Bug#1025055: transition: qtwebengine-opensource-src

Control: tags -1 moreinfo On 2022-11-29 14:26:21 +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > Dear Release team, > > This is a mini-transition that requires binNMU of just two packages: >

Processed: Re: Bug#1025055: transition: qtwebengine-opensource-src

Processing control commands: > tags -1 moreinfo Bug #1025055 [release.debian.org] transition: qtwebengine-opensource-src Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1025055: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1025055 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#1023731: BioC Packages are now clean (one exception with RC bug filed) (Was: Bug#1023731: Any idea why debci picks old versions)

Hi Paul, Am Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 09:34:09PM +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers: > On 29-11-2022 10:26, Andreas Tille wrote: > > Now there is only one remaining one which is a real > > problem which I have reported upstream (see bug #1025045). If > > r-bioc-structuralvariantannotation would be removed

Bug#1025387: bullseye-pu: package node-qs/6.9.4+ds-1+deb11u1

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: bullseye User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu [ Reason ] node-qs is vulnerable to prototype pollution, this affects web applications using node-express (CVE-2022-24999) [ Impact ] Medium security issue [ Tests ] Patch adds

Bug#1025055: transition: qtwebengine-opensource-src

On 2022-12-03 19:37:31 +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > Control: tags -1 -moreinfo > > Hi Sebastian! > > On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 03:46:59PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > > > Thanks for working on this. Please let us know once you think it's > > ready. > > It

Bug#1023787: transition: liblxqt

Hi ChangZhuo, On 03-12-2022 17:19, ChangZhuo Chen (陳昌倬) wrote: On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 07:33:11PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: Do we need to submit transition for lxqt-globalkeys [0], which is totally covered by liblxqt transition? What we need is coordination, which is why transition bugs need

NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: commons-configuration2_2.8.0-1~deb11u1_source.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: commons-configuration2_2.8.0-1~deb11u1_all-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: mujs_1.1.0-1+deb11u2_amd64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file:

Bug#1023731: BioC Packages are now clean (one exception with RC bug filed) (Was: Bug#1023731: Any idea why debci picks old versions)

On 2022-12-03 21:51:55 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Am Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 09:34:09PM +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers: > > On 29-11-2022 10:26, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > Now there is only one remaining one which is a real > > > problem which I have reported upstream (see bug #1025045).

Bug#1023787: transition: liblxqt

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 07:33:11PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi ChangZhuo, > > On 29-11-2022 06:29, ChangZhuo Chen (陳昌倬) wrote: > > Please help to > > migrate libfm-qt in new queue [0] so that we can prepare the migration. > > That's not under our control. You'll need to talk to ftp-master

Bug#1025055: transition: qtwebengine-opensource-src

Control: tags -1 -moreinfo Hi Sebastian! On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 03:46:59PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > Thanks for working on this. Please let us know once you think it's > ready. It is ready. Tested by me and by Lisandro. -- Dmitry Shachnev signature.asc

Processed: Re: Bug#1025055: transition: qtwebengine-opensource-src

Processing control commands: > tags -1 -moreinfo Bug #1025055 [release.debian.org] transition: qtwebengine-opensource-src Removed tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1025055: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1025055 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#1023731: BioC Packages are now clean (one exception with RC bug filed) (Was: Bug#1023731: Any idea why debci picks old versions)

Hi Andreas, On 29-11-2022 10:26, Andreas Tille wrote: Now there is only one remaining one which is a real problem which I have reported upstream (see bug #1025045). If r-bioc-structuralvariantannotation would be removed from testing I do not see any blocker for the transition any more. I

Bug#1023846: marked as done (transition: gdal)

Your message dated Sat, 3 Dec 2022 23:33:30 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#1023846: transition: gdal has caused the Debian Bug report #1023846, regarding transition: gdal to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case

Bug#1024845: marked as done (transition: linphone-stack)

Your message dated Sat, 3 Dec 2022 23:34:19 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#1024845: transition: linphone-stack has caused the Debian Bug report #1024845, regarding transition: linphone-stack to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If

Bug#1025401: unblock: libpod/4.3.1+ds1-5

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package libpod libpod needs to migrate together with: golang-github-containers-common_0.50.1+ds1-2 golang-github-containers-buildah_1.28.0+ds1-3 [ Reason ] There have

Bug#1023731: BioC Packages are now clean (one exception with RC bug filed) (Was: Bug#1023731: Any idea why debci picks old versions)

Am Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 10:53:58PM +0100 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher: > And there are many more. r-bioc-biocparallel is another one. This smells > like many insufficient dependencies. Sorry, this all seems to be the same britney failure Paul was reporting. The tests are all against the versions in