Re: gstreamer0.10 0.10.36-1.5 MIGRATED to testing
On 03/03/16 23:00, Micha Lenk wrote: > Hi, > > Given Debian bug #802812 is open, the migration of gstreamer0.10 0.10.36-1.5 > to testing just one day after its removal seems to be unintended. Yes, that was unintended and due to the fact that #802812 was tagged "stretch". I removed the package from testing once again and dropped that tag, so from now on the package should stay out of testing. Cheers, Emilio
Re: Bug#810785: ifupdown breaks debootstrap of Debian
On 04/03/16 03:08, allen wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:38:05 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> >>> This check would probably have avoided #810785 where ifupdown 0.8.6 >>> entered testing with a Breaks against the version of systemd which >>> is in testing. >>> > In bug report #707219 you wrote about bug #810785: >>> Thus it would be nice to implement this, even with a hardcoded list >>> for a start, it's better than nothing. >>> >>> Having debootstrap broken is a big issue for anyone working with testing. >>> >> Not for "anyone", no. Please don't pretend this is a bigger problem than >> it really is. Annoying? Sure. But not the end of the world, there are >> easy workaround for anyone who can't deal with a few days' breakage. >> >> Cheers, >> Julien > > So here it is March 3, tonight I've tried to install Debian Testing, on a new > to me laptop, and I've run into a failure at the 'Select and Install > Software' > step. Opening a shell and looking at syslog reveals that the problem is bug > #810785. Now what to do. If there is any workaround I'd love to know what > it > is? systemd should migrate tonight if everything goes well, then this problem will be no more. Emilio
Re: Bug#810785: ifupdown breaks debootstrap of Debian
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 09:08:38PM -0500, allen wrote: > So here it is March 3, tonight I've tried to install Debian Testing, on a new > to me laptop, and I've run into a failure at the 'Select and Install > Software' > step. Opening a shell and looking at syslog reveals that the problem is bug > #810785. Now what to do. If there is any workaround I'd love to know what > it > is? Debian testing is an unreleased development version of Debian. It is expected that it might break from time to time. Would installing Debian stable and then upgrading to testing be an option? I would like to suggest staying with what Debian has actually released, "stable" aka "jessie", if you find it hard to find even simple workarounds for bugs that _are_ present in Debian testing. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany| lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
Bug#816697: jessie-pu: package fonts-sil-andika/1.004-2+deb8u1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: jessie User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu X-Debbugs-CC: pkg-fonts-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org When the font-sil-andika package is installed in Jessie, the fontconfig library print out these warnings for all X programs using fontconfig: Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 16: Having multiple values in isn't supported and may not work as expected Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected The package is a reverse dependency of tuxtype and task-hungarian-desktop, and installed by default on Debian Edu. The cause is an incorrect removal of a obsolete conffile in version 1.004-2. The fix was uploaded to unstable in version 5.000-1, and I propose to include it in stable too. The attached patch show the changes. Is this OK to upload to stable? This is with the approval of the package maintainres, see https://bugs.debian.org/687172 >. -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog index 0e319e6..9271605 100644 --- a/debian/changelog +++ b/debian/changelog @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@ +fonts-sil-andika (1.004-2+deb8u1) stable; urgency=low + + * Backport fix from unstable. + * really remove 65-andika.conf, Closes: #768232 + delete d/links with useless symlink + d/maintscript to remove 65-andika.conf + + -- Petter Reinholdtsen Thu, 03 Mar 2016 09:37:43 +0100 + fonts-sil-andika (1.004-2) unstable; urgency=low * Drop the now useless 65-andika.conf fontconfig file diff --git a/debian/links b/debian/links deleted file mode 100644 index afe457e..000 --- a/debian/links +++ /dev/null @@ -1 +0,0 @@ -etc/fonts/conf.avail/65-andika.conf etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf diff --git a/debian/maintscript b/debian/maintscript new file mode 100644 index 000..0a5f689 --- /dev/null +++ b/debian/maintscript @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +rm_conffile /etc/fonts/conf.avail/65-andika.conf 1.004-2~ fonts-sil-andika
Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3
