Bug#1106757: ppc64el Trixie: Need default 64KB page kernel or installer option

2025-07-24 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Trupti, On 23-07-2025 08:00, Trupti wrote: as mentioned earlier, 64K is the recommended page size for ppc64el, and other distributions like Ubuntu already use it by default on Power. Debian did so to *until* trixie. So, are you also discussing this with the kernel maintainers? If so, can

Bug#1106757: ppc64el Trixie: Need default 64KB page kernel or installer option

2025-07-22 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 22-07-2025 14:43, Trupti wrote: I upgraded my system from Bookworm to Trixie using apt full-upgrade. The system is now running Trixie, but it's still using the old Bookworm kernel (6.1.0-37-powerpc64le). Did you reboot? Can you check what you have in /boot? Is there a way to make sur

Bug#1106757: ppc64el Trixie: Need default 64KB page kernel or installer option

2025-07-20 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Trupti, A small side note (just in case) because I got the impression that you (and others at IBM) are not fully aware that Debian doesn't expect you to use the Debian Installer to do system upgrades. We expect people to just change the apt sources and run (a variant of) $(apt full-upgrade)

Re: Uploading linux (6.12.33-1)

2025-06-19 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Salvatore, On 19-06-2025 11:33, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: I'm glad to take any advice from both you as release team and specifically as well d-i folks on where we should start to draw the line. From the Release Team point of view, we'll let you know explicitly when we want you to stop u

Re: tasksel vs. trixie?

2025-05-28 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 28-05-2025 21:30, Cyril Brulebois wrote: To be honest I've tried to answer questions as best as I could when I got asked whether dropping this or that package from the key package set would be OK, but I've never wondered how it is built. A quick look at https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/key_

Re: tasksel vs. trixie?

2025-05-28 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 27-05-2025 15:59, Cyril Brulebois wrote: I'm still ambivalent about this, and I still don't want to push in either direction. I'll just mention that reviewing, merging, and also adjusting… is all done as far as I'm concerned. The remaining question is whether that's for trixie or forky.

Re: fonts-motoya-l-cedar vs. trixie?

2025-05-25 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Cyril, On 25-05-2025 02:15, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Release team, do you prefer enforcing the no new package rule (which has been active for many weeks already), and our sticking to the dirty approach? Or would you be open to having the udeb addition reach trixie so that things are a little cl

Bug#1089276: win32-loader: FTBFS with make 4.4.1

2025-04-12 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Holger, On 12-04-2025 13:31, Holger Wansing wrote: It has already been removed from the d-i builds 2 years ago with And what about e.g. https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-install

Bug#1102724: RM: win32-loader -- RoQA; not considered worthwhile to maintain further

2025-04-12 Thread Paul Gevers
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: moreinfo X-Debbugs-Cc: win32-loa...@packages.debian.org Control: affects -1 + src:win32-loader User: ftp.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: remove Hi ftp-master, [Added the moreinfo tag as d-i needs adaptation first and because of the followi

Bug#1089276: win32-loader: FTBFS with make 4.4.1

2025-04-12 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 12-04-2025 12:54, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Paul Gevers (2025-04-12): Do you speak on behalf of all maintainers here? Do you want me to find out what needs to be done to remove win32-loader from trixie? I'm not aware of anyone wanting to keep win32-loader around, so yeah, looking

Bug#1089276: win32-loader: FTBFS with make 4.4.1

2025-04-12 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 27-03-2025 19:57, Holger Wansing wrote: Am 27. März 2025 15:25:09 MEZ schrieb Paul Gevers : I've seen multiple times that win32-loader was mentioned during a stable point release IRC discussion and I am under the impression that "we" want to remove it at some point. I

Bug#1089276: win32-loader: FTBFS with make 4.4.1

2025-03-27 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, I admit I'm not fully aware of how win32-loader is a special case in the Debian archive, but given this current bug I thought to mention the following. I've seen multiple times that win32-loader was mentioned during a stable point release IRC discussion and I am under the impression

Bug#1088774: src:rootskel-gtk: fails to migrate to testing for too long: FTBFS on armel

2024-11-30 Thread Paul Gevers
Source: rootskel-gtk Version: 12.0.3 Severity: serious Control: close -1 13.0.1 Tags: sid trixie ftbfs User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: out-of-sync User: debian-...@lists.debian.org Usertags: armel X-Debbugs-CC: debian-...@lists.debian.org Dear maintainer(s), The Release Te

