Re: No libtiff transition for sarge

On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 06:00:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:46:09PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: [...] [1] OK, you could upload half of GNOME recompiled against an older libgpg-error0

Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

Hi, it's obvious that freezing testing requires the extra amount of work for someone to check every single frozen package with a more recent version in unstable whether sarge lacks required fixes. They might be RC bugs like #237071, but it's also possible that an upload fixed a security bug

Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 01:21:22PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040812 12:25]: it's obvious that freezing testing requires the extra amount of work for someone to check every single frozen package with a more recent version in unstable whether sarge

Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:23:00PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: Rather than complaining and posing that people aren't doing their jobs, and asking which member of e release team is responsible for doing this task?, you could _help_ instead. If the release management has announced a

Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 04:06:18PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote: If such an easy and clearly RC bug as #237071 which is already fixed in unstable isn't adressed in testing until today, something is definitely going wrong. And if it was Jeroen's job as you said, he isn't doing it properly.

Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:21:24PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040812 14:10]: On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 01:21:22PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040812 12:25]: Why do you think this task is not worked on, if you're

Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:51:56PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: ... The Debian release management thinks freezing testing is less work. That's OK (I have no influence on it - I'm not even a Debian developer), but I do not plan to do anything of the work that is only caused by the fact that

Re: Bug#272853 acknowledged by developer (non-sense RC bugs on libgdiplus)

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:48:26AM -0800, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: ... One cummulative answers for all stupid bug reports: About building non-buildable in Testing: that is how it works if there are circular build dependencies. Please try to understand what is going on before

uninstallation bugs are RC

severity 287355 serious thanks It was always clear for me that uninstallation bugs definitely have to be RC. Installation bugs are RC, and uninstallation bugs are even worse since it may take longer util they are discovered. cu Adrian -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked

Re: Bug#594940: Includes binary-only and obfuscated C code

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:32:13PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: ... For the remainder of the files, whilst we may consider granting a squeeze-ignore tag, we would like to come to an agreement as to how we can resolve these issues in the medium term. ... Can you actually add a squeeze-ignore

Re: Bug#301839: freebsd5-buildutils: can't fulfill the build dependencies in sarge

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:50:36PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050329 19:35]: If testing should make any sense, handling build dependencies as dependencies in the testing scripts was required. We all know that your opinion about the usefulness of testing

Re: Bug#307816: cweb is not installable / unusable

On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:07:47PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: ... So I suggest letting: * tetex-bin_2.0.2-29 (and packages built from it: libkpathsea3 and libkpathsea-dev) * cweb_3.64.debian-2 into sarge. I agree, this is a better solution than my suggestion. Julian cu Adrian --

Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:23:35AM -0400, sean finney wrote: ... the following upgrade paths work: mysql-server/woody - mysql-server/sarge mysql-server/woody - mysql-server/sarge - mysql-server-4.1/sarge but this does not: mysql-server/woody - mysql-server-4.1/sarge so at this point,

Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 05:33:01PM -0400, sean finney wrote: On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:00:29PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: ... Other issues like #308762 are also still possible on direct mysql-server/woody - mysql-server-4.1/sarge upgrade paths - and there will be users doing such upgrade

Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge

On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:49:13AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: ... I see the same three options. Joey has said he is working on a final woody point release for the last weekend in May; you'll probably need to coordinate with him and get something uploaded soon if you want to try for this

Re: RFC on mysql 4.1 in sarge

On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 08:35:03AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:08:28PM +0200, GOMBAS Gabor wrote: On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:49:13AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: 3 does not sound so bad to me; it's arguably user error anyway to replace a package-provided

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Status of kernel-patches in sarge]

On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches and per-arch patches). I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune at this stage. IMHO patches which cannot be applied to debian

Re: unrar version confusion

On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 06:24:50PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: Adrian Bunk wrote: Repairing this issue by simply renaming the non-free package back to unrar and giving the free program a different name should be pretty straightforward and doable for sarge. Package unrar

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Status of kernel-patches in sarge]

