NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: libcrypto++_5.6.1-6+deb8u2_armel.changes
  ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: libcrypto++_5.6.1-6+deb8u2_mips.changes
  ACCEPT
Processing changes file: xapian-core_1.2.19-1+deb8u1_mips.changes
  ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: bareos_14.2.1+20141017gitc6c5b56-3+deb8u2_mips.changes
  ACCEPT

Bug#786803: marked as done (Please consider versioned Provides)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 23 Apr 2016 07:51:30 +
with message-id <571b2982.5030...@thykier.net>
and subject line Re: [britney] ITM: britney-fixes-2016-03-merge-round-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #786803,
regarding Please consider versioned Provides
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.)


-- 
786803: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786803
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

Hi,

Now that both dpkg and apt are able to use versioned Provides, it would
be nice to take it into consideration for testing migrations.

Please find attached a basic new test for britney2-tests and a simple
documentation update for britney’s dependencies.

I tried to figure out what would be needed to make that work, but
unfortunately don’t understand much Python. The last patch doesn’t do
anything useful, but at least doesn’t break the existing testsuite (I
guess there is at least something to fix around there)…

X-D-CC to the Debian PHP PEAR Maintainers team, since this issue
currently prevents migration of Symfony and many of its reverse
dependencies.

Regards

David
From 28feea394c2e6aff06d5b30dc32d838abf5329aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?David=20Pr=C3=A9vot?= 
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 13:42:54 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Basic test with versioned Provides

---
 t/basic-versioned-provides/expected|  4 
 t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/testing/Packages_i386  | 13 +
 t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/testing/Sources| 12 
 t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/unstable/Packages_i386 | 13 +
 t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/unstable/Sources   | 12 
 5 files changed, 54 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 t/basic-versioned-provides/expected
 create mode 100644 t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/testing/Packages_i386
 create mode 100644 t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/testing/Sources
 create mode 100644 t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/unstable/Packages_i386
 create mode 100644 t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/unstable/Sources

diff --git a/t/basic-versioned-provides/expected b/t/basic-versioned-provides/expected
new file mode 100644
index 000..69a9f82
--- /dev/null
+++ b/t/basic-versioned-provides/expected
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+pkg-a 2.0-1 i386
+pkg-b 2.0-1 i386
+pkg-a 2.0-1 source
+pkg-b 2.0-1 source
diff --git a/t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/testing/Packages_i386 b/t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/testing/Packages_i386
new file mode 100644
index 000..1d1e1da
--- /dev/null
+++ b/t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/testing/Packages_i386
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+Package: pkg-a
+Section: devel
+Architecture: i386
+Maintainer: The R-Team 
+Version: 1.0-1
+
+Package: pkg-b
+Section: devel
+Architecture: i386
+Depends: pkg-a (>= 1.0), pkg-a (<< 2.0~)
+Maintainer: The R-Team 
+Version: 1.0-1
+
diff --git a/t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/testing/Sources b/t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/testing/Sources
new file mode 100644
index 000..02f7cf6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/testing/Sources
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+Package: pkg-a
+Binary: pkg-a
+Version: 1.0-1
+Section: devel
+Maintainer: The R-Team 
+
+Package: pkg-b
+Binary: pkg-b
+Version: 1.0-1
+Section: devel
+Maintainer: The R-Team 
+
diff --git a/t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/unstable/Packages_i386 b/t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/unstable/Packages_i386
new file mode 100644
index 000..9b22ee4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/unstable/Packages_i386
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+Package: pkg-a
+Section: devel
+Architecture: i386
+Maintainer: The R-Team 
+Version: 2.0-1
+Provides: pkg-c (= 2.0-1)
+
+Package: pkg-b
+Section: devel
+Architecture: i386
+Depends: pkg-c (>= 2.0), pkg-c (<< 3.0~)
+Maintainer: The R-Team 
+Version: 2.0-1
diff --git a/t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/unstable/Sources b/t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/unstable/Sources
new file mode 100644
index 000..4c0acf3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/t/basic-versioned-provides/var/data/unstable/Sources
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+Package: pkg-a
+Binary: pkg-a
+Version: 2.0-1
+Section: devel
+Maintainer: The R-Team 
+
+Package: pkg-b
+Binary: pkg-b
+Version: 2.0-1
+Section: devel
+Maintainer: The R-Team 
+
-- 
2.1.4

From 207e23a099bdf7138541d43fece8c643af2a7c20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?David=20Pr=C3=A9vot?= 
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 10:34:16 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] INSTALL: Update depen

Bug#815995: marked as done (release.debian.org: britney fail with KeyError: error)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 23 Apr 2016 07:51:30 +
with message-id <571b2982.5030...@thykier.net>
and subject line Re: [britney] ITM: britney-fixes-2016-03-merge-round-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #815995,
regarding release.debian.org: britney fail with KeyError: error
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.)