Bug#1088573: src:apt-setup: fails to migrate to testing for too long: kcov not available on mips64el and s390x

2024-11-28 Thread Paul Gevers
Source: apt-setup Version: 1:0.187 Severity: serious Control: close -1 1:0.189 Tags: sid trixie User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: out-of-sync Dear maintainer(s), The Release Team considers packages that are out-of-sync between testing and unstable for more than 30 days as h

Re: Bug#1071970: pcre3 should not be part of trixie

2024-08-06 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 06-08-2024 23:33, Bastian Germann wrote: I am including a patch to drop the libpcre3-udeb. Please consider applying so that the package can be autoremoved. Please don't do that until you have approval from d-i. I included them in the mail chain. If the udeb is used by d-i, that needs t

Re: Bug#1077845: release.debian.org: Should non-free-firmware require being built on buildd?

2024-08-04 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 04-08-2024 13:22, Adrian Bunk wrote: The question would be whether you want to enforce it in Britney, which basically implies that Autobuild: should default to yes in non-free-firmware. I see this as a rephrasing of the discussion, so I can only agree that that's the question. You c

Re: Bug#1077845: release.debian.org: Should non-free-firmware require being built on buildd?

2024-08-04 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 04-08-2024 09:31, Niels Thykier wrote: That leaves us with 3/15 and the question whether we want to commit for future firmware. I don't think we need to commit, just express a very strong desire to build on buildds when possible, and be practical if we can't. Paul OpenPGP_signature

Re: Bug#1070706: gtk4 udeb has unsatisfiable dependencies

2024-05-07 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 07-05-2024 7:49 p.m., Simon McVittie wrote: The version in testing, 4.12.5+ds-3, has the same dependencies, so this is not a regression. Is it? It seems that the version in unstable depends on libpng16-16t64-udeb where the version in testing depends on libpng16-16-udeb. The later exis

Bug#1016957: remove kbd-chooser from the archive?

2024-05-04 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi On 04-05-2024 3:36 p.m., Holger Wansing wrote: I think Bastian's approach is, to remove kbd-chooser from the archive, since it was stated (see below) that it's no longer in use. It might be that udd assumes all packages that build a udeb are used. d-i has switched away from it to console-

Bug#1016957: kbd-chooser: please add support for riscv64

2024-05-03 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Bastian, On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 19:03:07 +0200 Bastian Germann wrote: Control: severity -1 serious Can you please elaborate? I'm not seeing anything serious in this bug report. On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 21:42:34 +0200 Holger Wansing wrote: > kbd-chooser is no longer in use, I think. > Or am I m

Re: What to do with d-i on armel?

2024-03-08 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 03-03-2024 9:01 p.m., Cyril Brulebois wrote: Maybe have it marked Not-For-Us on armel, also requesting the binary to be dropped there? And maybe poke the ftp team to have installer-armel/ cleaned up? Those actions sound appropriate to me, but I don't know the inner details well enough

Bug#619328: console-setup-freebsd: Uninstallable on Linux hosts

2023-10-28 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 17:17:54 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:49:42 +0100 Julien Cristau wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:36:00 +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: > > Does this mean the > > architectures are not equal in rights - an 'all' pack

Bug#619328: console-setup-freebsd: Uninstallable on Linux hosts

2023-07-24 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:49:42 +0100 Julien Cristau wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:36:00 +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: > Does this mean the > architectures are not equal in rights - an 'all' package is allowed to > be uninsallable on kFreeBSD but not on Linux? > No, it's fine. While I

Re: 11.7 planning + bookworm planning

2023-04-23 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, Let's book June 10 as the bookworm release date. A more formal announcement will follow. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: 11.7 planning + bookworm planning

2023-04-23 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, Any FTP master for 10 or 17 June? kibi  - 10, 17, 24    d-i Luna  - 10, 17, 24    CD testing elbrus    - 10, 17, 24    release team adsb  - 10, 17, 24    release team Sledge    - 10, 17, 24    images team donald- 10, 17press Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: Open

Re: 11.7 planning + bookworm planning

2023-04-20 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, TL;DR: ftp & press input for June needed. On 20-04-2023 18:29, Adam D. Barratt wrote: The 13th does seem a bit close now, without having announced. After some consideration today, and the vibe felt in this discussion, let's not rush this, so let's skip May 13 (also giving Press some