On 04/03/16 19:01, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > - ruby-pgplot is in contrib, can't remember what we usually did, > I'll ping the maintainer. That build-depends on packages from non-free, so you need a manual upload with binaries for all architectures where the package is currently built (so amd64, i386, arm64). Cheers, Emilio
Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3
Just so everybody has the current state: - weechat #816312 has a patch, could NMU if nothing happens in the next few days - uwsgi #816315 sitting in binNEW - subversion - just sent bugmail - libguestfs #816610 / qemu #815409 - ruby-pgplot is in contrib, can't remember what we usually did, I'll ping the maintainer. -- ,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler : :' : Debian Developer `. `' 7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03 `-
Bug#816708: release.debian.org: migration waits 5 days despite urgency=high
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: britney Hello Release Team! I noticed something awkward about the unstable→testing migration and it seems to me that it's not even the first time I see it... It appears that the migration waits 5 days, even in cases where the upload has set urgency=high. For instance, openssl/1.0.2g-1 hasn't yet migrated to testing: $ rmadison openssl | grep 'unstable \|testing ' | cut -c 1-60 openssl| 1.0.2d-1 | unstable openssl| 1.0.2f-2 | testing openssl| 1.0.2g-1 | unstable but it got uploaded more than 2 days ago [1]. The excuses [2] seem to confirm that britney is waiting 5 days. Since this upload fixes several vulnerabilities, I think the urgency is well justified: why does britney seem to ignore it? Please investigate and fix the issue. Or else, please clarify where my reasoning is wrong. Thanks for your time. Bye! [1] https://tracker.debian.org/news/751911 [2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=openssl
Processed: Re: Bug#816697: jessie-pu: package fonts-sil-andika/1.004-2+deb8u1
Processing control commands: > tags -1 + confirmed Bug #816697 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package fonts-sil-andika/1.004-2+deb8u1 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 816697: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=816697 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#816697: jessie-pu: package fonts-sil-andika/1.004-2+deb8u1
Control: tags -1 + confirmed On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 07:36 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > When the font-sil-andika package is installed in Jessie, the fontconfig > library print out these warnings for all X programs using fontconfig: > > Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 16: Having > multiple values in isn't supported and may not work as expected > Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having > multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected > Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having > multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected > Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having > multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected > Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having > multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected > Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having > multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected > Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having > multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected > Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having > multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected > Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-andika.conf", line 35: Having > multiple in isn't supported and may not work as expected > > The package is a reverse dependency of tuxtype and > task-hungarian-desktop, and installed by default on Debian Edu. > > The cause is an incorrect removal of a obsolete conffile in version > 1.004-2. The fix was uploaded to unstable in version 5.000-1, and I > propose to include it in stable too. The attached patch show the > changes. Is this OK to upload to stable? Please go ahead. Regards, Adam
Bug#813916: transition: gdal
On 04/03/16 00:21, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > On 03-03-16 21:44, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: >> All rdeps on mips64el are affected by this bug and will need to be >> rebuilt with gdal (2.0.2+dfsg-2), sorry about that. No problem. Scheduled. >> I think this requires both new NMUs combined with dep-waits to ensure >> they don't rebuild with -1, I've included the list of nmu & dw commands >> in the attached gdal_2.0.2+dfsg-2_nmu-dw.txt > > libgdal-grass (2.0.2-1) picked up the old gdal via grass (7.0.3-1) on > mips, mipsel, mips64el & hurd-i386, these need to binNMUed to build with > gdal (2.0.2+dfsg-2) & grass (7.0.3-2). The nmu & dw commands are attached. Scheduled. Emilio
Bug#816428: marked as done (nmu: hugin_2015.0.0+dfsg-1)
