Bug#1050885: RM: ruby-roxml/4.2.0-1 (from testing)

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm X-Debbugs-Cc: ruby-ro...@packages.debian.org Control: affects -1 + src:ruby-roxml Please remove ruby-roxml from testing. - it is broken in testing due to #1050580, which blocks the migration of

Bug#1033518: unblock: rails/2:6.1.7.3+dfsg-1

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package rails. That version fixes a number of CVEs and #1030050. >From the changelog: + This is a security-only release from a rails stable branch. Upstream changelogs:

Bug#1027935: RM: ruby-bourne/1.6.0-3 ruby-mail-room/0.10.0+really0.0.9-2 ruby-terrapin/0.6.0-4

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Please rm ruby-bourne from testing, as well as its two reverse depends (ruby-mail-room and ruby-terrapin). It will allow ruby-mocha to migrate to testing. ruby-bourne is unmaintained upstream

Bug#1027022: RM: puppet-beaker/4.30.0-2

On 26/12/22 at 15:30 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi Lucas, > > On 26-12-2022 14:55, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Please remove puppet-beaker from testing. > > Normally that's handled by requesting removal from unstable as removal there > is synced to testing. > > >

Bug#1027022: RM: puppet-beaker/4.30.0-2

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Please remove puppet-beaker from testing. It is orphaned, broken, outdated compared to upstream, and blocks the migration of ruby-net-scp (that's how I ran into it) I tried updating it to the

Re: Bug#1019724: warning: stray \ before - causes autopkgtest failure

Hi, On 16/09/22 at 21:35 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi Santiago, > > On 15-09-2022 09:26, Paul Gevers wrote: > > I am trying to schedule autopkgtests in unstable on amd64 for all source > > packages that have one. > > All results are now in. Only several test failed due this warning: the known

Re: Tentative summary of the AMD/ATI/NVidia issue (was: Finding a tentative bullseye release date)

On 25/04/21 at 11:04 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > B) In the installer, detect that firmware-amd-graphics or > > firmware-misc-nonfree should be installed, and either install it (?), > > or redirect the user to the unofficial installer that includes them. > > That could be achieved for an

Re: Tentative summary of the AMD/ATI/NVidia issue

On 24/04/21 at 20:07 +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > Du schriebst in gmane.linux.debian.devel.release: > > Lucas Nussbaum writes: > >> It looks like the three open paths for resolution are: > >> > >> A) understand and restore the behaviour from De

Tentative summary of the AMD/ATI/NVidia issue (was: Finding a tentative bullseye release date)

On 24/04/21 at 09:25 +0200, Holger Wansing wrote: > Hi, > > Cyril Brulebois wrote (Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:13:15 +0200): > > D-I Bullseye RC 1 was published a few hours ago. And at the risk of > > sounding like a broken record: I have *absolutely no guarantee* to > > have a fix or workaround for the

Re: referencing cloud images in bullseye release notes

On 01/03/21 at 13:00 +0100, Thomas Lange wrote: > Hi Noah, > > I think Ch. 3 is a good idea also adding a new section 3.2. I would > also vote for an entry in the What's new part and adding a note for > the Docker images. Our users want to find information about cloud and > docker images, so we

Bug#972963: buster-pu: package lmod/6.6-0.3

to Baptiste Jonglez for finding the relevant upstream bug reports. +The same change was just uploaded as an NMU to unstable (in 6.6-0.4). + + -- Lucas Nussbaum Mon, 26 Oct 2020 13:24:01 +0100 (Sorry, I initially missed the documentation about the process on https://release.debian.org) - Lucas

Bug#924483: unblock: packaging-tutorial/0.24

On 13/03/19 at 13:16 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: unblock > > Please unblock package packaging-tutorial > > This update contains mostly translation upd

Bug#924483: unblock: packaging-tutorial/0.24

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package packaging-tutorial This update contains mostly translation updates (+ very minor fixes). The package is Arch:all, contains only documentation, and has no reverse

Role of stable suites

Hi, After 15+ years of using and contributing to Debian, I must admit that I'm confused about the role of the various stable suites. :-) This is in the context of #887422 where I'm trying to document the various suites and their interactions. I also found [1] (SVG graph at [2]) but I'm not sure

Re: Consuming excuses.yaml?

