the content of debug sections on mips
+because sh_type was set to SHT_MIPS_DWARF.
+
+ -- Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:12:08 +0200
+
elfutils (0.153-1) unstable; urgency=low
[ Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com ]
diff -Nru elfutils-0.153/debian/patches/alldts.patch elfutils-0.153
On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 05:40:17PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I would really like to know how to proceed with this.
Can someone please comment on this?
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas
So Neil told me on IRC to just fix #684825 via t-p-u using the patch
that's in that bug report.
I looked in to that and found that to due multi-arch changes in
glibc I now run into #691612.
So if I want to fix it via t-p-u I would also need to backport the
multi-arch changes. The original patch
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 02:15:48PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2012-10-27 at 20:08 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
So Neil told me on IRC to just fix #684825 via t-p-u using the patch
that's in that bug report.
I looked in to that and found that to due multi-arch changes in
glibc I
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 03:52:20PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 02:15:48PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2012-10-27 at 20:08 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
So Neil told me on IRC to just fix #684825 via t-p-u using the patch
that's in that bug report.
I
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 08:46:13PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock openssl/1.0.1c-4
Here is the debdiff between the versions:
diff -Nru openssl-1.0.1c/debian/changelog
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:39:25AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
I've done a test build of sarge. About 250 arch any packages failes to build.
The same test for arch all packages would be nice too. We've
come across several of those when building the amd64 archive and
most should have bugs filed
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 10:57:09AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
I just read a buildlog for gcc-3.4 and saw large amount of test failures
but the build themself is marked as successfull. I don't think this is
the proper use of a testsuite and have to asume that nothing in the
package may work.
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 06:21:01PM +0100, Eric Heintzmann wrote:
Hi,
Currently, latest GNUstep packages cannot enter in sarge.
(soname change and nearly all packages have been renamed)
One package is not a valid candidate : gnustep-antlr (Cannot be built
on arm)
There is 1 other
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:24:57PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
This will solve the following bugs:
db2:
(not reported) packages compiled on 2.6 have issues on 2.4
(not reported) Fast mutex support for mips and amd64
mutex/spinlocks also seem to be missing for ia64, powerpc and
arm.
db3:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 06:49:16PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can try to build all those for you if you want, and I'll report
those where I think that show problems.
That would be great. I think most of the problems will show up in
failed builds
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 03:17:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
One or more of these packages still depends on the removed gimp-print
package, and is not ready to be updated in testing.
printconf still depends on gimp-print.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 04:38:29AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
DO NOT upload packages built against libssl-dev or libssl0.9.8.
All packages should be built against libssl0.9.7-dev (libssl0.9.7) at this
time.
I intend to drop the libssl0.9.7-dev package in the next upload,
which I hope to
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:38:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 12:52:08AM +0200, Christoph Martin wrote:
Finally, are there any plans to alleviate testing migration issues for
packages held up by this, and if so, how?
The way to alleviate testing migration
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 01:11:17PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
What I'm wondering about was the need for a Conflict between
libssl0.9.7 and libssl0.9.8. I think we should do it, but it's
going to make migration to testing alot harder, but hopefully the
last time.
Having talked
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 03:39:08PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Packages built against the unversioned libssl0.9.8 will, when run on a
system
with versioned libssl0.9.8, either pick up the symbols from libssl0.9.7
(wrong) or not find their symbols (segfault). Accordingly, all
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:08:07PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
amd64 has also not built the most recent version of the debian-installer
package, and has been marked as building for over a day at
http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php?email=packages=debian-installerarches=
Additionally, it
Hi,
gnupg seems to be ready to migrate to testing, but is frozen
because of the udeb.
Can someone push this to testing if it's not causing any problems
for d-i?
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Would it be possible to allow openssl in testing? It has a udeb
and is therefor currently frozen. It fixes a grave bug that many
applications had problems with.
Note that it has an added dependency on zlib1g, and so does the
udeb. I have no idea if this is a problem for d-i.
Kurt
--
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 09:15:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
It still has an open RC bug, which affects testing too.
Any progress on that RC bug, btw?
