Hi Julien, I believe we have fixed this for chocolate-doom. Would you
please remove the block?
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 08:23:05AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> projectb=> select source.source, source.version, c1.name, c2.name from
> source, files_archive_map fam1, files_archive_map fam2, compone
> On 24 Dec 2016, at 11:48, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>
> Merged and uploaded, thanks!
Thank you, Merry Christmas!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Am Samstag, den 24.12.2016, 08:54 + schrieb Jonathan Dowland:
> I've just used dcut to remove the DELAYED upload I'd made, so we can
> now
> fix and re-upload.
Merged and uploaded, thanks!
- Fabian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQIzBAEBCAAdFi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Am Samstag, den 24.12.2016, 08:54 + schrieb Jonathan Dowland:
> I've just used dcut to remove the DELAYED upload I'd made, so we can
> now
> fix and re-upload.
I've seen you already fixed this, thanks!
I think we can merge the proposed-consolid
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 09:28:40PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Not entirely. Sorry, but I think there is a glitch in the latest
> commit. The chocolate-doom package should have kept the Breaks/Replaces
> against chocolate-common (<< 2.2.1-5~).
>
> Suppose you have only chocolate-common 2.2.1-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Am Freitag, den 23.12.2016, 18:27 + schrieb Jonathan Dowland:
> On second (or third thoughts)... I've uploaded the package as-is to
> DELAYED-5.
> I suppose worst case it's borked and a fixed package needs to be
> uploaded
> after, that might be
On second (or third thoughts)... I've uploaded the package as-is to DELAYED-5.
I suppose worst case it's borked and a fixed package needs to be uploaded
after, that might be better than not getting this done in time for the freeze.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
...upgrade seems to work, there's a problem with downgrading from these -5
versions to -4 but I guess that's never officially supported anyway.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 06:27:32AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> The transitional chocolate-common package doesn't necessarily have to
> contain the same files as before. It's perfectly fine if it is an empty
> dummy.
Sorry yes, that's not quite what I meant. hopefully the latest pushes to
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Am Mittwoch, den 21.12.2016, 16:51 + schrieb Jonathan Dowland:
> I/we still need to bring back most of the chocolate-doom.install file
> now that
> we're back to a multi-binary package, otherwise I think it looks
> good.
The transitional chocola
OK, I've updated the packages at the temporary apt URL from my last message
with some changes that I've pushed to the VCS branch proposed-consolidate;
there is now a transitional chocolate-common and I've tested the
only-chocolate-heretic upgrade case, all is well.
I/we still need to bring back m
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:23:44PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> If you only have e.g. chocolate-heretic installed, but not chocolate-doom,
> you will not take part in the transition. Fortunately, all packages have a
> hard dependency on chocolate-common, so it might be sufficient to keep
> this
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Honestly I don't know, I need to test it . Will try Monday
If you only have e.g. chocolate-heretic installed, but not chocolate-doom,
you will not take part in the transition. Fortunately, all packages have a
hard dependency on chocolate-common, so it might be sufficient
> On 16 Dec 2016, at 18:50, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>
> Am Freitag, den 16.12.2016, 19:43 +0100 schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
>> Technically, the branch looks fine, especially after the latest
>> commit
>
> Oh wait, are you sure we don't need empty dummy packages for a proper
> transition?
>
> -
Am Freitag, den 16.12.2016, 19:43 +0100 schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
> Technically, the branch looks fine, especially after the latest
> commit
Oh wait, are you sure we don't need empty dummy packages for a proper
transition?
- Fabian
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Am Freitag, den 16.12.2016, 16:07 + schrieb Jonathan Dowland:
> Initial proposal for a combined binary package is now pushed to the
> 'proposed-consolidate' branch.
Thank you for your work on this!
Technically, the branch looks fine, especially
Initial proposal for a combined binary package is now pushed to the
'proposed-consolidate' branch.
The package description needs some rework.
We need to double-check the conflicts/replaces semantics and make sure all
upgrade scenarios are covered.
The package source is, IMHO, pleasingly simpler
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:36:57PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> I think I'd rather move the package back to the contrib section but keep
> all four games as binary packages.
sorry for spamming as I think out loud, but what about
* drop chocolate-{heretic,hexen,strife} packages
* put all th
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:36:57PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> I think I'd rather move the package back to the contrib section but keep
> all four games as binary packages.
One solution that would be a minor PITA but would work going forward would be
* delete the other games from chocolate-
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:36:57PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> I think I'd rather move the package back to the contrib section but keep
> all four games as binary packages.