On 28/12/18 at 21:04 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Cyril Brulebois: > > Hey folks, > > > > I haven't been following release team things lately, so I might have > > missed something: do we have a tool that parses/consumes excuses.yaml > > yet? A few years back, I had a tool look at

Re: Bug#860608: [pkg-golang-devel] Bug#860608: golang: FTBFS: Go version is "go1.6.1", ignoring -next /<>/api/next.txt

On 21/04/17 at 08:28 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Michael Stapelberg: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Niels Thykier wrote: > > > >> [...] > >>> > >> > >> They seem to be arch:all packages. We cannot binNMU arch:all packages, > >> only architecture dependent ones. :-/ >

Re: Status of FTBFS on stretch/i386

On 19/04/17 at 10:31 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 19/04/17 at 09:08 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > I'll follow-up later with results about stretch/i386. > > The situation there looks much worse. > > Bugs: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=qa-f

Re: Bug#860608: golang: FTBFS: Go version is "go1.6.1", ignoring -next /<>/api/next.txt

On 19/04/17 at 09:05 +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > This is the third time an FTBFS report against this package (which was > removed from Debian) was submitted. > > The other two times were > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=855926 and >

Status of FTBFS on stretch/i386 (Was: Status of FTBFS on stretch/amd64)

On 19/04/17 at 09:08 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > I'll follow-up later with results about stretch/i386. The situation there looks much worse. Bugs: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=qa-ftbfs-20170418-i386;users=debian...@lists.debian.org Logs for failed builds are availa

Status of FTBFS on stretch/amd64

Hi, I've just done an archive rebuild on stretch/amd64. All remaining FTBFS bugs I encountered have been usertagged: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=qa-ftbfs-20170418;users=debian...@lists.debian.org Logs for failed builds are available from

Re: Bug#836940: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

On 08/09/16 at 11:31 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > as we are talking about testing packages in the most minimal environment > > possible it must be noted that debootstrap --variant=minbase or > > --variant=buildd does not only install

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

> I don't expect too many surprises either, since other distributions > already tested enabling bindnow and probably they found > most issues. > > > > > From dpkg PoV enabling both, would at least require a full-archive > > rebuild, for bindnow ideally also a full autop

Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

On 21/07/16 at 16:40 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2016-07-21 16:18 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:21:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > >> Some of the new bugs are like this: > >> > >> make: *** No rule to make target 'build-indep'. Stop. > >> > >> Targets

Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

clone 830997 -1 reassign -1 lintian retitle -1 lintian: fails to detect missing build-indep target in 9 packages thanks On 21/07/16 at 16:18 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:21:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > Some of the new bugs are like this: > > > > make: ***

Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

On 21/07/16 at 02:21 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 09:47:52PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 15/07/16 at 00:23 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > > I did some work to verify Santiago's list of affected packages, and > > identified more affect

Bug#830997: release.debian.org: Permission to consider dpkg-buildpackage -A bugs as RC

On 15/07/16 at 00:23 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > > Great. We can handle that for Stretch. You can send a ping to the bug > > reports > > saying that these are going to be RC for Stretch and that you will bump them > > after a week, and

Archive rebuild with GCC 6

Hi, I just did an archive rebuild with the gcc-defaults package from experimental, to use GCC 6. I filed quite a lot of bugs. All logs (of failed builds) are available at https://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2016/07/13/ Due to the large number of problems, there could be a couple of cases

Bug#830871: release.debian.org: missing hints file 'freeze'

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Hi, On https://release.debian.org/britney/hints/ there's a link to a 'freeze' file, but that link doesn't work (404 error). This breaks UDD's hints importer. Full IRC log from #debian-release: 13:31 < lucas> hi 13:31 < lucas> on

Bug#787478: jessie-pu: package how-can-i-help/10

On 21/08/15 at 15:10 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Control: tags -1 + confirmed On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 15:20 +0200, Tomasz Nitecki wrote: The patch for grave bug #787471 has successfully resolved the issue. It is both in unstable and testing (11) and it didn't cause any problems there. I

Bug#774211: archive rebuild results

Hi, After being asked by Ivo, I did an archive rebuild using binutils and gcc-4.9 from unstable. Do to a limitation of my setup, the rebuild had to be run as 'root', which causes some failures in test suites. The full list of failing packages is below. I skimmed through the failures, and could

Re: Plan B for kfreebsd

On 10/11/14 at 23:01 +, Steven Chamberlain wrote: I guess snapshots.d.o would still have copies of the last packages that were _in_ testing? Yes But won't have the indices _for_ testing. It has them as well. See e.g.