On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 10:02:06PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:35:59AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches

Re: file RC bugs for potato uninstallable pkgs (was Re: Please release 2.1r6)

On 22 Apr 2000, Adam Di Carlo wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: FWIW, http://auric.debian.org/~ajt/potato_probs.html has similar lists, except it will choose whichever of perl or perl5 that works, and not worry that the other one doesn't. It also takes Conflicts into

Re: file RC bugs for potato uninstallable pkgs (was Re: Pleaserelease 2.1r6)

On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Adrian Bunk wrote: ... And that RC bugs should be filed? I started filing RC bugs against unmet Depends: and Recommends: yesterday. ... I've done this (except for one strange case a bug was closed by a new package but this package is in neither potato nor woody where I

Re: file RC bugs for potato uninstallable pkgs (was Re: Pleaserelease 2.1r6)

On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Richard Braakman wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 12:28:08PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: The next thing I'm doing is filing RC bugs for priority problems (most often: package with priority `optional' depends on package with priority `extra'). Please don't. Such bugs

Re: file RC bugs for potato uninstallable pkgs (was Re: Pleaserelease 2.1r6)

On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Raphael Hertzog wrote: ... Where's a reason for the difference between the priorities `optional' and `extra' if you can't be sure that a CD excluding all `extra' packages but including all others gives you a Debian with no missing dependencies? CDs are never

Re: [SLINK] Quake2* needs to be pulled

On Thu, 4 May 2000, J.A. Bezemer wrote: Yust to remember there's bug #57301 that the quake2* packages have to be removed from slink (in 2.1r6). This has been done already (maybe your mirror is out of sync?). Bug should be closed. ... It wasn't a mirror out of sync but my personal

Could the release notes for potato mention smail?

Hi, I'm the new maintainer for smail. I will soon try to fix as many bugs as possible and prepare packages for potato because many people use smail. Is it possible to put a note in the release notes that there will be unofficial smail packages for potato at http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/smail.html

Re: Could the release notes for potato mention smail?

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Josip Rodin wrote: I'm the new maintainer for smail. I will soon try to fix as many bugs as possible and prepare packages for potato because many people use smail. Is it possible to put a note in the release notes that there will be unofficial smail packages for

Re: Potato revision 1

yOn Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Anthony Towns wrote: Hi guys, Hi Anthony, ... I'm also inclined to let in a couple of interesting, non-essential, bug-free packages that didn't make potato r0. I think the following rules are reasonable: * only allowing at most a handful of packages fitting

Re: 2.2r3 preparation

On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: ... Anyone have any worthwhile opinions on how 2.2r3 and 2.4.0 should get along? There already seems to be an iptables package and adding a new devfsd package would have little chance of breaking any existing installs If you look at the bugs page of

Re: 2.2r3 preparation

On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Adrian Bunk wrote: To support Kernel 2.4 you we need to upgrade at least: - modutils Won't happen for potato: it's either 2.0+2.2 kernel support or 2.2+2.4, and I refuse to drop 2.0 kernel support from potato for modutils

Re: 2.2r3 preparation

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Adrian Bunk wrote: ... - Shall I create an apt-able archive with the packages needed for kernel 2.4 recompiled for potato? If noone has a good reason against this I'll set it up next week. All the packages are on ftp.valinux.com

Packages for using kernel 2.4.x with potato

Since it seems noone has already done this: I'll set up an apt-able archive with _all_ the packages someone might need when upgrading the kernel to 2.4.x . I hope I'll have it ready till Tuesday. I plan to include: Upgraded packages: - modutils - util-linux - e2fsprogs - ppp - pcmcia-cs New

Re: Packages for using kernel 2.4.x with potato

On 12 Feb 2001, Adam Di Carlo wrote: Since it seems noone has already done this: I'll set up an apt-able archive with _all_ the packages someone might need when upgrading the kernel to 2.4.x . I hope I'll have it ready till Tuesday. Let me know when it's there and I can put a mention in