Your message dated Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:56:54 +0100 with message-id <56d9b046.9040...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#816428: nmu: hugin_2015.0.0+dfsg-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #816428, regarding nmu: hugin_2015.0.0+dfsg-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 816428: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=816428 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu hugin_2015.0.0+dfsg-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against libvigraimpex6" nmu enblend-enfuse_4.1.4+dfsg-5 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against libvigraimpex6" Hello, both hugin and enblend-enfuse were built (or binmued) against a broken version of libvigraimpex which shipped libvigraimpex.so.6 in a package still named libvigraimpex5v5. (#813415) See https://bugs.debian.org/816193 https://bugs.debian.org/813417 cu Andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On 02/03/16 19:01, Andreas Metzler wrote: > On 2016-03-01 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 01/03/16 20:25, Andreas Metzler wrote: >>> nmu hugin_2015.0.0+dfsg-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against >>> libvigraimpex6" >>> nmu enblend-enfuse_4.1.4+dfsg-5 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against >>> libvigraimpex6" > >>> both hugin and enblend-enfuse were built (or binmued) against a broken >>> version of libvigraimpex which shipped libvigraimpex.so.6 in a package >>> still named libvigraimpex5v5. (#813415) > >> I haven't scheduled the appropriate binNMUs yet because libvigraimpex isn't >> built everywhere. > > Hello, > > I am aware of the transition, which is why I have waited two weeks > before requesting the binNMU. However hugin and enblend-enfuse are only > broken on the archs where libvigraimpex does build. > > So a straight rebuild would fix this serious bug, at the imho small cost > that a later followup binNMU might be needed when libvigraimpex is > ready. > > Thanks in advance for considering, Alright. I have scheduled them. Cheers, Emilio--- End Message ---
Bug#816708: marked as done (release.debian.org: migration waits 5 days despite urgency=high)
Your message dated Fri, 04 Mar 2016 18:50:56 + with message-id <1457117456.1948.41.ca...@adam-barratt.org.uk> and subject line Re: Bug#816708: release.debian.org: migration waits 5 days despite urgency=high has caused the Debian Bug report #816708, regarding release.debian.org: migration waits 5 days despite urgency=high to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 816708: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=816708 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: britney Hello Release Team! I noticed something awkward about the unstable→testing migration and it seems to me that it's not even the first time I see it... It appears that the migration waits 5 days, even in cases where the upload has set urgency=high. For instance, openssl/1.0.2g-1 hasn't yet migrated to testing: $ rmadison openssl | grep 'unstable \|testing ' | cut -c 1-60 openssl| 1.0.2d-1 | unstable openssl| 1.0.2f-2 | testing openssl| 1.0.2g-1 | unstable but it got uploaded more than 2 days ago [1]. The excuses [2] seem to confirm that britney is waiting 5 days. Since this upload fixes several vulnerabilities, I think the urgency is well justified: why does britney seem to ignore it? Please investigate and fix the issue. Or else, please clarify where my reasoning is wrong. Thanks for your time. Bye! [1] https://tracker.debian.org/news/751911 [2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=openssl --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 19:35 +0100, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: > I noticed something awkward about the unstable→testing migration > and it seems to me that it's not even the first time I see it... > > It appears that the migration waits 5 days, even in cases where the > upload has set urgency=high. > For instance, openssl/1.0.2g-1 hasn't yet migrated to testing: > > $ rmadison openssl | grep 'unstable \|testing ' | cut -c 1-60 > openssl| 1.0.2d-1 | unstable > openssl| 1.0.2f-2 | testing > openssl| 1.0.2g-1 | unstable > > but it got uploaded more than 2 days ago [1]. The excuses [2] seem > to confirm that britney is waiting 5 days. > > Since this upload fixes several vulnerabilities, I think the urgency > is well justified: why does britney seem to ignore it? That package version is not in the list of uploads and urgencies fed to britney by dak (most likely due to dinstall having had some issues recently), so the default urgency is being used. I've added a hint so the package should be eligible to migrate in the next run. Regards, Adam--- End Message ---
Bug#816708: release.debian.org: migration waits 5 days despite urgency=high