Re: Plan B for kfreebsd

On 10/11/14 at 22:09 +, Steven Chamberlain wrote: Petr Salinger wrote: Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: [...] though we do hope that the porters will be able to make a simultaneous unofficial release. It is unclear, what we have to duplicate. Do we stay in testing ? I'd like to know

Re: Release Team sprint

Hi Emilio, On 03/11/14 at 21:05 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Hi Lucas, As I told you over IRC, we're having a Release Team sprint in Cambridge this coming Thursday and Friday. We decided to have it in Cambridge as there's a miniconf in there this weekend, so it's a good chance to

Re: BTS and UDD disagrees on the number of RC bugs in stable

Hi Niels, On 05/02/14 at 18:52 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: Hi BTS people and UDD, We have noticed that some bugs tagged wheezy-ignore appears on the BTS list of RC bugs affecting stable. As an example, the list[1] contains #710069 and #710357. Both of these were tagged wheezy-ignore on

Re: Candidates for removal from testing (2013-06-30)

Hi, Thanks a lot for this work. On 30/06/13 at 23:32 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: We are considering removing the following packages from testing as they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be found in the attached dd-list. The packages have been selected based on the

Re: Candidates for removal from testing (2013-06-30)

On 01/07/13 at 15:00 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: Hi, Quoting Lucas Nussbaum (2013-07-01 08:21:30) Currently, the following criterias are used: | Key packages are: | - packages whose popcon is higher than 5% of the max popcon (that's | 7570 insts currently) | OR | - packages

plans for automake 1.11?

Hi, automake1.11 is currently Provided by the automake binary package in the automake1.11 source package. However, that binary package is superseded by the automake binary package built by the automake1.13 source package. As a result, the following 37 packages fail to build: aumix conky cstream

Call for help: archive rebuilds

Hi, I'm unlikely to be able to do much archive rebuild work in the coming year, so I would welcome help on that front. Here is the job description: - maintain scripts to organize archive rebuilds, parse logs and file bugs Required skills: basic Ruby knowledge (or willingness to learn)

Bug#702870: unblock: ruby1.8/1.8.7.358-7

large string objects which could +consume all available memory on the system. (Closes: #702526) + + [ Lucas Nussbaum ] + * Reviewed and tested Salvatore's patch. + + -- Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:34:11 +0100 + ruby1.8 (1.8.7.358-6) unstable; urgency=high * Timeout

Re: RC bugs missing from UDD (was: RC bugs missing after experimental upload)

On 24/12/12 at 19:26 +, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 24/12/12 18:32, Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 24 Dec 2012, Steven Chamberlain wrote: And I also wonder if this may have happened with any other packages; could RC bugs for Wheezy have gone missing for similar reasons? No, because

Re: Bug#593141: Bug#653582: ruby-hpricot: FTBFS on ia64: ruby crashes while running tests

On 16/01/12 at 21:20 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: ruby1.9.1 is known to be broken on ia64 (see #593141). It currently builds only because the test suite is disabled on that architecture, but the fact that other Ruby packages fail to build on ia64 doesn't surprise me. Dear release team

Bug#686520: unblock: ruby-sinatra/1.3.2-2

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Hi, Please unblock package ruby-sinatra The upload fixes #683496 (missing dep on ruby-rack-protection), and the fix is the addition of that package as a dependency. unblock

Bug#680179: unblock: packaging-tutorial/0.7

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: freeze-exception Please unblock package packaging-tutorial The upload fixes RC bug #676748. I also used the opportunity to make small updates to the content, and update translations. The package

Re: Bits from the Ruby team: switching to Ruby 1.9 and trasition to new policy

On 08/06/12 at 20:06 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 23:40 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 04/06/12 at 19:59 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: But now, the last step is to switch to 1.9.x as default, instead of 1.8. Yes, it's late in the release cycle. But: (0) the switch

Re: Bits from the Ruby team: switching to Ruby 1.9 and trasition to new policy

On 04/06/12 at 19:59 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: # What it means for package maintainers If you maintain a program that is written in Ruby and it is not compatible with Ruby 1.9, then you should change shebang lines to use `/usr/bin/ruby1.8` instead of `/usr/bin/ruby`, and make your

Re: Bits from the Ruby team: switching to Ruby 1.9 and trasition to new policy

On 04/06/12 at 23:40 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: I will do an archive rebuild tomorrow with the updated gem2deb, and try to get a better overview of FTBFS caused by this change. I've tagged new FTBFS that could be linked to Ruby 1.9.x: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=default19