Re: Preparing 2.2r3

On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Martin Schulze wrote: An up-to-date version (copy of my work copy) is at http://master.debian.org/~joey/2.2r3/ Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r3 = This list is based on the report posted by Anthony Towns. I'll have to do some

Re: Preparing Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r3

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Martin Schulze wrote: Hi, Hi Martin, I'd like to know whether it may be useful to provide updates to those packages that don't work with a Linux 2.4.x kernel anymore. There are a couple of packages that would have to be updated. Currently none of them are on my list

Re: Preparing Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r3

Explanation from Adrian Bunk: It was meant to go in potato: All the patches (except the changed maintainer address) are ARM-specific or save (I don't expect bugs with updated config.guess and config.sub) and shouldn't affect other platforms. Currently, any call to one

Re: More updates

On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: And then, after reading my email... 188,197c188,192 reject mtools_3.9.6-4_arm.changes Not release critical reject mtools_3.9.6-4_i386.changes Not release critical reject mtools_3.9.6-4_m68k.changes Not release critical reject

Re: To Do for 2.2r3

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: Things still needed/wanted for r3: ... I've build mtools_3.9.6-4_alpha.changes that is now waiting in incoming (this architecture was missing at the mtools packages). Cheers, aj cu Adrian -- Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 06:44:11AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: Hi, fellow debian audio developers, and release managers. I think jack-audio-connection-kit and related packages should enter mini-freeze, to get something released to testing. From the look of it,

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 07:29:43AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for puredata: Too young, only 7 of 10 days old and it will be ready for install. You missed at least Wine and #218476. Yes, indeed.

Re: arla/heimdal/krb4/cyrus-sasl2 ?

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 12:28:39AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Are these four ready to be hinted in together, or am I missing something? According to update_output, at least PostgreSQL needs to go into testing before heimdal can go into testing. PostgreSQL waits for glibc and perl. glibc

Re: arla/heimdal/krb4/cyrus-sasl2 ?

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 10:36:20AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:09:56PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 12:28:39AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Are these four ready to be hinted in together, or am I missing something? According

Re: Time to push qt-x11 and friends into testing?

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:37:14PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Wouldn't it be more effective if you would try to fix these packages instead of proposing to remove them? No, it wouldn't. (1) I couldn't care less about these packages. I'm not competent to fix them and I don't really

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:11:14AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: Update: From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for * wine -- which has a grave bug that it doesn't work on 2.6.0, I posted a

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:58:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Blahblahblah. The bug doesn't make it unusable for everyone, therefore it's not grave. Stop arguing about severities and fix the bug instead. If you're not able to do that, do something else that's productive instead. There are

Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Hi, below are some subjective opservations and opinions regarding the progress towards Debian 3.1 . Please read it, and make your own opinions on where I'm right and where I'm wrong, even if you might not agree with my opinions on other issues or if you don't agree with everything below. This

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:42:26PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: During the last months, the number of RC bugs of packages in unstable was constant at 700 bugs including 500 RC bugs in packages that are in testing [2]. Yes

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 12:34:27AM +, Colin Watson wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:42:26PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: For testing to work good, it's required to have unstable in a good state. Often new so-versions

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:01:07PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 17:42, Adrian Bunk wrote: If a maintainer is MIA, his packages should be orphaned and he should be kicked out of Debian as soon as possible. It would be better _not_ to make it a policy to kick a maintainer

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 08:48:04PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: Please read it, and make your own opinions on where I'm right and where I'm wrong, even if you might not agree with my opinions on other issues or if you don't agree

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:53:36PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: Today, it's only 17 days until the officially announced aggressive goal for the release of Debian 3.1 [1]. That's a date many users know about, but I don't see any

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 05:47:44PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: Joey wrote: Packages in unstable have dependencies in unstable which may not be met in testing, hence they cannot simply be included in testing. Unfortunately we need to take care of this. I've come up at least once with a

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:54:00PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:29:29PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: There are some good suggestions in your proposal, e.g. you suggest to check whether the build dependencies are fulfilled. The lack of checking for build dependencies