Re: 11.7 planning + bookworm planning

2023-04-20 Thread Paul Gevers
Dear all, Progress \o/. On 13-04-2023 11:29, Paul Gevers wrote: For me to do the release, I'd need to get my hands on the key. I'm in contact with Jonathan and we're convinced we'll be able to get the key to me in time. Which leaves finding a date (and me learning

Re: 11.7 planning + bookworm planning

2023-04-13 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, On 26-03-2023 19:55, Steve McIntyre wrote: Nobody else seems to have replied yet, so... :-) Two weeks have gone by since the last mail in this thread. If I did the bookkeeping correctly, the missing necessary teams are press and release team, as I now have: kibi - 6, 13, 20, 27

Re: Bug#1033674: unblock: linux/6.1.20-1

2023-03-29 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 29-03-2023 23:38, Cyril Brulebois wrote: unblock linux/6.1.20-1 ACK on the unblock/age-days 10 request for the d-i team, happy to build the installer against it. :) Done. In the passing I also took along the signed versions. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signa

Re: 11.7 planning + bookworm planning

2023-03-23 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, With the point release scheduled for April 29th, it's probably good to have at least one weekend in between, or do people not mind doing two weekends in a row? On 17-03-2023 15:59, Steve McIntyre wrote: On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 11:26:00AM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: So, shall w

Re: 11.7 planning + bookworm planning

2023-03-16 Thread Paul Gevers
Dear all, On 15-03-2023 21:33, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: We're overdue for 11.7 and need it done with a keyring update included before bookworm can be released. The wheels are turning on the keyring so how do dates in April look for everybody? Saturdays are 1st (probably too soon), 8th, 15th, 22

Re: bookworm release date?

2023-02-18 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, On 18-02-2023 00:57, Steve McIntyre wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:44:47PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: That'd mean end of March, beginning April at the soonest. it's probably best to add 2-4 extra weeks to that. +1 Thanks kibi and Sledge for the feedback. With such a time li

bookworm release date?

2023-02-17 Thread Paul Gevers
Dear Release Team colleagues, dear Boot team colleagues, I just sent out a bits from the RT where I'm claiming that bookworm is in a good state. And now I'm going to be extremely bold now: aim for the shortest freeze in Debian history. What do people think of the idea to start picking a releas

Re: Status of Debian Installer Bookworm Alpha 1: 2 blockers

2022-09-17 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi kibi, On 17-09-2022 01:41, Cyril Brulebois wrote: A few questions I can think of: - Is that a good idea in the first place? I think so, sidestepping temporary issues in unstable looks like a valid usecase? AFAIK that *is* the most common use of tpu these days (getting things into tes

Bug#1010488: win32-loader: please annotate the wine Build-Depends with

2022-05-02 Thread Paul Gevers
Source: win32-loader Version: 0.10.4 Severity: normal Tags: patch X-Debbugs-Cc: Thomas Gaugler Dear maintainers, As part of my Release Team member checks, I have been investigating why the RC buggy src:vkd3d is part of the key package set. It turns out that vkd3d is part of the current key packa

Bug#998353: wi32-loader migration [was: Re: Bug#998353: Bug#1007707: Update Indonesian translation]

2022-03-23 Thread Paul Gevers
Hold your horses. On 23-03-2022 07:44, Paul Gevers wrote: Last time [1], I just CC'ed ftpmaster and the magic happened, so dear ftpmasters, can you do "that" again? win32-loader is blocked behind grub2 now. I'm not aware of progress with bug #1001057 (in CC). Paul

Bug#998353: wi32-loader migration [was: Re: Bug#998353: Bug#1007707: Update Indonesian translation]

2022-03-22 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: fixed 982838 0.10.6 Control: found 982838 0.10.7 Dear Holger, ftpmasters, On 22-03-2022 23:31, Holger Wansing wrote: I'm not aware of the exactly needed process, that needs to happen now for migration to testing (I guess, this is what you called "the ftp-master dance"). Is this "docume

Bug#1007707: Update Indonesian translation

2022-03-21 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Holger, On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 21:38:11 +0100 Holger Wansing wrote: Andika Triwidada wrote (Tue, 15 Mar 2022 11:26:40 +): > > Attached is update to Indonesian translation. Just applied to GIT. Thanks Shall we have an upload of this soon and do the ftp-master dance with this package

Bug#1007929: netcfg: FTBFS on s390x

2022-03-18 Thread Paul Gevers
Source: netcfg Version: 1.177 Severity: serious Tags: ftbfs Dear maintainer, Your package failed to migrate for 60 days, hence I spotted it. It fails to build from source on s390x. I hit the giveback button once because looking at the failing test result I suspected it is "just" a flaky test. How

Re: Bug# 983357: Why is it not mentioned in bullseye release notes / installation guide?

