According to upstream [1], this low severity issue was fixed in 7.0.4,
but submitter could not identify corresponding patch...
IMHO this should not cause removal of Zabbix from "testing".
I'll downgrade severity of this issue to "important" while we are
waiting for upstream clarification.
[1]: h
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 1090029 important
Bug #1090029 [src:zabbix] zabbix: CVE-2024-42328
Severity set to 'important' from 'grave'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
1090029: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo
Your message dated Wed, 29 Jan 2025 07:19:39 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1093105: fixed in ocaml-multicore-magic 2.3.1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1093105,
regarding ocaml-multicore-magic: FTBFS with OCaml 5.3.0 (packaging issue)
to be marked as done.
This means that you cl
Your message dated Wed, 29 Jan 2025 07:06:21 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1093104: fixed in ocaml-merlin 5.4.1-503+ds-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1093104,
regarding ocaml-merlin: FTBFS with OCaml 5.3.0 (needs porting)
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Your message dated Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:04:41 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1076689: fixed in litecoin 0.21.4-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1076689,
regarding litecoin: FTBFS with miniupnpc 2.2.8
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt wit
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> merge 1087899 1076689
Bug #1087899 [src:litecoin] litecoin:FTBFS:build failure (error: too few
arguments to function)
Bug #1076689 [src:litecoin] litecoin: FTBFS with miniupnpc 2.2.8
Marked as found in versions litecoin/0.21.3-1.
Bug #1087899 [sr
Your message dated Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:04:41 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1087899: fixed in litecoin 0.21.4-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1087899,
regarding litecoin: FTBFS with miniupnpc 2.2.8
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt wit
Your message dated Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:04:41 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1087899: fixed in litecoin 0.21.4-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1087899,
regarding litecoin:FTBFS:build failure (error: too few arguments to function)
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
Your message dated Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:04:41 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1076689: fixed in litecoin 0.21.4-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1076689,
regarding litecoin:FTBFS:build failure (error: too few arguments to function)
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 1087899 + upstream
Bug #1087899 [src:litecoin] litecoin:FTBFS:build failure (error: too few
arguments to function)
Bug #1076689 [src:litecoin] litecoin: FTBFS with miniupnpc 2.2.8
Added tag(s) upstream.
Added tag(s) upstream.
> thanks
Stoppi
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forwarded 1087899 https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/issues/1004
Bug #1087899 [src:litecoin] litecoin:FTBFS:build failure (error: too few
arguments to function)
Bug #1076689 [src:litecoin] litecoin: FTBFS with miniupnpc 2.2.8
Ignoring r
Your message dated Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:03:27 +
with message-id
and subject line Closing
has caused the Debian Bug report #1093748,
regarding libcoda16 has an undeclared file conflict on
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libcoda.so.16
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1076689 in litecoin reported by you has been fixed in the
Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
message below and you can check the diff of the fix at:
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/litecoin/-/commit/9d26a92b588e583402e4d11a6618aba
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #1076689 [src:litecoin] litecoin: FTBFS with miniupnpc 2.2.8
Bug #1087899 [src:litecoin] litecoin:FTBFS:build failure (error: too few
arguments to function)
Added tag(s) pending.
Added tag(s) pending.
--
1076689: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #1087899 [src:litecoin] litecoin:FTBFS:build failure (error: too few
arguments to function)
Bug #1076689 [src:litecoin] litecoin: FTBFS with miniupnpc 2.2.8
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #1087899 to the same tags previously set
Ignoring re
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1087899 in litecoin reported by you has been fixed in the
Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
message below and you can check the diff of the fix at:
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/litecoin/-/commit/9d26a92b588e583402e4d11a6618aba
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forwarded 1087899 https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/issues/1004
Bug #1087899 [src:litecoin] litecoin:FTBFS:build failure (error: too few
arguments to function)
Bug #1076689 [src:litecoin] litecoin: FTBFS with miniupnpc 2.2.8
Set Bug fo
Your message dated Wed, 29 Jan 2025 03:27:01 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1093107: fixed in orpie 1.6.1-2.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1093107,
regarding orpie: FTBFS with OCaml 5.3.0 (error: Unbound module "Genlex")
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the pr
Your message dated Wed, 29 Jan 2025 03:27:01 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1073906: fixed in orpie 1.6.1-2.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1073906,
regarding FTBFS with OCaml 5.2.0 (Missing dependency on camlp-streams)
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the prob
I didn't make any changes to the file. I didn't even know of its
existence until I was trying to troubleshoot why I couldn't create VMs.