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: ... That could be done either by a rebuild, or, less costly, by a simple unpack/edit-changelog/repack. Repacking breaks with every Depends: somepackage (= ${Source-Version}) In that case, if we had libfoo0_1.0-1 in pre-testing,

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:34:53PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: ... One example of this is, while Gnome 2.2 has made it to testing, most GTK2/Gnome2 killer apps, like Evolution, are still stuck in Unstable. Why? Two reasons: 1) Ximian cranks out more releases than the Debian

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:26:45AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: ... Binary NMU for unstable: Version: 1.0-2.0.1 Your suggested pre-tesing package: Version: 1.0-2.0.1 IOW: There are two different packages with the same version number. But: - if they come into incoming the

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 11:16:40PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:32:38AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:26:45AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: ... Binary NMU for unstable: Version: 1.0-2.0.1 Your suggested pre-tesing package

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:18:18AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 08:59:54AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Nothing stops me from using Version 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9. It's sure that this system of numeration only works for non-native Debian packages. It's not clear at

Re: Status of mozilla packages for debian 3.1 release

On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 10:44:54AM +0100, Eric Valette wrote: Eric Valette wrote: This shows that very basic feature are not working with debian provided mozilla packages whereas they *do work* with the official mozilla binary and are therefore either due to maintainer changes (the

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 07:53:47PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... I haven't found it explicitely mentioned, but the logial version number for a binary NMU of version 1.0 would be 1.0-0.0.1 . A binary NMU implies you haven't changed the source

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 04:10:56PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: ... * it isn't consistent in all respects; e.g. although the package dependencies might have been fulfilled, it contained for some time a strange mixture of GNOME 1 and GNOME 2 I'm pretty sure that was because of hinting.

Re: Hinting openmotif friends?

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:47:51AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: I just noticed a rather complicated interdependency web: new fbi depends on new libpcd new ida depends on new openmotif *and* new libpcd new motv depends on new openmotif *and* new xawtv new libpcd breaks old fbi and old

Re: Hinting openmotif friends?

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 09:15:00PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Adrian Bunk wrote: Independent of this, they are not ready: xawtv depends on new zlib zlib has build failures on several architectures This should hopefully be fixed ASAP as it's holding up mozilla. xawtv depends on new

Re: Hinting openmotif friends?

On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 06:22:56PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: ... jack-audio-connection-kit has to go in at the same time as: alsaplayer ecamegapedal ecawave fluidsynth freqtweak alsa-lib puredata (which needs to finish building on all archs) soundtracker freqtweak (which is

Re: Why mozilla stalled by zlib?

On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 02:46:39AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: From what I can see, mozilla only depends on zlib = 1:1.1.4, which should be satisfied by zlib 1:1.1.4-16 currently in testing, and I would believe mozilla could go in now. Still, update_excuses says mozilla is

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 08:31:11AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Can anyone explain to me why the use of recommends: grub is a policy violation? I scanned through the policy and failed to find anything obvious. If you can't fulfill a Recommends, that's a violation of section 2.2.1. of

Re: a failed purge is RC

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:27:32AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 12:36:09AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: severity 274272 grave thanks A failed purge of a package is definitely RC. Yes, but it doesn't 'render the package useless, or mostly so'. The right severity

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:39:31AM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: ... [*] However, I think Policy should be changed to requre Depends only and not Recommends. In the past, dselect would scream loudly about Recommends not being fulfilled but these days the tools don't really care as much

Re: Bug#273734: education-common: con't fulfill the Recommends on !i386

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 12:44:21PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-10-03 03:22]: If you change policy to make Recommends similar to Suggests, you might even remove Recommends from policy since there will no longer be a real difference between Recommends

Re: RC policy - editorial clarifications?