2022-02-10 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Chuck, On 10-02-2022 01:34, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: The problem as I see it is that the debian installer team is already aware of the problem and has been aware of it for over six months because #983357 is marked as affecting d-i. So I do not understand why #983357 is not included on the d-

Re: Bug# 983357: Why is it not mentioned in bullseye release notes / installation guide?

2022-02-09 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, Subject: 983357: Why is it not mentioned in bullseye release notes / installation guide? For at least the release notes, because nobody asked the editors to include it. On 09-02-2022 21:04, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: However, this is a well-known problem, but neither the Bullseye release

Bug#998353: src:win32-loader: fails to migrate to testing for too long

2021-11-22 Thread Paul Gevers
Dear Debian-boot, On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 20:55:11 +0100 Paul Gevers wrote: Can somebody please judge if win32-loader should migrate in the current state and take appropriate actions if so: contact ftp to process the package on their side and update bug 982838 (I wouldn't close it, but reu

Bug#998353: src:win32-loader: fails to migrate to testing for too long

2021-11-02 Thread Paul Gevers
Source: win32-loader Version: 0.10.4 Severity: serious Control: close -1 0.10.5 Tags: sid bookworm User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: out-of-sync Dear maintainer(s), The following template feels a bit weird for the somewhat special package that win32-loader is, but I leave it

Re: Bug#991969: D-I: news for Bullseye: help with firmware installation

2021-08-06 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 06-08-2021 21:52, Holger Wansing wrote: > I would like to add a paragraph to the release-notes, describing a bit the > new "install-firmware" mechanism via modalias, with a link to the new doc > in the installation-guide, for those who experience problems. > > Please find a patch attache

Re: Bug#991878: [armel] no longer supported devices

2021-08-04 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi On 04-08-2021 21:36, Holger Wansing wrote: > Martin Michlmayr wrote (Wed, 4 Aug 2021 17:03:05 +0800): >> * Holger Wansing [2021-08-04 10:57]: >>> Moreover, couldn't this be simplified then, into something like >>> >>> "Support for all QNAP Turbo Station devices (TS-xxx) was dropped?" >> >> Th

Bug#989863: debian-installer: Firmware problems in bullseye

2021-07-24 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Cyril, On 24-07-2021 09:05, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > @RT: I'd be happy to have some feedback from your regarding this > approach; telling people to enable contrib/non-free so that they > can install firmware packages is definitely *not* something I take > lightly, but I'd be happ

Releasing bullseye on 14 August 2021 [Was Re: Finding a tentative bullseye release date]

2021-07-22 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, Thanks to the reply from Ansgar, we now have a release date for bullseye: 14 August. For the avoidance of doubt, this is *not* a tentative date anymore. I'll do a proper announcement later today or tomorrow evening. 14 August (day before DebCamp) RT: Adam Image: Steve, And

Re: Bug#990897: unblock: linux/5.10.46-1

2021-07-20 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Salvatore, On 20-07-2021 20:05, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > We do not have yet the signed packages that said, but once present > ideally the package get's aged as well to have fixes asap in bullseye. As asked on IRC: IIUC it's best to wait until all binaries are in and migrate the set right?

Re: Finding a tentative bullseye release date

2021-07-20 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, Current overview to check if I got things right and to hopefully trigger more replies. We currently don't have any day yet with all involved teams comfortably present, the one coming closest is 4 September. Somebody from ftp available on 14 august? 14 August (day before DebCamp) R

Re: Finding a tentative bullseye release date

2021-07-17 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, On 11-07-2021 21:11, Paul Gevers wrote: > With less than three weeks to go until the tentative release date, I > would love to confirm the date by now, but there is a serious issue with > crucial infrastructure (cdbuilder.d.o). Apart from this issue (and what > it means for

Re: Bug#990897: unblock: linux/5.10.46-1

2021-07-11 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: tags -1 d-i Hi, On 10-07-2021 22:15, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi release team, hi Cyril (specifically for d-i) So, let's add him (via d-boot) in. > Please unblock package linux > > It contained a rebase of the 5.10.y series to 5.10.46 upstream and > included the following changes