Unfortuatly not.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 04:36:15PM -0500, Brian Nelson wrote:
Can someone please review http://bugs.debian.org/343060 and tell me what
to do about it? Several people are claiming libaspell needs to be
rebuilt, and in that case it would need a package name change and yet
another painful
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 06:05:28PM +0100, Gerrit Pape wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 03:36:00AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
reopen 345868
thanks
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 10:30:47AM +0100, Gerrit Pape wrote:
Unfortunately the discussion about the freecdb package didn't attract
my
Hi,
I've recently uploaded openssl 0.9.8a-6 which fixes an RC bug
affecting testing (#338006), and I'd like to get that version
into testing.
I forgot to bump the severity to high, and it needs a manual hint
because it has a udeb.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Hi,
Could you please hint the openssl 0.9.8a-7 version into testing?
Note that it has a udeb, so it needs to get approved.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:10:41AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 02:23 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
If there's
consensus that putting this stuff in /usr/lib32 on amd64 is prettier than
/emul/ia32-linux, I see no reason not to move forward.
My sense is that the
Hi,
You've filed some bugs requesting to drop support for python
2.1/2.2. Would it be useful if there were some NMU's done for
this?
Should those bug be marked as release critical instead?
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Hi,
Can dash please be pushed to testing?
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Could the following packages be hinted into testing? They all
have a udeb, and are currently missing on amd64.
expat
freetype
dash
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 05:00:06PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
# 350688
# Yes, really. GCC 2.95 is now a leaf package.
remove gcc-2.95/2.95.4.ds15-22
There seem to be 2 packages build depending on gcc-2.95: silo and
kernel-image-2.4.27-m68k
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Hi,
Can xfsprogs be pushed to testing? It has a udeb.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Can usbutils be pushed to testing? It has a udeb.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Could you please hint openssl 0.9.8b-3 in testing?
Note that it contains a udeb, so it's frozen.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 08:02:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 02:46:17AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Could you please hint openssl to testing? It's frozen because it has
udebs.
Already done, will go in as soon as it's aged another day.
I see a hint in aba's file
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:46:42AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Kurt Roeckx ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061002 08:38]:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 08:02:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 02:46:17AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Could you please hint openssl to testing
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:48:32PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
As a result, the bts is already ignoring m68k in calculating a bug's
applicability for the testing distribution, at the release team's request.
As someone who has recently looked at and fixed many problems, I must say
the
Hi,
Someone has requested CMS to be enabled in openssl, and I'm not
sure you find such a change acceptable at this time in the release
process.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_Message_Syntax
The only change in the source package this requires is
a configure option. As far as I
Hi,
I would like to add rfc5746 support to openssl in stable, so that
CVE-2009-3555 can be fixed. But adding that support means that
the old renegotiation doesn't work anymore unless you set an
option. This has the potentional to break both client and server
applications making use of openssl.
Hi,
Could openssl 0.9.8o-3 please be unblocked? It contains a
security fix.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101117172722.ga24...@roeckx.be
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:43:24PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:15:26PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Here is a list of packages that failed to build because of instability
on the buildds today:
package | buildd | error
qgit| penalosa | make
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 09:28:00PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 08:57:56PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Did something change to peri? I'm currently only seeing them on
penalosa.
UP kernel, maybe?
Both peri and penalosa run 2.6.29-2-parisc64-smp and from what I
can tell
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 11:03:01PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 03:52:16PM -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
And then there is glob2 that fails with:
/usr/bin/ld: libgag/src/libgag.a(FileManager.o)(.text+0x2fc8): cannot
reach f9bf_memcpy@@GLIBC_2.2+0, recompile
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 08:08:25PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
nmu 1 gmetadom_0.2.6-3 . alpha amd64 armel hppa i386 ia64 mips mipsel
powerpc s390 sparc . -m 'Recompile with OCaml 3.11.1'
nmu otags_3.09.3-3 . alpha . -m 'Recompile with OCaml 3.11.1'
gb pagodacf_0.10-2+b1 . mips
done
Kurt
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 01:46:24PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Luk Claes l...@debian.org (11/07/2009):
Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
Hi mighty members of the release team,
Could you please schedule a binNMU of pidgin against
libsilc-dev (= 1.1.9-1) in order to update its binary deps?