-- 
815995: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815995
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

Hi,

Since 3 or 4 days britney fail with this error.

Christian


FAILED
I: [Fri Feb 26 08:23:05 2016] - > Removing obsolete source packages from testing
Removing obsolete source packages from testing (206):
start: 304+0: a-33:a-58:a-33:a-33:i-32:m-41:m-41:p-33
orig: 304+0: a-33:a-58:a-33:a-33:i-32:m-41:m-41:p-33
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/debian/britney/code/b2/britney.py", line 2933, in 
Britney().main()
  File "/debian/britney/code/b2/britney.py", line 2897, in main
self.upgrade_testing()
  File "/debian/britney/code/b2/britney.py", line 2604, in upgrade_testing
self.do_all(actions=removals)
  File "/debian/britney/code/b2/britney.py", line 2443, in do_all
(nuninst_end, extra) = self.iter_packages(upgrade_me, selected, 
nuninst=nuninst_end, lundo=lundo)
  File "/debian/britney/code/b2/britney.py", line 2313, in iter_packages
updates, rms, _ = self._compute_groups(y.package, y.suite, y.architecture, 
y.is_removal)
  File "/debian/britney/code/b2/britney.py", line 1919, in _compute_groups
and binaries_t[parch][0][binary][SOURCE] != source_name):
KeyError: 'libx265-68'


-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 4.1.18 (SMP w/8 CPU cores; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 20:26:35 + Niels Thykier  wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have bundled a series of patches and have selected a subset for
> merging into master now.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Thanks,
> ~Niels
> 
> [...]

The patch series has been merged and pushed live (a couple of weeks
ago).  Accordingly, these bugs are now closed.

Thanks,
~Niels






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: xapian-core_1.2.19-1+deb8u1_armel.changes
  ACCEPT

NEW changes in oldstable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: xapian-core_1.2.12-2+deb7u1_mipsel.changes
  ACCEPT

Bug#822229: jessie-pu: package autofs/5.0.8-2.1

[Jonathan Wiltshire]

Control: tag -1 pending

On 2016-04-23 05:09, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:

Thanks, uploaded!


Flagged for acceptance. Thanks!


--
Jonathan Wiltshire  j...@debian.org
Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51

 i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from
8->10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits
layered on top of bonghits

Bug#822302: nmu: vtk-dicom_0.7.6-1

[Tobias Frost]

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu

While working on decrufting gdcm I noticed that there is a package in need of
a binnmu -- it still Depends on gdcm 2.4
(gdcm was only lately fixed for hurd, that's why it missed it)

nmu vtk-dicom_0.7.6-1 . hurd-i386 . unstable . -m "Rebuild against gdcm2.6."

Thanks!

--
tobi


-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.3.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.utf8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Processed: Re: Bug#822229: jessie-pu: package autofs/5.0.8-2.1

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tag -1 pending
Bug #89 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package autofs/5.0.8-2.1
Added tag(s) pending.

-- 
89: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=89
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#819247: wheezy-pu: package java-common/0.47

[Markus Koschany]

Hello,

what are your thoughts about this bug? I intend to upload java-common
myself on the 26 June but I think it would still be preferable to fix
the other packages with a point update.

I saw that Rene intends to fix libreoffice-nlpsolver (#819443) himself.
Of course that's fine with me, just wanted to let you know that I'm
aware of it.

Regards,

Markus



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#822302: marked as done (nmu: vtk-dicom_0.7.6-1)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:02:53 +0200
with message-id <571b3a3d.4090...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#822302: nmu: vtk-dicom_0.7.6-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #822302,
regarding nmu: vtk-dicom_0.7.6-1
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.)


-- 
822302: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=822302
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

While working on decrufting gdcm I noticed that there is a package in need of
a binnmu -- it still Depends on gdcm 2.4
(gdcm was only lately fixed for hurd, that's why it missed it)

nmu vtk-dicom_0.7.6-1 . hurd-i386 . unstable . -m "Rebuild against gdcm2.6."