Re: Bug#990932: unblock: udpkg/1.20

2021-07-11 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: tags -1 confirmed d-i Hi Steve, On 11-07-2021 12:21, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Please unblock package udpkg unblocked > I've added locking for the status file, so parallel udpkg invocations > will not break the world. This fixes #987368. We definitely want this > fix for Bullseye. I'

Re: Finding a tentative bullseye release date

2021-07-11 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, On 08-06-2021 21:30, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 08:50:55PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: >> 31 July: ** tentative ** release date > > Cool, works for me. Pencilled into my calendar now. :-) With less than three weeks to go until the tentative release dat

Re: Bug#990630: unblock: fuse3/3.10.3-2

2021-07-03 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: tags -1 d-i Hi On 03-07-2021 07:17, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: > [ Other info ] > Builds an udeb and needs a d-i hint as well. So, let's make kibi aware of this too (via boot). Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Bug#990531: unblock: grub2/2.04-19

2021-07-01 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: tags -1 confirmed d-i Hi, On 01-07-2021 14:02, Colin Watson wrote: > Please unblock grub2 2.04-19. This fixes unbootability problems after > certain kinds of grub-install failure, which I think constituted an > important-severity bug at the very least. I did this by resyncing the > gru

Re: Bug#988830: [pre-approval] unblock e2fsprogs

2021-06-17 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi kibi, On 20-05-2021 17:55, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > If that's fine for the release team, I'd be happy to have the package in > unstable so that can be tested via daily builds of the installer (they > pull udebs from unstable). I'm not sure how much testing those daily > builds get from people r

Re: Finding a tentative bullseye release date

2021-06-08 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all again, On 07-06-2021 23:08, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Mon, 2021-06-07 at 20:38 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: >> Nevermind 10 July. Steve, you can stop contemplating about it. We'll >> go for 24 July as the *tentative* release date. > > Unfortunately I've just

Re: Finding a tentative bullseye release date

2021-06-07 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, On 06-06-2021 20:03, Paul Gevers wrote: > With the availability of Adam now known (and some off-list info), we have: > > 26 June > [Ansgar (ftp), Sebastian (release), Adam (release)] > 3 July > [Ansgar (ftp), Paul (release), Adam (release)] > 10 July > [S

Re: Finding a tentative bullseye release date

2021-06-06 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, On 04-06-2021 06:49, Paul Gevers wrote: > 26 June [Ansgar (ftp)] > 3 July[Ansgar (ftp), Sebastian (release), Paul (release)] > 10 July [Steve (CD) MAYBE , Ansgar (ftp), Paul (release)] > 17 July [Steve (CD), press, Ansgar (ftp), Paul (release)] > 24 July [St

Re: Finding a tentative bullseye release date

2021-06-03 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, On 30-05-2021 09:09, Paul Gevers wrote: > 26 June > 3 July > 10 July > 17 July [Steve (CD), press] > 24 July [Steve (CD), press] > 31 July > 7 August > 14 August This can now be updated to: 26 June [Ansgar (ftp)] 3 July[Ansgar (ftp), Sebastian (release),

Re: Bug#988830: [pre-approval] unblock e2fsprogs [Was: Bug#987641: e2fsprogs: FTBFS on armel/armhf with a 64-bit kernel]

2021-06-03 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: tags -1 = confirmed d-i Hi Theodore, Sorry it took so long. On 20-05-2021 19:40, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > That patch is rather long, but it's all mostly of the form: > > - tail = (struct ext4_fc_tail *)ext4_fc_tag_val(tl); > + memcpy(&tail, ext4_fc_tag_val(tl), sizeof(tail));

Re: Bug#988442: unblock: linux/5.10.40-1

2021-06-01 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 01-06-2021 08:06, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > The version is not 4 days in unstable, looks good to me to let it > migrate to testing (unless Cyril spotted issues in recent d-i tests). I'm still good to go. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Finding a tentative bullseye release date

2021-05-30 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 30-05-2021 06:35, Donald Norwood wrote: > On 5/29/21 9:12 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:17:55PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: >>> Assuming all goes well >>> with RC2 and RC3, we'd be looking at the following candidate release dates: &