This seems to be my week for finding oddball edge cases. Given I've got
the config files back and was able to deploy a VM, I guess you can close
this out as
Your message dated Wed, 29 Jan 2025 02:46:44 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1093101: fixed in eliom 11.1.1-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1093101,
regarding eliom: FTBFS with OCaml 5.3.0 (ppx needs porting)
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Le mardi 28 janvier 2025 à 21:20 -0500, Kevin Otte a écrit :
> I had tried doing an "apt --reinstall install ..." of the package to
> get
> the configuration to no avail. Ultimately I had to do a "dpkg
> --force-confmiss -i ..." to get the files.
>
> This was an upgrade from the previous version
I had tried doing an "apt --reinstall install ..." of the package to get
the configuration to no avail. Ultimately I had to do a "dpkg
--force-confmiss -i ..." to get the files.
This was an upgrade from the previous version in testing, so it may be
something to be aware of in the upgrade proce
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1093101 in eliom reported by you has been fixed in the
Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
message below and you can check the diff of the fix at:
https://salsa.debian.org/ocaml-team/eliom/-/commit/da030f1a97d23688f1ef2186011174bec
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #1093101 [src:eliom] eliom: FTBFS with OCaml 5.3.0 (ppx needs porting)
Added tag(s) pending.
--
1093101: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1093101
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 19:28:24 -0500 Kevin Otte <[ni...@nivex.net](mailto:ni...@nivex.net)> wrote:
> Package: libvirt-daemon-driver-qemu
> Version: 11.0.0-1
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> The package manifest includes an AppArmor t
Package: libglx-mesa0
Followup-For: Bug #1092890
X-Debbugs-Cc: mity...@debian.org
Dear Maintainer, Dmitry,
This is conjecture, but I wondered whether an adjustment to the meson linkage
options for libgallium_dri[1] around the same time (not contained in the same
commit, but chronologically nearby
Package: libvirt-daemon-driver-qemu
Version: 11.0.0-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Dear Maintainer,
The package manifest includes an AppArmor template, but it is not seen on the
filesystem after the package is installed:
root@saratoga:/tmp# dpkg -L libvirt-daemon-driv
Control: reopen -1
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 6:59 PM Matthias Geiger wrote:
> This bug seems to have reappeared for me.
> I suspect 3.24.48-3 to be the culprit; it used to work before that.
Yes, this is being tracked in https://bugs.debian.org/1094442
However, it's reasonable to have a bug that w
Processing control commands:
> reopen -1
Bug #1079292 {Done: Jeremy Bícha } [libgtk-3-0t64]
libgtk-3-0t64: segfault in gdk_window_get_toplevel() crashes waybar when
clicking any tray icon
'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version;
all fixed versions will be cleared,
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> unarchive 1079292
Bug #1079292 {Done: Jeremy Bícha } [libgtk-3-0t64]
libgtk-3-0t64: segfault in gdk_window_get_toplevel() crashes waybar when
clicking any tray icon
Unarchived Bug 1079292
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please conta
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 1093027 normal
Bug #1093027 [src:k2pdfopt] k2pdfopt: FTBFS: implicit-function-declaration and
int-conversion
Severity set to 'normal' from 'serious'
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
-
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 09:53:51 +0100 Eric Valette
wrote:
> The sources and ubuntu patches I used are here:
>
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/hplip/3.24.4+dfsg0-0ubuntu4
>
> No modification needed just rebuild.
>
> --
> Eric Valette
>
>
Yeah, I can confirm that works (though resulting package
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:gumbo-parser
Bug #1094577 [release.debian.org] transition: gumbo-parser
Added indication that 1094577 affects src:gumbo-parser
> forwarded -1
> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-gumbo-parser.html
Bug #1094577 [release.debian.org] tran
[resending to hplip 1085142, where it was supposed to go, instead of cups]
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 01:46:55PM +0200, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> I reported this issue upstream to
> https://github.com/OpenPrinting/cups/issues/1078 and it turned out that the
> root cause was some invalid names in the pp
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> close 1094047 1.3.15-1
Bug #1094047 [src:mrc] mrc: FTBFS: make: *** [debian/rules:14: binary] Error 2
Marked as fixed in versions mrc/1.3.15-1.
Bug #1094047 [src:mrc] mrc: FTBFS: make: *** [debian/rules:14: binary] Error 2
Marked Bug as done
> tha
Dear Maintainer,
I have been actively working on the task of unvendorizing the original
Kubernetes package uploaded to Debian:
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/kubernetes
Over the past 1.5 years, I have analyzed and addressed the dependencies
required to build the kubectl binary.