Thanks!

--
tobi


-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.3.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.utf8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 23/04/16 10:10, Tobias Frost wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: binnmu
> 
> While working on decrufting gdcm I noticed that there is a package in need of
> a binnmu -- it still Depends on gdcm 2.4
> (gdcm was only lately fixed for hurd, that's why it missed it)
> 
> nmu vtk-dicom_0.7.6-1 . hurd-i386 . unstable . -m "Rebuild against gdcm2.6."

Scheduled.

Emilio--- End Message ---

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: autofs_5.0.8-2+deb8u1_allonly.changes
  ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: bareos_14.2.1+20141017gitc6c5b56-3+deb8u2_armel.changes
  ACCEPT
Processing changes file: bareos_14.2.1+20141017gitc6c5b56-3+deb8u2_armhf.changes
  ACCEPT
Processing changes file: libcrypto++_5.6.1-6+deb8u2_armhf.changes
  ACCEPT
Processing changes file: libreoffice_4.3.3-2+deb8u4_arm64.changes
  ACCEPT
Processing changes file: libreoffice_4.3.3-2+deb8u4_i386.changes
  ACCEPT
Processing changes file: xapian-core_1.2.19-1+deb8u1_armhf.changes
  ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: libreoffice_4.3.3-2+deb8u4_s390x.changes
  ACCEPT

Bug#819247: wheezy-pu: package java-common/0.47

[Julien Cristau]

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 10:56:33 +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> what are your thoughts about this bug? I intend to upload java-common
> myself on the 26 June but I think it would still be preferable to fix
> the other packages with a point update.
> 
> I saw that Rene intends to fix libreoffice-nlpsolver (#819443) himself.
> Of course that's fine with me, just wanted to let you know that I'm
> aware of it.
> 
Is there a particular reason these changes shouldn't be done in
wheezy-lts rather than wheezy proper?

Cheers,
Julien

NEW changes in oldstable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: libcrypto++_5.6.1-6+deb7u2_powerpc.changes
  ACCEPT

NEW changes in oldstable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: xapian-core_1.2.12-2+deb7u1_powerpc.changes
  ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: libcrypto++_5.6.1-6+deb8u2_mipsel.changes
  ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: 
bareos_14.2.1+20141017gitc6c5b56-3+deb8u2_mipsel.changes
  ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: libcrypto++_5.6.1-6+deb8u2_powerpc.changes
  ACCEPT

Bug#819247: wheezy-pu: package java-common/0.47

[Markus Koschany]

Am 23.04.2016 um 13:42 schrieb Julien Cristau:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 10:56:33 +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> what are your thoughts about this bug? I intend to upload java-common
>> myself on the 26 June but I think it would still be preferable to fix
>> the other packages with a point update.
>>
>> I saw that Rene intends to fix libreoffice-nlpsolver (#819443) himself.
>> Of course that's fine with me, just wanted to let you know that I'm
>> aware of it.
>>
> Is there a particular reason these changes shouldn't be done in
> wheezy-lts rather than wheezy proper?

There are mainly two reasons:

 - Dealing with those bugs in Wheezy proper would be the correct way of
   fixing them IMO. Actually they are not security related but are
   already a concern for Wheezy users. A fix would allow users to
   choose a different Java runtime and would not force them to install
   OpenJDK 6 or a non-free alternative. It will only become a matter of
   security when the support for OpenJDK 6 is discontinued in Wheezy
   LTS in two months.

 - wheezy-proposed-updates would be a sensible way to test the new
   packages. I don't expect any complications with those packages
   because we only change runtime dependencies but it would be
   a less abrupt change than uploading to wheezy-lts later.

This only makes sense if we do it sooner rather than later and the last
point update should be before the 26 June. If you disagree, please let
me know so that I can prepare the uploads for Wheezy LTS.