Bug#615513: release.debian.org: armhf inclusion into the archive

On 03/01/12 at 22:54 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: (fwiw, the not-yet-built list includes webkit and ruby1.9.1, each of which have a number of other packages directly or indirectly stuck behind them). Hi, FYI, we are considering making 1.9.X the default version of Ruby in wheezy. It scares me

Re: Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)

to libboostfoo1.46-dev. It would be quite helpful to do a rebuild of the 237 boost reverse dependencies. Lucas Nussbaum seems to be able to do this: can you run a rebuild with updated boost-defaults? I already did that, since i did a rebuild while boost-defaults was pointing to .46. You can find the results

Re: ruby1.9.1 migration to testing

On 03/11/11 at 21:27 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 14:11:26 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: At this point, I'm confident that we can reach a (at least partially) working Ruby on kfreebsd, sparc and armel at some point. I'm less confident about ia64. Question: what

Re: Extended release goals info in YAML

On 02/11/11 at 14:17 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Hi, On Tue, 01 Nov 2011, Niels Thykier wrote: Inspired by #647258 I am proposing that YAMLize our current goals.txt[1] and extend it a bit. I have attached a sample file of how the revised file would look, the API of the file and a

ruby1.9.1 migration to testing

at 23:48 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Ruby 1.9.3 is going to be released in september, and is a candidate for the default ruby version in wheezy. A snapshot is available in experimental. Now is an ideal time to work on porting issues and get the fixes integrated upstream. Ruby has a fairly large

Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting

TL;DR: I think that we should have a discussion about the respective roles responsibilities of maintainers and porters with regard to porting. Release team, there's a question for you regarding ruby1.9.1 in the last paragraph. Hi, First, I'd like to say that I'm very proud of the

Re: Bug#634194: libtiff4-dev: Depends on libjpeg-dev even though library is linked against libjpeg62

On 18/07/11 at 20:05 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 19:59:50 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 08:25:08AM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote: Package: libtiff4-dev Version: 3.9.5-1 Severity: normal As the subject says, libtiff4 currently

Re: Bug#634194: libtiff4-dev: Depends on libjpeg-dev even though library is linked against libjpeg62

On 19/07/11 at 18:09 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 05:30:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 18/07/11 at 20:05 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 19:59:50 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 08:25:08AM -0700, Daniel Schepler

Re: Bug#608582: lenny - squeeze upgrade fails because of file conflict between irb1.8 and libruby1.8

On 09/06/11 at 13:36 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: severity 608582 serious thanks On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 08:50:54PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: Package: libruby1.8 Version: 1.8.7.302-2 Severity: important File /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/irb/completion.rb was previously in irb1.8, and

Re: Bug#606784: snmpd: package fails to upgrade properly from lenny

On 18/12/10 at 21:38 +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: It's because of this part: On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 06:48:34PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Preparing to replace snmpd 5.4.1~dfsg-12 (using .../snmpd_5.4.3~dfsg-1_amd64.deb) ... invoke-rc.d: policy-rc.d denied execution of stop

Bug#603799: unblock: mpich2/1.2.1.1-5

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package mpich2 Hi, This update contains only minor fixes. It was intended for squeeze, but for some reason my unblock request got lost. unblock mpich2/1.2.1.1-5 -- System

Bug#599246: unblock: hpcc/1.4.1-1

Changelog: hpcc (1.4.1-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release. -- Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:09:48 +0200 hpcc (1.4.0-2) unstable; urgency=high * Link dynamically against libcblas and libatlas (oops). As a consequence, fix FTBFS. Closes

Re: Bug#577638: mpich2: conflict over the mpd binary

On 13/04/10 at 17:14 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Dear release team, Given that we have a way out of this for after squeeze (switching to hydra as the PM, thus droppping the mpd binary), I'm very tempted to ignore that problem for squeeze (and keep the current solution of conflicting

Bug#597252: unblock: librack-ruby/1.1.0-4

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package librack-ruby Fixes #583553. Other changes are cosmetic. unblock librack-ruby/1.1.0-4 -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT

Bug#597261: unblock: qdbm/1.8.77-3.1

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package qdbm Fixes #592775 unblock qdbm/1.8.77-3.1 -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (700,

Bug#597252: unblock: librack-ruby/1.1.0-4

On 18/09/10 at 09:26 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 08:44 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Please unblock package librack-ruby Fixes #583553. Other changes are cosmetic. This appears to have been rejected by dak due to the .orig.tar.gz mentioned in the .dsc

Bug#597261: unblock: qdbm/1.8.77-3.1

On 18/09/10 at 13:26 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: On 09/18/2010 09:59 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package qdbm Fixes #592775 unblock qdbm/1.8.77-3.1

