Re: Epoch change for cctools

2024-10-12 Thread Alastair McKinstry
On 12/10/2024 10:18, Andreas Metzler wrote: On 2024-10-12 Alastair McKinstry wrote: Hi, cctools is at version 1:9.9 due to an error in 2021. [...] Looks like a typo, afaict cctools currently has *no* epoch, i.e. equivalent to 0:9.9. cu Andreas Thanks, my error. I had presumed a default e

Re: Epoch change for cctools

2024-10-12 Thread Andreas Metzler
On 2024-10-12 Alastair McKinstry wrote: > On 12/10/2024 10:18, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > On 2024-10-12 Alastair McKinstry wrote: > > > Hi, > > > cctools is at version 1:9.9 due to an error in 2021. > > [...] > > > > Looks like a typo, afaict cctools currently has *no* epoch, i.e. > > equivalen

Bug#1084997: ITP: python-iso639 -- ISO 639 language codes, names, and other associated information

2024-10-12 Thread Jeffrey Ratcliffe
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Jeffrey Ratcliffe X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name: python-iso639 Version : 2024.4.27 Upstream Contact: Jackson L. Lee * URL : https://github.com/jacklonlee/iso639 * License : Apache-2.0 Progr

Re: Are 'package autoremoval emails' using very old bts data?

2024-10-12 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 12/10/2024 16:58, Richard Lewis wrote: I couldnt work out where to ask this: Are emails about packages being removed from testing generated using stale data on what bugs are open? There are known recent issues with the freshness of the udd representation of the bts due to infrastructur

Re: List of not-packaged depends

2024-10-12 Thread thomas
On Oct 12, 2024 3:02 PM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 11:01:37AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Having a quick look at requirements.txt VS Debian repo, to package this > > software, we would need: > > > > python3-cvss > > python3-gsutil > > p

BuildProfileSpec example equivalence question

2024-10-12 Thread Ferenc Wágner
Hi, The third example on https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec is: Build-Depends: foo In this case, the source package would build depend on foo if either both, nocheck and cross are active or if the profile nocheck is active. [...] This is fully consistent with the defini

Re: List of not-packaged depends

2024-10-12 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 at 15:43, wrote: > > > On Oct 12, 2024 3:02 PM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 11:01:37AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Having a quick look at requirements.txt VS Debian repo, to package this > > > software, we would need: > > > > >

Re: List of not-packaged depends

2024-10-12 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 11:01:37AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Hi, > > Having a quick look at requirements.txt VS Debian repo, to package this > software, we would need: > > python3-cvss > python3-gsutil > python3-lib4sbom > python3-lib4vex > python3-packageurl > python3-rpmfile Thanks for th

Are 'package autoremoval emails' using very old bts data?

2024-10-12 Thread Richard Lewis
I couldnt work out where to ask this: Are emails about packages being removed from testing generated using stale data on what bugs are open? (are im not complaining about the process just trying to understand it) According to https://udd.debian.org/udd-status.cgi data on bugs is updated a lot les

Epoch change for cctools

2024-10-12 Thread Alastair McKinstry
Hi, cctools is at version 1:9.9 due to an error in 2021. The current version is 7.13.1 (https://github.com/cooperative-computing-lab/cctools/tags) I propose to move epoch to fix this; reaching out to debian-devel as per policy. Best regards Alastair -- Alastair McKinstry, GPG: 82383CE9165B3

Re: Epoch change for cctools

2024-10-12 Thread Andreas Metzler
On 2024-10-12 Alastair McKinstry wrote: > Hi, > cctools is at version 1:9.9 due to an error in 2021. [...] Looks like a typo, afaict cctools currently has *no* epoch, i.e. equivalent to 0:9.9. cu Andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to y