Cheers,

Markus





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: 
bareos_14.2.1+20141017gitc6c5b56-3+deb8u2_powerpc.changes
  ACCEPT
Processing changes file: xapian-core_1.2.19-1+deb8u1_mipsel.changes
  ACCEPT
Processing changes file: xapian-core_1.2.19-1+deb8u1_powerpc.changes
  ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: libreoffice_4.3.3-2+deb8u4_powerpc.changes
  ACCEPT

Re: License incompatibility below RC threshold

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 2 May 2015 18:34:31 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:49:55 +0100 Niels Thykier wrote:
> 
> > Hi FTP masters,
> > 
> > We have been prodded about the severity of #741196
> [ the prod is https://bugs.debian.org/741196#101 ]
> > However, being a license interpretation issue, we would like to
> > defer the judgement to you on this one (suggested in comment #39).
> >   You may find the mail from Russ Allbery at [1] relevant for narrowing
> > down the possible issue (which is AFAICT a "choice of venue" clause).
> > 
> > If you believe this is (or might be) a grave issue, please upgrade the
> > severity at your earliest convenience and notify us.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > ~Niels
> > 
> > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2015/01/msg00264.html
> 
> Dear Release Team, dear FTP masters,
> just as I feared, jessie was released with this license incompatibility
> unaddressed.
> 
> 
> I believe I presented all the relevant facts to explain why there
> indeed is an incompatibility between the CeCILL-C and the GNU GPL
> licenses.
> Russ Allbery agreed that this may actually be a problem.
> 
> Yet, the package maintainers do not believe that there is an issue and
> they keep the bug severity below the RC threshold, while waiting for
> some official pronouncement from the FTP masters.
> This official statement from the FTP masters has been requested
> multiple times, but seems to never arrive.
> 
> Could you please take the time to address this issue during the stretch
> development cycle?
> 
> Looking forward to hearing back from you.
> Thanks for your time.


Dear Release Team, dear FTP masters,
once again this issue has been left unaddressed for quite some time,
unfortunately.

I think it should be taken care of as soon as possible, lest it slip
through another stable release.

Please re-read (at least):

https://bugs.debian.org/741196#5
https://bugs.debian.org/741196#53
https://bugs.debian.org/741196#96
https://bugs.debian.org/741196#111

What do you think should be done?

Once again, looking forward to hearing back from you.

Thanks for any help you may provide in solving this issue once and for
all.


-- 
 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


pgpdZq3UhdqzB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: License incompatibility below RC threshold

[Niels Thykier]

Francesco Poli:
> On Sat, 2 May 2015 18:34:31 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
> 
>> [...]
> 
> 
> Dear Release Team, dear FTP masters,
> once again this issue has been left unaddressed for quite some time,
> unfortunately.
> 
> I think it should be taken care of as soon as possible, lest it slip
> through another stable release.
> 
> Please re-read (at least):
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/741196#5
> https://bugs.debian.org/741196#53
> https://bugs.debian.org/741196#96
> https://bugs.debian.org/741196#111
> 
> What do you think should be done?
> 
> Once again, looking forward to hearing back from you.
> 
> Thanks for any help you may provide in solving this issue once and for
> all.
> 
> 

Hi,

AFAICT, the FTP masters are the authoritative source on dealing with
license issues and they have not yet made a ruling.

 * I see no reason for the Release Team to be involving at this point as
   we cannot answer this inquiry.

However, should the FTP masters rule it to be a license incompatibility,
please do not hesitate to bump the severity to RC.

Thanks,
~Niels





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#822336: perl: Stable update taking patches from 5.20.3

[Dominic Hargreaves]

Source: perl
Version: 5.20.2-3+deb8u4

As discussed with Niko in recent weeks, I believe we should be importing
all relevant patches from maint releases of perl into Debian stable.
This provides Debian stable users with many important bugfixes that have
been reviewed and tested upstream already.

The upstream policy for stable releases is conservative and, IMO,
consistent with Debian's:

http://perldoc.perl.org/perlpolicy.html#MAINTENANCE-BRANCHES

I think we have already effectively ruled out importing 5.20.3
wholesale into Debian stable, because a version number change would
be more invasive than we want, even though it is in some ways the
most attractive option. Cherry-picking the relevant fixes will also
reduce the amount of code for the release team to review compared
to importing things relating to other platforms or non-functional
changes.

I analysed the 165 commits in upstream's git repository between
5.20.2 and 5.20.3 and selected what I believe to be the 40-odd
relevant patches (the others are either non-functional changes in
release notes, Module::CoreList or changes for platforms Debian does
not support).

One change fixes a bug which has been reported explicitly at
#820328, but it seems like only a matter of time before further bugs are
reported against Debian for things which are fixed in this release.

At the bottom of this message is a list of the commits I would
attempt to cherry-pick as part of this process (hashes from
upstream maint-5.20).