On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 18:50:56 + Adam D. Barratt wrote: > That package version is not in the list of uploads and urgencies fed to > britney by dak (most likely due to dinstall having had some issues > recently), so the default urgency is being used. Ah, I see: I hope these issues may be fixed soon... > > I've added a hint so the package should be eligible to migrate in the > next run. Thanks! Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpJjBU9_fQxk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#813532: marked as done (transition: libjsoncpp)
Your message dated Fri, 4 Mar 2016 09:51:19 +0100 with message-id <56d94c87.30...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#813532: transition: libjsoncpp has caused the Debian Bug report #813532, regarding transition: libjsoncpp to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 813532: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=813532 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition I would like to start the transition for libjsoncpp. Its been on experimental for quite a while now, until I could test all the rdepends. The following rdepends have been successfully tested: cmake bamtools dcmtkpp kodi-pvr-argustv lgogdownloader libjson-rpc-cpp llvm-toolchain-3.7 minetest orthanc paraview springlobby sysdig vtk6 The following rdepends have a FTBFS problem: ginkgocadx - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=805170 Ben file: title = "libjsoncpp"; is_affected = .depends ~ "libjsoncpp0v5" | .depends ~ "libjsoncpp1"; is_good = .depends ~ "libjsoncpp1"; is_bad = .depends ~ "libjsoncpp0v5"; -- System Information: Debian Release: stretch/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (900, 'testing'), (200, 'unstable'), (100, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 4.3.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On 10/02/16 19:33, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 10/02/16 19:26, Peter Spiess-Knafl wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Yes there is already a bug for that: >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=813939 >> >> I didn't want to interfere with the transition. Can I just upload a new >> version of the package which has the conflicts/replaces removed, without >> disturbing the transition? > > Yes. Given the transition is currently stalled, that won't be a problem. > Please > go ahead. The old binaries just got removed from testing, so this is over. Closing. Cheers, Emilio--- End Message ---
Bug#813916: transition: gdal
On 04-03-16 00:34, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 04/03/16 00:21, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: >> On 03-03-16 21:44, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: >>> All rdeps on mips64el are affected by this bug and will need to be >>> rebuilt with gdal (2.0.2+dfsg-2), sorry about that. > > No problem. Scheduled. > >>> I think this requires both new NMUs combined with dep-waits to ensure >>> they don't rebuild with -1, I've included the list of nmu & dw commands >>> in the attached gdal_2.0.2+dfsg-2_nmu-dw.txt >> >> libgdal-grass (2.0.2-1) picked up the old gdal via grass (7.0.3-1) on >> mips, mipsel, mips64el & hurd-i386, these need to binNMUed to build with >> gdal (2.0.2+dfsg-2) & grass (7.0.3-2). The nmu & dw commands are attached. > > Scheduled. Can you also binNMU opencv (3.0.0+dfsg-1~exp2) in experimental with libgdal20? nmu opencv_3.0.0+dfsg-1~exp2 . ALL . experimental . -m "Rebuild with libgdal20" I'll take care of osgearth, osrm & qgis in experimental. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
NEW changes in oldstable-new
Processing changes file: python-imaging_1.1.7-4+deb7u2_i386.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: python-imaging_1.1.7-4+deb7u2_amd64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: python-imaging_1.1.7-4+deb7u2_armel.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: python-imaging_1.1.7-4+deb7u2_armhf.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: python-imaging_1.1.7-4+deb7u2_ia64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: python-imaging_1.1.7-4+deb7u2_kfreebsd-amd64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: python-imaging_1.1.7-4+deb7u2_kfreebsd-i386.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: python-imaging_1.1.7-4+deb7u2_mips.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: python-imaging_1.1.7-4+deb7u2_mipsel.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: python-imaging_1.1.7-4+deb7u2_powerpc.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: python-imaging_1.1.7-4+deb7u2_s390.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: python-imaging_1.1.7-4+deb7u2_s390x.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: python-imaging_1.1.7-4+deb7u2_sparc.changes ACCEPT
Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3
Looks like we missed xapian-bindings. I've given it a quick test rebuild on amd64, and it builds correctly for 2.3. Not sure how this works, but ruby-xapian manages to not depend on any librubyX.Y package!? Thank you, -- ,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler : :' : Debian Developer `. `' 7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03 `-