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 10:50:31AM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:02:19PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org writes:
speaking of which:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:35:41PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
The clamav project have announced that they will be publishing a
specially formed virus signature which disables older versions of the
software, including the version in lenny. If you have not yet migrated
to using the
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:52:47PM -0700, Jason Self wrote:
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be wrote ..
What does this mean exactly?
It means that versions older than 0.95 will be remotely disabled by the
ClamAV
folks once your copy of ClamAV gets the CVD update that includes what I like
-0.9.8g/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+openssl (0.9.8g-15+lenny7) stable-security; urgency=low
+
+ * Check return type of bn_wexpand(). Fixes CVE-2009-3245
+(Closes: #575433)
+
+ -- Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:30:01 +0200
+
openssl (0.9.8g-15+lenny6) stable-security
Hi,
I'd like to upload libtool 2.2.10 to unstable. As far as I know,
this should be mostly bug fixes. Can I upload it?
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:48:44PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to upload libtool 2.2.10 to unstable. As far as I know,
this should be mostly bug fixes. Can I upload it?
Could someone please give me an answer?
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 07:05:45PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Hi,
quote
Wrapper scripts and wrapper executables for programs linked against
uninstalled shared libraries now support command-line options --lt-debug
and --lt-dump-script.
Important incompatible changes: - The wrapper
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 02:46:42PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
As I've stated before, I'm not sure that fixing this bug for etch is
really useful. Of course, if there's a reason to update the tar in etch
for a security bug or something similar, fixing this too would make good
sense. But
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:54:47PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg -x maildrop_2.0.3-1_amd64.deb tmp/maildrop/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ objdump -x tmp/maildrop/usr/bin/maildrop | grep auth
NEEDED libcourierauth.so.0
RPATH /usr/lib:/usr/lib/courier-authlib
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 02:22:06PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
BTW, couldn't this also be addressed just by adding a
-l/usr/lib/courier-authlib option to dh_shlibdeps?
That seems to work too.
Why does this only happen on amd64? I don't really want an
architecture-specific kludge in the
Hi,
I've recently uploaded a version of openssl that changed some defines
into real functions. Since this was an undesired changed at this point,
I reverted the headers to use the defines again, but the library still
contains the functions. The version in testing does not have those
functions.
Hi,
Can ntp version 1:4.2.2.p4+dfsg-2 be hinted into testing? It contains
some important fixes I'd like to see migrate to testing.
It seems to have built on sparc but was never uploaded. I've tried
contacting [EMAIL PROTECTED] a few days ago without any actions so far.
Kurt
--
To
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:21:03PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi Kurt,
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 07:46:34PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Can ntp version 1:4.2.2.p4+dfsg-2 be hinted into testing? It contains
some important fixes I'd like to see migrate to testing.
+ntp (1:4.2.2.p4+dfsg-2
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 08:56:28AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Dear release people,
I think you know best how to contact buildd admins.
Reversing the order of what
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=dfsbuildver=1.0.0arch=amd64stamp=1176485127file
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 05:06:18PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2007-04-14 Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone please schedule binNMUs for the libpq4 to libpq5 transition once
libpq5 (postgresql-8.2) is built everywhere?
Hello,
wouldn't it be better to wait until libpq5 is
Hi,
We'd like to remove openssl097. Can all packages depending on
libssl0.9.7 be binNMUd were possible?
Afaik, this isn't needed on amd64, but is on other arches.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 05:11:36AM +0930, Ron wrote:
Hi,
Looking at the build logs for the latest upload, I see that
un-blacklisting this for amd64 means the svgatextmode_1.9-15
release (in testing) has been successfully built for amd64 now.
It was actually build for stable, and uploaded
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 07:52:47PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
Hallo Release Team,
I've read in the release goals:
RELEASE GOALS
=
* full IPv6 support
Advocate: Martin Zobel-Helas
and wrote to Martin Zobel-Helas who redirected me here.