In terms of practicalities, my preferred approach would be to cherry-pick
the commits individually into the git-dpm patched branch, thus producing
patch files in the usual way. The alternative would be to make a combined
patch fixing all issues in one file, but this seems to have no real
benefits and plenty of downsides.

Release team: would you be happy with an update in stable along the lines
I've outlined?

Niko et al: any further comments?

Cheers,
Dominic.

functional

fddbd7860397641a9f336211b07bd51902a70e55 [perl #123652] eval {label:} crash
d40f1ca59e9f4eb4e0e717b5304072636b24a62a lib/perl5db.pl: Restore noop lock 
prototype
4db4d6727189105b033a1a4be009711535cd7407 [perl #124127] fix cloning arrays with 
unused elements
da902b590037b6f0b7e95937c761b16043c47aa6 [perl #123218] "preserve" $/ if set to 
a bad value
cde1108b596cf23b590a273e678a0a597817ad5b Remove get-magic from $/
0f19268d11e0e7ce38b5a449f9f53461a0dc3226 [perl #123748] - Add test case for 
possible getenv/putenv/setenv stomping in perl.c (also squash 
63209b393029691eb62065536b4aaab4ade1ad7b into it)
6eeae11f5e975d33c2d782454962ef5d061523cf locale.c: savepv() of getenv() 
(https://rt.perl.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=123748)
ca9cf5171a638ccfefa8b2f842df019aec532fd2 perl.c: Don't read possibly zapped 
memory (https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=123748)
56ebbae5753a92e86450b6fb16c0ab7838cbfbcb [perl #123202] speed up scalar //g 
against tainted strings
0b45ede02cc1dea0a409d6f0db7047f8a06b3aeb Stop $^H |= 0x1c02 from enabling 
all features
d427d11537d9540fa9903b39c59e5087ca300a6a [perl #124113] Make check for 
multi-dimensional arrays be UTF8-aware
d199fb6107ca19bfaef0d7453cc008fbc66f694b Allow unquoted UTF-8 HERE-document 
terminators
95ea1ad55268965975d1d4fe77493cdb40721923 Fix "...without parentheses is 
ambuguous" warning for UTF-8 function names
d29597bcd1c03171d1dba1efd922c0e6fb52cf23 Fix test count in t/base/rs.t
23a85f4c1fe2393067c066cbd442e4c1256e97cd hv_func.h - fix seed initialization in 
sdbm and djb2 hashing algorithms.
8d89c0509dd5eb1de58dc6617f6e08599eb24792 [PATCH] [perl #123786] don't leak the 
temp utf8 copy of namep
17d9707d444517764c7bcb479c236a8c58a1d605 save_re_context(): do "local $n" with 
no PL_curpm (#820328)
ccafce1bfd59cdbdd7af0ad68f7557a7471d6c64 Perl_save_re_context(): re-indent 
after last commit
160ab6277bff26ab3f7c18d710271ef2775d542e h2ph: correct handling of hex 
constants for the preamble
0cb29f21ba1db04416bb1a2dbc32cd5f7c75bc84 lib/h2ph.t to test generated 
t/_h2ph_pre.ph instead of the system one
e05b470016a652da7cc2d059fb464dea98571f3b simpify and speed up /.*.../ handling
b9d0b7b01399df7c7155d1ac249e0ec52a2f0cc0 [perl #123711] Fix crash with 0-5x-l{0}
ab4bc882871ec70a332518a556f2ad8bdccfce25 don't fatalize warnings during 
unwinding (#123398)
775d07fe1f24ba72a76298bbcaa0c737c37c0246 Don’t treat setpgrp($nonzero) as 
setpgrp(1)
36ee76c8e66553bd0b422691ad9ca13a229035b5 RT #124156: death during unwinding 
causes crash
913281cacd3442109f345cc20d38e78a36470f94 [perl #125541] Fix crash with %::=(); 
J->${\"::"}
aeb325e6e832467c38c4baff1ee68c7726ad9f7c PATCH: [perl 125825] {n}+ possessive 
quantifier broken
89d3bf64c47772a0c299cecc07c208dd1fbf [perl #123712] Fix /$a[/ parsing
feac78b0722d4899f9a306d5fb427fe33e82b9ab [perl #123712] Don’t check sub_inwhat
45f3f24684363c03c905ddeea6353a16213e34e8 [perl #123893] Fix hang with "@{"
docs