Hi Andreas, + the already discussed topic of recommends (IMHO yes, as main should be a closure, and broken recommends break that; although I tend to sarge-ignore if there is no other clean solution, as all-packages don't support something like foo[i386] in their recommends line); Why

Circular dependencies are not a good idea

Hi Jeroen, I'd disagree with your opinion that this issue (abuse-lib should depend on abuse) is really a bug. You are suggesting something that would create a circular dependency which is something e.g. apt doesn't always handle optimally. A similar example is e.g. tetex-base which doesn't

Re: Circular dependencies are not a good idea

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 06:18:56PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 06:34:10PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: As long as non-fulfillable are treated as RC bugs the current Recommends is enough since a missing abuse in sarge is then a reason for a RC bug on abuse-lib also

Re: Bug#277074: Circular dependencies are not a good idea

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:01:17PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: ... BTW: How do I correctly file such a Recommends bug then? It's a RC bug according to your policy and I'd add the sarge-ignore tag when filing, but Steve had explicitely stated that only the release

Re: Bug#277074: Circular dependencies are not a good idea

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:24:49PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:19:54PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:01:17PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: You file it at 'important'. The 'serious' severity is defined by the release managers

Re: Bug#276966: popt: #245819 is still present in sarge

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 01:41:18AM +0100, Paul Martin wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 12:08:12PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:45:14AM +0100, Paul Martin wrote: On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 09:57:37PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: Package: popt Version: 1.7-4

Re: Raising severity of Contains /usr/share/info/dir.gz if rebuilt on current sid-bugs.

On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 11:59:04AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: Hi, * Andreas Metzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040317 11:10]: I.e. any of these package has a RC bug if it is recompieled without fixing this bug. Today an NMU happened (anubis) which did exactly this. To stop this from happening

Re: Upgrade only supported from most recent point release

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 01:43:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Adrian Bunk wrote: snip This will ensure _nothing_. It's supported that users upgrade from Debian 3.0r0 to 3.1. Unfortunately, I think that already isn't supported. If I'm not very much mistaken, there are several

Re: Package removal proposals

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 03:22:20PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: ... (xemacs21 would be on this list, but the last versions in sarge actually don't have any of the current RC bugs. Which is a sort of victory for the 'testing' scripts. Of course, this is because no version has gotten into

Re: Removal suggestions due to uninstallability

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 06:46:28PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: So, the nagios mess does not look close to being fixed. The following packages have no installable binaries in 'testing' (except nagios-nrpe-doc, which seems kind of silly when none of the other packages are installable.) Why

Re: Removal suggestions due to uninstallability

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 09:44:35PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: ... | All I can see is that they will become installable in testing ass soon | as netsaint-plugins enters testing, and netsaint-plugins is waiting for | PostgreSQL. You mean nagios-plugins, right? Yes, my fault. | What

Re: XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote: ... Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which I promptly downgraded; if it didn't go in today, I expect that will be because of the new sppc upload, making it a transitive problem. Please don't forget

Re: XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)

On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 06:39:47AM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote: On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote: ... Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which I promptly downgraded

Re: Old RC bugs

On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 02:55:30AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: ... db3 #223142, #234507 db4.0 #223140 I know we can't remove them. One of the base problems It would be nice to see fewer copies of libdb in sarge, in all honesty. ... There is external (non-free) software that

Re: Excess copies of libdb

On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 10:20:28PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 03:05:21PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Perl (last db4.0 Standard package) would most likely be a lot harder, since it *does* expose the db interface, so it probably shouldn't be altered until

Re: Removing zope

On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 12:17:32PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: ... I would expect that if there isn't clear progress on fixing zope's RC bugs within a week, I would be hinting it for removal, along with any ... You are already hinting it for removal: * -zope (2.6.4-1 to -) +

Bug#656829: What is the kde-runtime/qt4-x11 issue?