I am now finaliz
Your message dated Tue, 28 Jan 2025 21:53:28 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1093970: fixed in dbuskit 0.1.1-5
has caused the Debian Bug report #1093970,
regarding dbuskit: FTBFS with the GNUstep multiarch layout: dh_install errors
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that t
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> close 1093112 1.8.0-1
Bug #1093112 [src:why3] why3: FTBFS with OCaml 5.3.0 (syntax error due to new
"effect" keyword)
Marked as fixed in versions why3/1.8.0-1.
Bug #1093112 [src:why3] why3: FTBFS with OCaml 5.3.0 (syntax error due to new
"effect
tags 989775 + bookworm trixie sid
close 989775 2.5.3-1~exp1
thanks
close 1092676 2.5.0-2+deb12u1
thanks
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 989775 + bookworm trixie sid
Bug #989775 {Done: Moritz Mühlenhoff } [src:openjpeg2]
openjpeg2: CVE-2021-3575
Added tag(s) bookworm, trixie, and sid.
> close 989775 2.5.3-1~exp1
Bug #989775 {Done: Moritz Mühlenhoff } [src:openjpeg2]
openjpeg
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> close 1092676 2.5.0-2+deb12u1
Bug #1092676 {Done: Salvatore Bonaccorso } [src:openjpeg2]
openjpeg2: CVE-2024-56827
Marked as fixed in versions openjpeg2/2.5.0-2+deb12u1.
Bug #1092676 {Done: Salvatore Bonaccorso } [src:openjpeg2]
openjpeg2: CVE-2
Your message dated Tue, 28 Jan 2025 21:03:34 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1075212: fixed in libtcod 1.18.1+dfsg-1.2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1075212,
regarding libtcod: ftbfs with GCC-14
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
I
tags 1092676 + bookworm trixie sid
close 1092676 2.5.3-1~exp1
# fixed in stable, not yet in trixie and up
severity 1092676 serious
thanks
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 1092675 + bookworm trixie sid
Bug #1092675 {Done: Moritz Mühlenhoff } [src:openjpeg2]
openjpeg2: CVE-2024-56826
Added tag(s) trixie, bookworm, and sid.
> close 1092675 2.5.3-1~exp1
Bug #1092675 {Done: Moritz Mühlenhoff } [src:openjpeg2]
ope
tags 1092675 + bookworm trixie sid
close 1092675 2.5.3-1~exp1
severity 1092675 serious
thanks
Your message dated Tue, 28 Jan 2025 21:13:37 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1092354: fixed in vtk9 9.3.0+dfsg1-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #1092354,
regarding python3-vtk9: segfault on Python 3.13
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt w
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 1092676 + bookworm trixie sid
Bug #1092676 [src:openjpeg2] openjpeg2: CVE-2024-56827
Added tag(s) bookworm, trixie, and sid.
> close 1092676 2.5.3-1~exp1
Bug #1092676 [src:openjpeg2] openjpeg2: CVE-2024-56827
Marked as fixed in versions openj
Hello,
this is a time-dependent test that is a bit brittle and flaky. I would
lean on disabling only this one test, and possibly a few other if they
show similar flakiness.
I'll do that with a Debian patch and then upstream too.
Free
Mathias Gibbens writes:
> Any thoughts on this? I'm leani
I'm ok disabling the tests altogether. Thanks for looking.
Mathias Gibbens writes:
> I'm seriously considering just disabling the tests for this package.
> I can't reproduce the most recently reported failure on any of my
> machines, although I don't doubt that it is reproducible for Lucas.
>
Your message dated Tue, 28 Jan 2025 20:57:41 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#981937: fixed in dh-sysuser 1.6.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #981937,
regarding dh-sysuser: Reduce negative impact and assess overall utility
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the prob
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + ruby-rack
Bug #1094572 [ruby-rackup] ruby-rackup has an undeclared file conflict on
/usr/bin/rackup
Added indication that 1094572 affects ruby-rack
--
1094572: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1094572
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contac
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 7:49 PM Jeremy Bícha wrote:
> Brasero has been a very low priority for the Debian GNOME team for
> years. My guess is that it's been broken for years. However, I can try
> to push a bit upstream and see if perhaps that author could publish a
> new release.