3f48d410f19f301f9e0a9143b6c4763d583e67a9 Fix apidocs for OP_TYPE_IS(_OR_WAS) - 
arguments separated 

Bug#820995: jessie-pu: package lvm2/2.02.111-2.2

[Jonathan Wiltshire]

Control: tag -1 confirmed - moreinfo

On 2016-04-23 02:14, Cyril Brulebois wrote:

Hi,

Jonathan Wiltshire  (2016-04-22):

Control: tag -1 moreinfo d-i

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 02:18:47PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> +lvm2 (2.02.111-3) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
> +
> +  * Set default pid directory to /run. (closes: #783120)
> +
> + -- Bastian Blank   Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:35:55 +
> +

Seems sensible, but the version should be 2.02.111-2+deb8u1, and the
udeb needs a d-i ack. Ccing Cyril.


The fact it's been added only for the deb build, while the udeb one has
a separate set of options, makes me think d-i shouldn't be affected; so
no objections.


Please go ahead with a fixed version number.

Thanks,

--
Jonathan Wiltshire  j...@debian.org
Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51

 i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from
8->10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits
layered on top of bonghits

Processed: Re: Bug#820995: jessie-pu: package lvm2/2.02.111-2.2

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tag -1 confirmed - moreinfo
Bug #820995 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package lvm2/2.02.111-2.2
Added tag(s) confirmed.
Bug #820995 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package lvm2/2.02.111-2.2
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.

-- 
820995: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=820995
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#820589: jessie-pu: package opam/1.2.0-1+deb8u1

[Mehdi Dogguy]

On 20/04/2016 11:50, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
> 
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 00:57:58 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 10/04/2016 17:27, Julien Cristau wrote:
 --- a/debian/changelog
 +++ b/debian/changelog
 @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
 +opam (1.2.0-1+deb8u1) jessie; urgency=medium
 +
 +  * Stop using insecure and no-check-certificate flags when fetching
 +files using wget and curl.
 +
>>>
>>> Missing "closes:"?
>>>
>>
>> Fixed in attached new diff.
>>
> Looks fine, thanks.
> 

Uploaded, thanks!

-- 
Mehdi

Re: License incompatibility below RC threshold

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 15:34:44 + Niels Thykier wrote:

> Francesco Poli:
> > On Sat, 2 May 2015 18:34:31 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
> > 
> >> [...]
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Release Team, dear FTP masters,
> > once again this issue has been left unaddressed for quite some time,
> > unfortunately.
[...]
>
> Hi,

Hello Niels,
thanks for your prompt reply.

> 
> AFAICT, the FTP masters are the authoritative source on dealing with
> license issues and they have not yet made a ruling.

Yes, and that's the problem: they seem to never answer, no matter who
and when tries to ask for a reply.

Am I writing to the right e-mail address?
I originally wrote to  (which is listed in
), but I see that you wrote
to .
Which one should I use?

> 
>  * I see no reason for the Release Team to be involving at this point as
>we cannot answer this inquiry.
> 
> However, should the FTP masters rule it to be a license incompatibility,
> please do not hesitate to bump the severity to RC.

Could someone prod the FTP masters to analyze the issue and provide an
authoritative statement?

Thanks for your time.


-- 
 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


pgpbLgZgAs3Zp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: libreoffice_4.3.3-2+deb8u4_armhf.changes
  ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: autofs_5.0.8-2+deb8u1_armel.changes
  ACCEPT
Processing changes file: autofs_5.0.8-2+deb8u1_armhf.changes
  ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: autofs_5.0.8-2+deb8u1_amd64.changes
  ACCEPT
Processing changes file: autofs_5.0.8-2+deb8u1_arm64.changes
  ACCEPT
Processing changes file: autofs_5.0.8-2+deb8u1_i386.changes
  ACCEPT
Processing changes file: autofs_5.0.8-2+deb8u1_mipsel.changes
  ACCEPT
Processing changes file: autofs_5.0.8-2+deb8u1_powerpc.changes
  ACCEPT
Processing changes file: autofs_5.0.8-2+deb8u1_s390x.changes
  ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: autofs_5.0.8-2+deb8u1_ppc64el.changes
  ACCEPT

NEW changes in stable-new

[Debian FTP Masters]

Processing changes file: autofs_5.0.8-2+deb8u1_mips.changes
  ACCEPT