Personally I think that'd be a bit of a shame, but it depends which you value
more: all the engines in the archive, or o
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> A workaround that *might* work would be if we did a release entirely in
> one
> suite only: i.e. temporarily delete the contrib binary packages. I'm not
> sure
> whether you would be happy to try that, it's pretty drastic.
I think I'd rather move the package back to the c
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 15:27:01 +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> We are 2/10 days into the mandatory migration delay, but PTS still shows
> "block
> request by jcristau", so I'm really not sure what will happen on 23 Dec.
>
Nothing; the block is not specific to a version, and will remain in
pla
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 01:32:31PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > Sure, done (and VCS updated). Let's hope I haven't screwed it up :>
>
> Thanks for that! Let's see what it brings...
I've just refreshed my understanding of the issue and I'm afraid I doubt
this uploa
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 08:23:05AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> This now affects a second source package:
>
> projectb=> select source.source, source.version, c1.name, c2.name from
> source, files_archive_map fam1, files_archive_map fam2, component c1,
> component c2 where source.file = fam1.f
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Sure, done (and VCS updated). Let's hope I haven't screwed it up :>
Thanks for that! Let's see what it brings...
- Fabian
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:13:54PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Yes, could you probably do the package upload, please? I am currently
> pretty far away from my private PC and would rather avoid adding any
> further delay. Thanks!
Sure, done (and VCS updated). Let's hope I haven't screwed it u
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Do you need any assistance?
Yes, could you probably do the package upload, please? I am currently
pretty far away from my private PC and would rather avoid adding any
further delay. Thanks!
- Fabian
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 12:27:16PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> I'd be even fine with re-uploading an otherwise unchanged package. In
> fact, this upload would (probably or is that for sure?) fix a bug and a
> severe one, but it's in another package. We could document that in
> debian/changelog
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Could we release a new Debian package version of the current release: are
> there enough (any?) small changes we can make like bump standards version
> etc.?[1] Of course there are no actual reported bugs for us to fix!
I'd be even fine with re-uploading an otherwise unch
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 06:15:38PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Still no response from anyone and no new Choco release in sight. What
> are we supposed to do now?
Is it very unlikely now that we'll get a new c-d in time for the freeze?
I'll just double check the schedules and ping Fraggle agai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Am Mittwoch, den 16.11.2016, 10:39 + schrieb Jonathan Dowland:
> It's not clear to me whether this would work, or not, but it might be
> worth a try. Fabian, if we can convince Simon that we should release
> a
> new c-d version from the master br
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:24:37AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Could we work around this for chocolate-doom at least by uploading a new
> version in sid/main? Obviously ideally we'll find some other reason to
> update the package too :)
It's not clear to me whether this would work, or not, bu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Am Sonntag, den 13.11.2016, 17:37 +0100 schrieb Julien Cristau:
> The release team has nothing to do with this, other than being
> impacted
> by the archive breakage.
So, who do I need to contact?
- Fabian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQIcBAEBCA
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 17:35:32 +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hello-o?!
>
> Am Sonntag, den 06.11.2016, 16:16 +0100 schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
> > Now that even the first phase of the freeze has just been announced,
> > could we please fin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello-o?!
Am Sonntag, den 06.11.2016, 16:16 +0100 schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
> Now that even the first phase of the freeze has just been announced,
> could we please finally let src:chocolate-doom migrate to testing?
What is going on here, release t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Am Donnerstag, den 11.08.2016, 10:24 +0100 schrieb Jonathan Dowland:
> Could we work around this for chocolate-doom at least by uploading a
> new
> version in sid/main? Obviously ideally we'll find some other reason to
> update the package too :)
No
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 15:53:44 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> projectb=> select source.id, source.source, source.version, source.file,
> component.name from source join files_archive_map fam on source.file =
> fam.file_id join component on component.id = fam.component_id where
> source.source
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:53:44PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> I think I told Ansgar at the time, but forgot to reopen. This is still
> broken, there's still a file in both contrib and main:
>
> projectb=> select source.id, source.source, source.version, source.file,
> component.name from sou
Control: reopen -1
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:18:01 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Package: ftp.debian.org
> Severity: important
> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-rele...@lists.debian.org
>
> Hi,
>
> jcristau@franck:~$ dak ls -a source chocolate-doom -s unstable,unstable-debug
> chocolate-doom | 2.2.1-3
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-rele...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
jcristau@franck:~$ dak ls -a source chocolate-doom -s unstable,unstable-debug
chocolate-doom | 2.2.1-3 | unstable | source
chocolate-doom | 2.2.1-3 | unstable-debug/contrib | so
40 matches
Mail list logo