My experience with IPv6 in Debian
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:53:06PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:33:10PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I've never actually had a problem on ipv4-only hosts. It would be nice
if you could describe your problems in more detail.
The typical problem
[I move this to the ipv6 list, I think this has little to do with
the -release list]
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 12:29:37AM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
I was trying to say that I had been bitten by the libc's name resolver
does by default an name lookup before it does an A lookup before and
Hi,
Could you please hint openssl into testing? It has a udeb.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 06:23:06PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
DNS RR is broken on Windows XP since SP2, Windows Vista, most *BSDs,
Redhat and Fedora, and probably any Linux distribution out there
I've just tested XP SP2 myself in various ways. I've tried things
like internet explorer,
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:52:41PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Goswin wrote:
Need-build is a good sign. http://buildd.net/ shows you are on place
37 out of 120. I suggest just waiting unless the buildd has stoped
altogether.
What is the ordering criteria on the buildds?
According to
Hi,
gcc-3.3 3.3.5-9 was build with the configure option
--disable-__cxa_atexit instead of --enable-__cxa_atexit. This
causes it to have a different C++ ABI.
This was fixed in the 3.3.5-10 which should be available soon.
I've made a list of source packages that might have been build
with the
Hi,
I would like to see a few packages with amd64 specific bugs be
fixed in sarge. I currently have 3 such packages:
- libglademm2.0: #279985: Fix a configure problem caused by using
an old libtool version resulting in link failures.
- libhdf4: #251275: Patches hdfi.h to known about amd64.
-
Hi,
I've uploaded a new version of openntpd which fix what I think
are several important bugs of which only 1 was reported.
Here is the changelog:
* Change E-mail address to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* poll_errors.dpatch: When poll() says there was an error on a socket, it
didn't get checked and
Hi,
Because of #310311, some packages do not have a version
dependency on libmad0 and/or libid3tag0 which could break partial
upgrading.
missing libmad0 in sarge this seems to be:
kdelibs4
kwifimanager
libsds0
libsomaplayer0
somaplayer
In unstable:
graveman
kdelibs4
kwifimanager
libsds0
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 03:18:27PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
I assume we're talking about FTBFS bugs which theoricaly should be reported
as serious (we have a few GNU/kFreeBSD bugs in the style of #307475, too).
FTBFS are only serious if:
- It build previously on that arch. Basicly, it
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:58:07PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
In order to cure this, we need to change the woody package, either to
force it to do a dump in the prerm or to save all the shared libraries
it needs to go with its binaries for use by the new package's postinst.
Afaik, It's
Hi,
I've recently uploaded a new major version of the dutch spelling
check files. The changes are rather large and should give better
support for spellchecking for Dutch. They are also generated
differently upstream, so reviewing the changes between the 2
versions isn't easy.
Please consider
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 03:57:16PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Hi,
I've recently uploaded a new major version of the dutch spelling
check files. The changes are rather large and should give better
support for spellchecking for Dutch. They are also generated
differently upstream, so
Hi,
Could someone bump openssl's priority so it migrates to testing
sooner? It fixes a security issue.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
Hi,
I would like to upload version 1.0.0(d) to unstable soon. It
changes soname, but as far as I know the API is still compatible
with the old one, and you should be able to rebuild everything
against the new version.
I wonder if I need to upload an openssl098 source package at
the same time to
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 11:11:15PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be, 2011-02-13, 00:27:
I would like to upload version 1.0.0(d) to unstable soon. It
changes soname, but as far as I know the API is still compatible
with the old one, and you should be able to rebuild
Hi,
I'm still waiting for a reply to my questions. If I don't hear
from you I will upload it to unstable a week from now.
Kurt
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 03:07:47PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Hi,
I'm still waiting for a reply.
Kurt
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:27:51AM +0100, Kurt
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:30:23PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
We should keep both SONAMES in sid and wheezy for now, IMO. So I think
that means first upload openssl 1.0.0 as a new source package without
the -dev (this can probably happen now). Then when that's in testing
and you get an
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 01:42:20PM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
Hi,
I confirm that some packages still use SSLv2[1][2].