Re: Finding a tentative bullseye release date

2021-05-28 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, On 24-04-2021 00:41, Donald Norwood wrote: > Indeed, from this and the last few posts in the discussion it reads that > perhaps June is the better option for the 'timed' ready when ready > release date. The progress of fixing the blocking issues in the debian-installer is good enough to s

Re: Bug#988442: unblock: linux/5.10.37-1 (pre-approval checking)

2021-05-27 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: tags -1 confirmed d-i @boot: needs d-i ACK. As I believe you are aware of, the upload has already happened. @kibi: feel free to age it if/when you see fit Paul On 19-05-2021 17:27, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Control: retitle -1 unblock: linux/5.10.38-1 (pre-approval checking) > > O

Re: Bug#988472: install-mbr doesnt create a partition

2021-05-27 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: reassign -1 installation-guide On 13-05-2021 18:32, Justin B Rye wrote: > Marc Haber wrote: >> Package: release-notes >> Severity: minor >> >> Hi, >> >> Chapter 4.3.3.1 of the release notes suggest using install-mbr /dev/sdX >> followed by mkdosfs /dev/sdX1. On a really blank medium, this

Re: Bug#988814: unblock: gtk+2.0/2.24.33-2

2021-05-25 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 25-05-2021 01:01, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > I'm happy to have gtk+2.0 migrate to testing as soon as seems reasonable > from the release team point of view. Ditto for cdebconf, but I can file > a separate request for that, as is customary for unblock requests. unblocked both gtk+2.0 and cdeb

Re: Bug#988740: unblock: glibc/2.31-12

2021-05-23 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi kibi, On 24-05-2021 06:30, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Nothing dramatic, we'll be more explicit next time and pick an option > for real instead of considering both options and letting one pick a > favorite. :) Let's agree on that indeed. It's a shame that we get into these annoyances, while all w

Re: Bug#988832: unblock: libx11/2:1.7.1-1

2021-05-21 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: tags -1 d-i confirmed Hi, On 20-05-2021 10:26, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Please unblock package libx11 This needs also an ack from d-i, boot CC-ed. > This fixes CVE-2021-31535, a bug in libX11 which could lead to the > execution of additional X requests due to insufficient buffer

Re: Bug#988585: unblock: grub2/2.04-18

2021-05-20 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: tags -1 d-i confirmed Hi, This needs an ACK from d-boot as well. On 16-05-2021 12:05, Colin Watson wrote: > Please unblock grub2 2.04-18. This is mostly fixes from Steve to sort > out UEFI Secure Boot on i386. The upstream patch to fix section size > calculation *seems* to only fix a

Re: Bug#988814: unblock: gtk+2.0/2.24.33-2

2021-05-20 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: tags -1 confirmed d-i On 19-05-2021 21:54, Simon McVittie wrote: > Please unblock package gtk+2.0 Ok from my side. As this upload is to fix the d-i issue I'm pretty sure that debian-boot is also fine, but I promised kibi this morning that I'll follow the process and wait for an explicit

Re: Bug#988740: unblock: glibc/2.31-12

2021-05-19 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Cyril On 20-05-2021 08:23, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Having udeb-producing packages change under our feet when we're in > the middle of unentangling the rendering mess isn't exactly nice… I'm terribly sorry, but I thought we discussed migrating udeb generating packages recently on IRC #d-releas

Re: Finding a tentative bullseye release date

2021-04-23 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Cyril, On 23-04-2021 15:13, Cyril Brulebois wrote: >> Seems like our current best option is May 22 if you can make it. > > That's definitely not what I would call “best option” from an > installer point of view. I hear you. So, I fear that we're getting into a situation where everything excep

Re: Finding a tentative bullseye release date

2021-04-21 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi ftpmasters, Adam, On 09-04-2021 20:47, Paul Gevers wrote: > Dear release team, ftpmasters, press team, cd team, d-i team, [...] > We propose to aim for a release date in May. Would either of the > following work for you and do you have any preference? > - May 1 > - May 8 >

inquiring for input to the release notes

2021-04-15 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi boot team, As is custom in the final phases of the release, I'm asking you to think about issues that are worth mentioning in the release notes for bullseye from the perspective of the installer. Feel free to reply to this e-mail, or, even better, to bts against the release-notes package if th

Re: Finding a tentative bullseye release date

2021-04-15 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Holger, On 10-04-2021 18:14, Holger Wansing wrote: >>> 2. A problem came up during freeze regarding input methods for several >>>languages: >>>Starting with bullseye, GNOME depends on ibus, which is not fully >>>compatible with the view of some language teams, who would like to >>>