Bug#597261: unblock: qdbm/1.8.77-3.1

On 18/09/10 at 16:07 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 16:45 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Please unblock package qdbm [...] It appears that qdbm/1.8.77-3.1 is not uploaded yet (or got a reject). Please let us know once it has been accepted. Accepted now

Bug#596574: unblock: ruby1.9.1/1.9.2.0-1 libgems-ruby/1.3.7-2

On 16/09/10 at 13:26 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Mon, September 13, 2010 14:42, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Mon, September 13, 2010 14:12, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 13/09/10 at 13:19 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sun, September 12, 2010 18:27, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: libgems-ruby has

Bug#596574: unblock: ruby1.9.1/1.9.2.0-1 libgems-ruby/1.3.7-2

On 13/09/10 at 13:19 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sun, September 12, 2010 18:27, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: The rubygems1.9.1 package used to be built from the libgems-ruby source package. But Ruby 1.9.2 broke it, so we decided to switch to using Ruby 1.9.2's rubygems for 1.9.X

Re: bugs in the unofficial RC bug tracker @ turmzimmer

On 15/08/10 at 17:00 +0200, Luk Claes wrote: On 08/15/2010 04:46 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Hi, Hi I investigated some differences between http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php and what UDD sees, and found out that the unofficial RC bug tracker seems to be missing quite a lot

Bug#596574: unblock: ruby1.9.1/1.9.2.0-1 libgems-ruby/1.3.7-2

as it already significantly get us closer from a releasable state. Changelogs: ruby1.9.1 (1.9.2.0-1) unstable; urgency=high [ Lucas Nussbaum ] * New upstream release. The 1.9.2 branch was in deep freeze at the time of the last snapshot, and all the changes between that snapshot

Bug#595245: unblock: ruby1.8/1.8.7.302-2

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package ruby1.8 It fixes #595034 (ruby threading problems on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD). unblock ruby1.8/1.8.7.302-2 -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT

bugs in the unofficial RC bug tracker @ turmzimmer

Hi, I investigated some differences between http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php and what UDD sees, and found out that the unofficial RC bug tracker seems to be missing quite a lot of bugs. The main problem seems to be that it doesn't know about the 'src:' syntax (examples: #577321, #577364).

Bug#593147: unblock: tcsh/6.17.02-3

-- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Bug#591881: vlc-nox: package fails to upgrade properly from lenny

On 07/08/10 at 09:53 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote: Lucas told me yesterday that this affects ~80 other packages as well, is that correct? Can we expect to see this patch in squeeze, or shall I move the breaks as outlined above? Some test failures are likely caused by other problems. I don't

Re: please schedule a rebuild for sagemath on alpha architecture

On 06/08/10 at 07:55 -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote: According to https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=sagemath;ver=3.0.5dfsg-5.1;arch=alpha;stamp=1263382158 the build of sagemath 3.0.5dfsg-5.1 failed due to a missing dependency on libiml-dev . This package is now available. Could

Re: Bug#588280: Bug #588280 (Atlas FTBFS)

want to support. That would fix the problem for squeeze, and sounds reasonably easy to do. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ

Re: Releasability of the kFreeBSD ports

? Is it = 1.8.7.249-4 ? ruby1.8 (1.8.7.249-4) unstable; urgency=low [ Lucas Nussbaum ] [..] * Update debian/patches/100312_timeout-fix.dpatch after discussion with Petr Salinger. Treat FreeBSD the same as Linux. Closes: #580464 [..] ruby1.8 (1.8.7.249-2) unstable; urgency=low * Add

Re: Constantly Usable Testing BoF @ DebConf10

Hi, On 01/08/10 at 13:35 -0400, Joey Hess wrote: I'd like to invite any Release and FTP team members who are attending DebConf to the Constantly Usable Testing BoF, Tuesday at 10:30 am. http://penta.debconf.org/dc10_schedule/events/681.en.html The purpose of the BoF is to finally explore

Re: What do to with Atlas ?

On 09/07/10 at 11:18 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: Le jeudi 08 juillet 2010 à 10:17 +0300, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : On 07/07/10 at 00:53 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 09:24 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit : Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 21:38 +0200, Sylvestre

Re: What do to with Atlas ?