I suggest that we do binNMU about openssl 1.0.
I'm sure we'll do binNMUs soon. But I think the release
team might want to wait until 1.0.0 has reached testing.
Kurt
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 12:45:03AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 00:27:51 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Hi,
I would like to upload version 1.0.0(d) to unstable soon. It
changes soname, but as far as I know the API is still compatible
with the old one, and you
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:34:17PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 07:40:26PM +, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
I would like to register an interest in carrying out a perl transition
soon. This would be to perl 5.10.1 to 5.12.x (x = 3 currently). This
transition has
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 08:21:07PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:34:17PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 07:40:26PM +, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
I would like to register an interest in carrying out a perl transition
soon. This would
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
This is to track the transition of openssl 1.0.0. Most of the
problems are related to dropping SSLv2 support.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:51:04PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the
default after the release of GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at
least on amd64, armel, i386 and powerpc.
If you do the switch, please
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Let me make an alternative proposal:
* The root cause bug in the BTS would be given a special tag
(arch-blocker:arch or something). I will call such a bug which
is open and has existed in this state for 30 days a ripe arch
On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 08:46:22PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 16:02:14 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
This is to track the transition of openssl 1.0.0
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:07:42AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 02:12:25 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:01:41 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
libdw1 (DWARF parser for elfutils)
FTBFS on kfreebsd, needs a bug
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 09:59:09AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
Problems reported so far include:
E: Method http has died unexpectedly!
E: Sub-process http received signal 10.
This is #669061
This appears to be Sparc only, right? We do had trouble with
alignments in the hashsum
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:07:44AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Salvatore Bonaccorso car...@debian.org (01/06/2012):
It was reported [1], that libnet-ssleay-perl does not report the
correct constant value for SSL_OP_NO_TLSv1_1. There was the following
change in openssl 1.0.1b-1:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 01:34:05AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Hi,
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be (02/06/2012):
This change was made to make sure applications build against
1.0.0 can talk to a server that does TLS 1.1 but not TLS 1.2,
as the changelog says. This is not something I like
Hi,
Could you please hint openssl in testing? The changelog:
* Don't give the warning about security updates when upgrading
from etch since it doesn't have any known security problems.
* Automaticly use engines that succesfully initialised. Patch
from the 0.9.8h upstream
Hi,
I'm planning on uploading libtool 2.2 to unstable soon. This includes
an soname bump for libltdl, which seems to have around 130 reverse
dependencies.
This might also result in some packages to FTBFS, or otherwise have
problems upgrading to 2.2 version.
Please let me know when the best
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 01:51:00PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Hi,
I'm planning on uploading libtool 2.2 to unstable soon. This includes
an soname bump for libltdl, which seems to have around 130 reverse
dependencies.
I will change libltdl7-dev to also provide libltdl3-dev, so this
should
Hi,
Can openssl 0.9.8g-16 be hinted to testing?
It fixes a security issue.
It has a udeb.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 04:24:17PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Also, the binNMU for apache2-mpm-itk in unstable I requested on
debian-release has not been scheduled yet: build against apache2-
src_2.2.11-6, new version should be
apache2-mpm-itk_2.2.11-02-1+b2 .
This is still
Hi,
Can openssl 0.9.8k-3 be pushed to testing? It fixed a number
of security issues.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
I take a regular look at various arches why packages are not
correctly built. hppa is the most annoying arch for me. If you
look at the stats you will notice that it's almost always
the lowest in the stats. The reason it more or less keeps up is
because I put alot of time in looking at the state
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 09:49:34PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
The octave3.2 package failed to autobuild on ia64 and is stuck on
powerpc. This is blocking our planned transition of the octave-forge
packages from octave3.0 to octave3.2 [1].
The failure on caballero is due to the
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:15:26PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
So it's my understanding that the porters have no idea about the
problems. So I will start to mail you about problems as soon
as I see them and they look like porting issues specific
to hppa.
netgen fails to built with an internal
1 - 100 of 261 matches
Mail list logo