Re: Finding a tentative bullseye release date

2021-04-10 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Holger, On 10-04-2021 12:59, Holger Wansing wrote: > Maybe the release-team could look into the pending unblock issues for d-i > in the meantime? Were unblock requests filed? If so, can you point me at them as I don't know which unblock requests you're talking about? If not, they don't appear

Finding a tentative bullseye release date

2021-04-09 Thread Paul Gevers
Dear release team, ftpmasters, press team, cd team, d-i team, The Release Team believes that the state of bullseye is pretty good. Yes, there are some blocking bugs [1] and d-i and shim still need some love, but the state is much better than we remembered from the same time in buster. Last time i

Bug#982838: RoM: win32-loader must not migrate automatically

2021-02-19 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Didier, On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:45:26 +0100 Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > It'll be updated to be marked "found" in the latest version, and "notfound" > in any version allowed to migrate. I think it's a tiny bit better to use "fixed" for the version that's allowed to migrate. "notfound" is just

Bug#971019: accidental chaining of debconf commands

2021-02-12 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, Excuse me if I totally got this wrong, but to an outsider this looks like a typo... On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 12:17:13 +0200 Wilco Baan Hofman wrote: > debconf: --> FGET clock-setup/utc seen ^ hyphen > debconf: <-- 0 true > debconf: --> SET clock-setup/utc true INPUT low cl

Bug#982035: tasksel depends on man-pages-it which has been removed

2021-02-05 Thread Paul Gevers
Package: tasksel Version: 3.63 Severity: serious Justification: not installable Hi, man-pages-it has been removed from unstable. Don't ask me how that is possible as your package still depends on it, but it happened. Please drop the dependency. The RM bug #979034 suggests the data now lives elsew

Bug#960056: src:tasksel: fails to migrate to testing for too long

2020-05-10 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Holger, On 10-05-2020 19:55, Paul Gevers wrote: >> I fail to see what's the reason for this. > > I'll have a more careful look. The britney output [1] shows that tasksel isn't migrating because it would make task-pkgs-are-installable-faux non-installable in testi

Bug#960056: src:tasksel: fails to migrate to testing for too long

2020-05-10 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Holger, On 10-05-2020 19:38, Holger Wansing wrote: > This has already been noted on debian-boot some days ago. Ack. > I fail to see what's the reason for this. I'll have a more careful look. > We have some pending changings in git. > Should I do another upload, to try to get this fixed? Th

Bug#960056: src:tasksel: fails to migrate to testing for too long

2020-05-08 Thread Paul Gevers
Source: tasksel Version: 3.58 Severity: serious Control: close -1 3.59 Tags: sid bullseye User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: out-of-sync Dear maintainer(s), kibi, As recently announced [1], the Release Team now considers packages that are out-of-sync between testing and unstab

Bug#953783: src:installation-guide: fails to migrate to testing for too long

2020-03-13 Thread Paul Gevers
Source: installation-guide Version: 20190622 Severity: serious Control: fixed -1 20191229 Tags: sid bullseye pending User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: out-of-sync Dear maintainer(s), As recently announced [1], the Release Team now considers packages that are out-of-sync betwe

Bug#945772: kernel-wedge: autopkgtest failure: +dpkg-architecture: warning: cannot determine CC system type, falling back to default (native compilation)

2019-11-28 Thread Paul Gevers
Source: kernel-wedge Version: 2.100 X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: regression Dear maintainers, With a recent upload of kernel-wedge you introduced an autopkgtest in your package. However the test fails. I copied some of the output at the botto

Re: Bug#933829: win32-loader: Checksums need to be updated for new stable release, download fails to validate Release file.

2019-08-16 Thread Paul Gevers
clone 933829 -2 reassign -2 release.debian.org retitle -2 buster-pu: package win32-loader/0.9.3+deb10u1 user release.debian@packages.debian.org usertags pu thanks Let's hope I got that right. On 16-08-2019 08:55, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > debian-boot@ / debian-release@: can I upload src:w

Bug#924657: release-notes? Was: Re: kbdnames are generated with incorrect translations

2019-07-04 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 14:38:07 + Iain Lane wrote: > Package: keyboard-configuration > Version: 1.188 > Severity: serious > Tags: patch [...] > The generated names in keyboard-configuration.config are translated > incorrectly: > > laney@raleigh> dpkg --ctrl-tarfile keyboard-configur