On 07/07/10 at 00:53 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 09:24 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit : Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 21:38 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru a écrit : Upstream provided a first patch [4] but unfortunately, it is not enough and it is still occurring. I

Re: Eucalyptus Cloud infrastructure and kernels/initrds

On 29/05/10 at 01:13 +0200, Steffen Möller wrote: The bottleneck for the selection of Debian as a cloud OS (at least for the AWS clouds) is the offering of some certified kernel and root images, from which one then jumps into the rest of Squeeze. Amazon restricts that, with Eucalyptus there

Re: Eucalyptus Cloud infrastructure and kernels/initrds

On 29/05/10 at 11:20 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 10:19:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: I think that enabling users to build their own customized images is more in the spirit of doing things the Debian way, and also has the advantage of not adding more work

Re: Bug#577638: mpich2: conflict over the mpd binary

On 13/04/10 at 09:13 -0500, Pavan Balaji wrote: Lucas, On 04/13/2010 08:42 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: [snip] What do you think we should do? I don't have a short-term solution for this, but in the 1.3 series, Hydra is the default process manager instead of mpd. So, by default

Bug#573187: transition: mpi-defaults

of a packaging issue for Debian? Yes, sorry. Mpich2 provides enough configure options for us to put the files where we want in any case. But since there's only a handful of packages failing to build because of that, I still prefer to fix it in the build system of those packages. -- | Lucas Nussbaum

Bug#573187: transition: mpi-defaults

On 06/04/10 at 21:01 -0500, Pavan Balaji wrote: Sorry, never mind my previous email. Lucas Nussbaum wrote: We would like to switch to using mpich2 on the arches where openmpi is not supported, but some packages fail to build from source when using mpich2. It seems that for some of them

Bug#573187: transition: mpi-defaults

, but the proposed change to mpich2 would save us some time here, as it avoids patching about half of the packages at all. Please let me know what you think about that. Best regards, Manuel -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr

Bug#573272: transition: ruby1.9 - ruby1.9.1

On 05/04/10 at 17:39 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes: I initially planned to track the ruby1.9 - ruby1.9.1 transition. But I give up. I think that ruby1.9 should be removed from testing now, together with the following list of packages

Bug#573187: transition: mpi-defaults

is actually used and thinks that the libs are in some place while they aren't. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573272: transition: ruby1.9 - ruby1.9.1

that maintainers do not test their changes properly doesn't help. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject

Bug#573272: transition: ruby1.9 - ruby1.9.1

wrote: Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes: What needs to happen is: - remove the ruby1.9 source package from testing. - make sure all the library packages have been transitioned and migrated to testing. This has not happened yet. I think you should file an explicit rc bug

archive rebuild test for eglibc 2.11

.eglibc/ Some of them are likely to be false positive caused by something else (random failures, etc). Conclusion: it doesn't seem like we will get a ton of glibc-related FTBFS like the getline ones. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu

Bug#573187: transition: mpi-defaults

it is mostly build system bugs, and it should not be too hard to fix. All the logs are available in http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2010/03/16.mpi/ -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F

Bug#573187: transition: mpi-defaults

On 17/03/10 at 09:49 +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes: [test builds for mpi-default switch to mpich2] The following 11 packages failed to build: apbs looks for mpi.h in the wrong place blacs-mpi missing target 'build-mpich2' in debian

Re: Notes on IRC meeting

), to allow the package to migrate to testing and stop blocking a lot of other packages. However, it would be better to find a long term solution (allowing to build the package on the buildds). -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr

Bug#573272: transition: ruby1.9 - ruby1.9.1

have to wait for the 10 days delay, and also a removal hint for ruby1.9. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org

slides from the release team keynote?

about the way this was communicated. During the talks, the motivations for this change were explained very well, and I think that it would really be helpful if the slides were made public. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr

Re: HPPA and Squeeze

=1213563978file=logas=raw might be a good candidate. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe

Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing

On 16/02/09 at 23:27 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes: 2) improve awareness of orphaned packages. During the QA BOF, the idea of a script taking as input a list of packages (the list of locally installed packages on a DD's system, for example

Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing

as soon as changes are made. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas

Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing

orphaned packages from testing early in the release process, for example by making O bugs RC) could, in addition, be useful as a rule. But it doesn't solve either (1) or (2). -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG

Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing

On 16/02/09 at 15:31 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: [No CC please, thanks] Lucas Nussbaum wrote: [...] Something like a DEP about handling of orphaned packages. Do you want to start that? :-) No offence, but DEPs sound like a lot of unneeded bureaucracy to me. A proper RFC should

Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing

with a summary of the problems and the possible solutions, so it's a bit more organized. Something like a DEP about handling of orphaned packages. Do you want to start that? :-) -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr

  1   2   >