we had to postpone 12.6, let's look at alternative dates.
>
>April 13th
>- Not great for me for personal reasons, mhy previously said no. I
>could probably do if need be
Works for me.
>April 20th
>- Doesn't work for me; I'm
Processing changes file: gnutls28_3.7.1-5+deb11u5_amd64-buildd.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: gnutls28_3.7.1-5+deb11u5_arm64-buildd.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: gnutls28_3.7.1-5+deb11u5_armel-buildd.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file:
Processing changes file: gross_1.0.2-4.1~deb11u1_amd64-buildd.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: gross_1.0.2-4.1~deb11u1_arm64-buildd.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: gross_1.0.2-4.1~deb11u1_armel-buildd.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file:
Processing changes file: amavisd-new_2.11.1-6_amd64.changes
REJECT
Processing changes file: gnutls28_3.7.1-5+deb11u5_multi.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: gross_1.0.2-4.1~deb11u1_source.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: mediawiki_1.35.13-1+deb11u2_source.changes
ACCEPT
On 2024-04-02 07:13:38 +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>
> On 01/04/2024 23:25, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > > There is a transition to openmpi-5 / mpi-defaults which is stalled by the
> > > t64 transition.
> > >
> > > It drops 32-bit support from OpenMPI.
> > >
> > > Because of this, I don't
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> package release.debian.org
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of
'release.debian.org'
Limit currently set to 'package':'release.debian.org'
> tags 1061190 = bullseye pending
Bug #1061190 [release.debian.org]
package release.debian.org
tags 1068034 = bullseye pending
thanks
Hi,
The upload referenced by this bug report has been flagged for acceptance into
the proposed-updates queue for Debian bullseye.
Thanks for your contribution!
Upload details
==
Package: gross
Version:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> package release.debian.org
Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of
'release.debian.org'
Limit currently set to 'package':'release.debian.org'
> tags 1068034 = bullseye pending
Bug #1068034 [release.debian.org]
package release.debian.org
tags 1061190 = bullseye pending
thanks
Hi,
The upload referenced by this bug report has been flagged for acceptance into
the proposed-updates queue for Debian bullseye.
Thanks for your contribution!
Upload details
==
Package: gnutls28
Version:
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 2024-03-29 12:46:50 +, Torrance, Douglas wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Control: affects -1 + src:flint
> X-Debbugs-Cc: fl...@packages.debian.org
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> X-Debbugs-Cc: dtorra...@piedmont.edu
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #1067953 [release.debian.org] transition: flint
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
1067953: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1067953
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 01:07:27PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> April 13th
> April 20th
> April 27th
At current progress I expect to be available for the SRM side 13th or 27th.
We're in a good position to freeze this weekend to make the 13th, if others
are available then.
The 20th is a no for
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 - confirmed + moreinfo
Bug #1068016 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package
node-babel7/7.20.15+ds1+~cs214.269.168-3+deb12u2
Removed tag(s) confirmed.
Bug #1068016 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package
node-babel7/7.20.15+ds1+~cs214.269.168-3+deb12u2
Control: tag -1 - confirmed + moreinfo
Control: block -1 with 1063530
On 29/03/2024 18.08, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Fri, 2024-03-29 at 17:41 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
To smoothen some upgrade paths from buster -> bullseye -> bookworm we
need to add some Breaks+Replaces against obsolete
Hi,
On Mon, 01, Apr, 2024 at 01:07:27PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt spoke thus..
> April 13th
> - Not great for me for personal reasons, mhy previously said no. I
> could probably do if need be
13th is completely out for me.
> May 11th
> - Should work for me
Looks like it'll work at present.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> affects 1068242 + src:libtool
Bug #1068242 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package libtool/2.4.7-7~deb12u1
Added indication that 1068242 affects src:libtool
> block 1039583 with 1068242
Bug #1039583 {Done: Alastair McKinstry } [libltdl-dev]
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: bookworm
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
X-Debbugs-Cc: Alastair McKinstry
[ Reason ]
I'd like to rebuild libtool from sid in order to fix two RC bugs:
* missing Conflicts against an obsolete (now virtual) package name
Btw, what is the timeline for approval or rejection for this security
upload proposal?
--
Happy hacking
Petter Reinholdtsen
Hi,
Concerning the patch: It seems like -O2 is the default in Debian now anyway.
Will the patch still work as it is?
I did some investigations on platti.debian.org. I have no idea what the problem
is. My hunch is that compiler optimization breaks the code here. If I add a
simple print statement
Your message dated Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:04:51 +0200
with message-id
and subject line transition: opm-common not needed anymore
has caused the Debian Bug report #1055857,
regarding transition: opm-common
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this
On 01/04/2024 23:25, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
There is a transition to openmpi-5 / mpi-defaults which is stalled by the
t64 transition.
It drops 32-bit support from OpenMPI.
Because of this, I don't think the solution is to port 32-bit atomics for
armel/armhf, as it will be removed in a few
23 matches
Mail list logo