Hi, I am a bit puzzled by reading the - kde-runtime should build again, but must not migrate to testing before qt4-x11, according to Pino. That one is missing ~4 days, we could always age it if needed. in this bug. What is the problem here, and why is it not covered by the package

Re: Bug#674853: [Pkg-samba-maint] Bug#674853: winbind should depend on libpam-winbind and libnss-winbind for wheezy

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:35:28PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:45:40PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: [ winbind only recommending libpam-winbind and libnss-winbind ] What I am talking about is the special case of how to ensure that everyone who had these installed

Raising severity

severity 291194 serious tags 291194 lenny-ignore thanks I just ran into this bug when using a modified tar that defaults to create posix archives: -- snip -- # dpkg -i ddd_3.3.12~rc2-0.0.bunk_amd64.deb (Reading database ... 193488 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to

Bug#827061: transition: openssl

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:09:56PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >... > > You can go to http://reproducible.debian.net/$srcpkgname and see for > > yourself > > whether they build fine in our environment. If they do, you can rule out > > "parallel" as causing this… > > I see. I looked

Bug#854198: Packages that are now part of request-tracker4 must be removed from testing

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal #852258 rt-authen-externalauth: FTBFS: Your installed version of RT (4.4.1-2) is too new #851987 rt-extension-spawnlinkedticketinqueue: Obsolete with RT 4.4 #851986 rt-extension-sla: Obsolete with RT 4.4 These are now part of request-tracker4 and

Please allow arden 1.0-3 to migrate to testing

Hi, arden was recently changed from binary-any to binary-all (#852313), but testing migration is blocked by: arden/i386 unsatisfiable Depends: python-htseq The root cause is #819617, which might not get fixed in time for stretch. Please allow arden into testing despite not being installable

Bug#851995: nmu: db5.3_5.3.28-12

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 05:35:28PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > Control: tag -1 moreinfo > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 18:32:08 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org >

Bug#852703: nmu: non-empty -gcj packages on mips64el

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu With #851391 fixed, these packages should get the intended contents also on mips64el. nmu libxml-commons-resolver1.1-java_1.2-7 . mips64el . unstable . -m "Rebuild with libgcj-common

Bug#852693: nmu: llvm-defaults_0.34

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu I messed up the version number in #851436, assume that's the reason why no binNMU happened after it was scheduled. nmu llvm-defaults_0.34 . armel . unstable . -m "llvm-toolchain-3.8 is now

Bug#852693: nmu: llvm-defaults_0.34

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 03:46:21PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: binnmu > > I messed up the version number in #851436, assume that's the > reason why no binNMU happened a

Re: Bug#853189: tracker.debian.org: Ecnoding issue / Code injection through Maintainer field (and probably others)

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 04:48:55PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 03:43:44PM +0100, Dominik George wrote: > > tracker.debian.org apparently has encoding issues, not of the “schei� > > encoding” kind, but it even seems to break the HTML completely and even > > introduces new

Bug#852859: unblock: mknbi/1.4.4-13

:40:44.0 +0300 +++ mknbi-1.4.4/debian/changelog2017-01-28 00:23:07.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +mknbi (1.4.4-13) unstable; urgency=medium + + * QA upload. + * Add patch from Steve Beattie to fix PIE FTBFS. (Closes: #852851) + + -- Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> Sat,

Bug#852945: RM: packages that migrated by mistake, batch 1

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 01:11:39PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: rm > > Quite a lot of packages accidentally migrated to testing on 2016-12-29 > despite open RC bugs. Here is a first batch.

Re: Draft for taging 32 RC bugs with can-defer, will-remove or is-blocker

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 01:20:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Hi, > > I have a quick review of the RC bugs in *key* packages that are unfixed > in unstable according to UDD. The following is a list of 32 of these > (out of about 180) with proposed verdicts/tagging to start a debate > about

Re: Draft for taging 32 RC bugs with can-defer, will-remove or is-blocker

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 07:20:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Moritz Mühlenhoff: > > Niels Thykier schrieb: > >>> 852603virglrenderer can-defer virglrenderer: > >>> CVE-2016-10163 > >>> 852604virglrenderer can-defer virglrenderer: >

Bug#855534: unblock: multiple packages, didn't make it to testing due to openssl1.1

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 10:25:55PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: unblock > Severity: normal >... > - h323plus > got removed [1] due a RC bug in ptlib. ptlib is now in testing

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >