Bug#724306: Bug #724306: pu: package dpkg/1.16.11

2013-10-09 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 04:46 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 19:47:16 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > Is there a plan for fixing #717983 in unstable in the near future? As > > things currently stand, 1.16.11 would have to be pushed in to testing as > > part of the point release

Bug#724306: Bug #724306: pu: package dpkg/1.16.11

2013-10-01 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 06:11 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 18:57:15 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 16:59 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > Thanks, unfortunately 724949 just came in a day after the upload, it > > > involves improper caching of the «dpkg

Bug#724306: Bug #724306: pu: package dpkg/1.16.11

2013-09-30 Thread Guillem Jover
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 18:57:15 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 16:59 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Thanks, unfortunately 724949 just came in a day after the upload, it > > involves improper caching of the «dpkg --print-architecture» and > > «gcc -dumpmachine» output, affecti

Bug#724306: Bug #724306: pu: package dpkg/1.16.11

2013-09-30 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 16:59 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Sat, 2013-09-28 at 08:13:29 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > Flagged for acceptance. > > Thanks, unfortunately 724949 just came in a day after the upload, it > involves improper caching of the «dpkg --print-architecture» and > «gcc -dum

Bug#724306: Bug #724306: pu: package dpkg/1.16.11

2013-09-30 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! On Sat, 2013-09-28 at 08:13:29 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Control: tags -1 + pending > > On Sat, 2013-09-28 at 05:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 05:37:30 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 04:46 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > > On Tue,

Bug#724306: Bug #724306: pu: package dpkg/1.16.11

2013-09-28 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Control: tags -1 + pending On Sat, 2013-09-28 at 05:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 05:37:30 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 04:46 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 19:47:16 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > > This looks okay o

Bug#724306: Bug #724306: pu: package dpkg/1.16.11

2013-09-27 Thread Guillem Jover
On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 05:37:30 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 04:46 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 19:47:16 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > Control: tags -1 + confirmed > [...] > > > This looks okay overall; thanks. I'm assuming that the changes hav

Bug#724306: Bug #724306: pu: package dpkg/1.16.11

2013-09-25 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 04:46 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 19:47:16 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > Control: tags -1 + confirmed [...] > > This looks okay overall; thanks. I'm assuming that the changes have been > > tested on a stable system, particularly the Replaces. > > Y

Bug#724306: Bug #724306: pu: package dpkg/1.16.11

2013-09-25 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 19:47:16 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Control: tags -1 + confirmed > > For some reason, this didn't make it to debian-release; that's usually > related to attachment size, but they don't seem /that/ big... This has been the case with all my last dpkg requests, I gues

Bug#724306: Bug #724306: pu: package dpkg/1.16.11

2013-09-24 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Control: tags -1 + confirmed For some reason, this didn't make it to debian-release; that's usually related to attachment size, but they don't seem /that/ big... On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 17:16 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > dpkg (1.16.11) stable; urgency=low > > [ Raphaël Hertzog ] > * Fix usage