>
> Because of th
Source: ruby-omniauth-saml
Version: 2.2.1-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> Failure/Er
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + python3-nfs-ganesha
Bug #1094573 [nfs-ganesha] nfs-ganesha has an undeclared file conflict on
/usr/bin/sm_notify.ganesha
Added indication that 1094573 affects python3-nfs-ganesha
--
1094573: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1094573
De
Hi Andrea,
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 05:24:19PM +0100, Andrea Pappacoda wrote:
> Still, is there a particular reason why you did the upload now?
The freeze timing was announced and I would like to make sure that
opensysusers ends up in trixie. The progress on the refactoring MR
seemed stuck and wha
Package: nfs-ganesha
Version: 6.5-1
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: fileconflict
Control: affects -1 + python3-nfs-ganesha
nfs-ganesha has an undeclared file conflict. This may result in an
unpack error from dpkg.
The file /usr/bin/sm_notify.ganesha is contained in th
Package: ruby-rackup
Version: 2.1.0-1
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: fileconflict
Control: affects -1 + ruby-rack
ruby-rackup has an undeclared file conflict. This may result in an
unpack error from dpkg.
The file /usr/bin/rackup is contained in the packages
* ruby-
Source: ruby-omniauth-tumblr
Version: 1.2-1.1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> Fail
Source: camping
Version: 2.3-2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> /build/reproducible-p
Source: libguestfs
Version: 1:1.52.2-7
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully
Source: ruby-omniauth-multipassword
Version: 2.0.1-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully
On 28/01/2025 14:21, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
It failed the arch:all build ("dh_installdocs: error: Cannot find (any
matches for) "doc/build/html"")
Probably because I typed the path wrong.
(If you're wondering why I didn't upload the previous Salsa commit, that
did build: it had a no-copyr
Source: ruby-omniauth-openid
Version: 2.0.1-2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> Fail
Source: ruby-ammeter
Version: 1.1.7-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> cannot load s
Source: ruby-actionpack-xml-parser
Version: 2.0.1-4
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> :
Source: unicorn
Version: 6.1.0-3
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> /usr/bin/ruby3.3 /usr/
Source: ruby-typhoeus
Version: 1.4.0-4
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> [31mFailure/Er
Source: ruby-rack-piwik
Version: 0.3.0-2.1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> /usr/
Source: ruby-haml-rails
Version: 2.1.0-2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> :136
Source: camo
Version: 2.3.0+dfsg-2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully
Source: ruby-omniauth-twitter
Version: 1.4.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> Fail
Source: ruby-adsf
Version: 1.4.6+dfsg1-2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> :136
Source: ruby-vcr
Version: 6.0.0+really5.0.0-6
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> can
Source: yard
Version: 0.9.36-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
>cannot load s
Source: ruby-ethon
Version: 0.16.0-2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> [31mFailure/Er
Source: ruby-sprockets
Version: 3.7.2-6
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully
Source: ruby-excon
Version: 0.112.0-3
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> :136:in
> `r
Source: ruby-rails-controller-testing
Version: 1.0.5-2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully
Source: ruby-inherited-resources
Version: 1.13.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> :136
Source: ruby-warden
Version: 1.2.8-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> Failure/Er
Source: ruby-rack-timeout
Version: 0.6.3-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> /usr/
Source: ruby-omniauth
Version: 2.1.1-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> Failure/Er
Source: ruby-omniauth-shibboleth-redux
Version: 2.0.0-2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully
Source: ruby-http-accept-language
Version: 2.1.1-3
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully
Source: ruby-webpacker
Version: 5.4.4-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> :136
Source: ruby-capybara
Version: 3.40.0+ds-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> Failure/Er
Source: ruby-marcel
Version: 1.0.4+dfsg-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> /usr/bin/ruby
Source: nanoc
Version: 4.13.3-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully
Source: ruby-omniauth-kerberos
Version: 0.3.0-3.1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> Fail
Source: ruby-i18n-inflector-rails
Version: 1.0.7-5
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully
Source: live-manual
Version: 2:20151217.2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> mak
Source: puma
Version: 6.4.3-3
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully
Source: ruby-factory-bot-rails
Version: 6.4.2-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> can
Source: remctl
Version: 3.18-1.1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> make[1]: Enter
Source: ruby-omniauth-oauth
Version: 1.2.0-2
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> Failure/Er
Source: ruby-sinatra
Version: 3.2.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully
Source: ruby-omniauth-ldap
Version: 2.2.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> Failure/Er
Source: ruby-voight-kampff
Version: 2.0.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Tags: trixie sid ftbfs
User: lu...@debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-20250128 ftbfs-trixie
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
