On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 19:54 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Now that libav transitioned to testing, and
> https://release.debian.org/transitions/ says '100%' next to the libav
> transition, what's left to be done here?
The old libraries need to be removed from testing.
britney's trying that, but
Now that libav transitioned to testing, and
https://release.debian.org/transitions/ says '100%' next to the libav
transition, what's left to be done here?
Best,
Reinhard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm
On dom, mag 11, 2014 at 12:05:55 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > For reference last time took 2 months.
>
> I'll be doing my best to make it happen faster this time.
If help is needed I can lend a hand.
Cheers
signature.asc
Descript
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Control: tag -1 confirmed
>
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:05:55 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> > Would a timeline like this work for you:
>> > - T: upload libav to unstable
>>
Control: tag -1 confirmed
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:05:55 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Would a timeline like this work for you:
> > - T: upload libav to unstable
> > - T+0: upgrade all FTBFS bugs to serious severity, ask maintainer
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:25:49 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
>> for the rest, I'd think that there is a very good chance that the
>> respective maintainers are going to fix them before they turn out to
>> be actual blockers of the tran
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:25:49 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> for the rest, I'd think that there is a very good chance that the
> respective maintainers are going to fix them before they turn out to
> be actual blockers of the transition. If they do, let's remove them
> temporarily from testin
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 20:35:55 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>>
>> > When do you plan starting the transition? How about opening it with
>> > Libav 10.1? ;-)
>> > I think we are i
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 20:35:55 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>
> > When do you plan starting the transition? How about opening it with
> > Libav 10.1? ;-)
> > I think we are in a pretty good position for startin now.
>
> I agree. Let me
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> When do you plan starting the transition? How about opening it with
> Libav 10.1? ;-)
> I think we are in a pretty good position for startin now.
I agree. Let me upload 10.1 this weekend to unstable to finally start
this transition.
--
reg
Hi Reinhard,
2014-03-01 17:01 GMT+01:00 Reinhard Tartler :
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
>> I made a rebuild and the transitions isn't ready to go at all.
>>
>> IMO the API changes are far too agressive; if 2/3 of all packages in
>> the archive FTBFS, the affected AP
I uploaded a new version of bino to mentors.d.n which fixes the compilation
with libav10 by backporting some upstream commits, but I would need a sponsor
to upload it for me, as my usual sponsor will be on vacation the next couple
of weeks,
https://mentors.debian.net/package/bino
http://mentors
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> I made a rebuild and the transitions isn't ready to go at all.
>
> IMO the API changes are far too agressive; if 2/3 of all packages in
> the archive FTBFS, the affected APIs are clearly not that deprecated.
>
> I can understand the remov
Hi,
(a libav developer responsible for most of the breaks here)
I do not think bringing back the CODEC_ID_* stuff is such a great idea.
The reasons are:
- keeping compatibility in this case requires a rather ugly hack (because in c++
different enums are not compatible), which has to my knowled
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 08:57:47PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 19:37:54 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
>
> > Hi Reinhard
> >
> > On 2014-02-15 17:42:41, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, this new release does break a number of packages in the
> > > debian a
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 08:16:05PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> (Putting the bug back into the loop.)
>
> On 2014-02-16 21:47:25, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 03:44:01PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Moritz Mühlenhoff
> > > w
(Putting the bug back into the loop.)
On 2014-02-16 21:47:25, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 03:44:01PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > > Reinhard Tartler schrieb:
> > >> Package: release.debian.org
> > >> Seve
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 19:37:54 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Hi Reinhard
>
> On 2014-02-15 17:42:41, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > Unfortunately, this new release does break a number of packages in the
> > debian archive. At upstream, we are concerned about this and have
> > conducted a surv
Hi Reinhard
On 2014-02-15 17:42:41, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Unfortunately, this new release does break a number of packages in the
> debian archive. At upstream, we are concerned about this and have
> conducted a survey about the fallout here:
> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/mnrZI5XlxP
I'm not a
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi,
We have a new libav transition pending. Libav 10 is prepared in
debian/experimental, and I've started to build packges against this new
version; in fact, more or more packages requir
20 matches
Mail list logo