Re: Same issue as already reported, and partially fixed

2019-05-31 Thread Paul Gevers
severity 55 grave merge 929172 904699 thanks Hi Diederik, On 31-05-2019 21:16, Diederik de Haas wrote: > Control: severity -1 serious Please don't use this if you CC multiple bugs that aren't all of the same severity. > The fix has actually been made. But the problem is that it needs an unb

Re: Bug#925971: release-notes: should mention secure boot in d-i

2019-05-02 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Ben, Holger, On 22-04-2019 00:25, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 16:45 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: >> Package: release-notes >> X-Debbugs-CC: debian-boot@lists.debian.org >> >> As now discussion on the RT sprint, the release notes should probably >>

Re: [buster] query about status of installation-guide and d-i release notes

2019-04-25 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Holger, On 25-04-2019 08:11, Holger Wansing wrote: > Paul Gevers wrote: > First, I wonder why you ask personally me for this. Because the task was originally self-assigned to kibi and was documented on the wiki [1] as "ask Holger". > Why not ask the debian-boot team?

Re: Bug#925971: release-notes: should mention secure boot in d-i

2019-04-21 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Debian-boot, Friendly ping. On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 07:44:30 + Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 04:45:20PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > >As now discussion on the RT sprint, the release notes should probably > >say something about the work on secure boot. > &g

Bug#925971: release-notes: should mention secure boot in d-i

2019-03-29 Thread Paul Gevers
Package: release-notes X-Debbugs-CC: debian-boot@lists.debian.org As now discussion on the RT sprint, the release notes should probably say something about the work on secure boot. I wouldn't know what to put in, so proposals are welcome. Until that time, I file this bug to not forget. Paul

Re: release-notes: please document unattended-upgrades

2019-03-23 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi On 23-03-2019 12:47, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > This was backed out at the request of the security team: > > https://tracker.debian.org/news/974578/accepted-pkgsel-057-source-into-unstable/ > > so I guess this makes this bug report moot? So let's close the bug. Paul signature.asc Descrip

Bug#925368: di-netboot-assistant: autopkgtest needs update archiving of wheezy

2019-03-23 Thread Paul Gevers
Source: di-netboot-assistant Version: 0.60 Severity: important X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: issue Control: affects -1 src:grub2 Dear maintainers, With a recent upload of grub2 the autopkgtest of di-netboot-assistant fails in testing when that

Re: release-notes: please document unattended-upgrades

2019-03-23 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi all, On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 19:39:08 +0100 Cyril Brulebois wrote: > [Please keep debian-boot@ and hert...@debian.org in copy of your answers.] done. > Raphaël Hertzog enabled unattended-upgrades support by default in pkgsel, > which is first shipped with the D-I Buste

Re: debootstrap/1.0.102 appears to break debuerreotype autopkgtest

2018-06-18 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Tianon, On 14-06-18 10:19, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > The patch for #839046 also disabled --merged-usr for stretch as stretch > was added to the blacklist in first_stage_install(). > > debootstrap should default to non-merged-usr for stretch, but it should > be possible to enable merged-usr via

debootstrap/1.0.102 appears to break debuerreotype autopkgtest

2018-06-14 Thread Paul Gevers
Dear maintainers, With a recent upload of debootstrap the autopkgtest of debuerreotype version 0.6-1 started to fail. See: https://ci.debian.net/packages/d/debuerreotype/ and https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=debootstrap I looked at the test¹ and it compares the result of the current run

Re: debootstrap/1.0.98 breaks debomatic/0.23-1 autopkgtest in testing

2018-05-16 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Luca, On 16-05-18 13:33, Luca Falavigna wrote: > 2018-05-16 10:05 GMT+02:00 Paul Gevers : >> The autopkgtest of debomatic in testing is apparently already broken¹ >> without the new debootstrap for reasons unclear to me. As a result it >> isn't blocking migration any

Re: debootstrap/1.0.98 breaks debomatic/0.23-1 autopkgtest in testing

2018-05-16 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, On 15-05-18 15:11, Paul Gevers wrote: > tl;dr: debootstrap/1.0.98 breaks debomatic/0.23-1 autopkgtest in testing > see: https://ci.debian.net/packages/d/debomatic/testing/amd64/ The autopkgtest of debomatic in testing is apparently already broken¹ without the new debootstrap for r

  1   2   >