Re: Go issues wrt. Debian infrastructure: moving forward

Hi, On 31-01-2021 18:43, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > It might be the time to resume the discussion... > Dear ftpmaster, will the task that imports all sources to > security-master be ready for bullseye? I think this is a fair question. What's the status on the archive side of things? (A "no" or "depe

Re: golang-github-revel-revel: Depends on network in tests

Hi Reinhard, On 16-02-2021 12:39, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > Is this something appropriate to upload at this point or rather after > bullseye release? It's fine to do now, but I'm not attached to having it in bullseye. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: golang-github-revel-revel: Depends on network in tests

Hi On 15-02-2021 23:46, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > This package doesn't (like most golang-packages) install a > debian/tests/control file, > but instead has a field 'Testsuite: autopkgtest-pkg-go' in > debian/control instead. > > How to add the 'needs-internet' restriction to this testsuite? Plea

Re: Podman 3.0 and Debian bullseye

Hi Reinhard, On 25-01-2021 02:02, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > I'm not really sure if this update required formal approval by the > release team, but I'd really appreciate your input in any case. It doesn't, except that we wrote this in the freeze policy: """ No large/disruptive changes Any change

Re: Go issues wrt. Debian infrastructure: moving forward

Hi, On 26-08-2020 13:40, Clément Hermann wrote: > On 26/08/2020 13:22, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 7:09 AM Bastian Blank > > wrote: >> >> Hi Clement >> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:39:36PM +0200, Clément Hermann wrote: >> > - a way

Re: Revert some Go packages in unstable to align with testing/buster

Hi security-team, On 08-06-2019 23:45, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > Hi everybody, > > On Wed, 5 Jun 2019, Paul Gevers wrote: >> One other problem is that tools are lacking to schedule binNMUs on the >> right packages in an efficient manner and in the right order. > > I

Re: Bug#928227: unblock: golang-golang-x-net-dev/1:0.0+git20181201.351d144+dfsg-3

Hi Shengjing, On 10-06-2019 19:52, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 2:03 AM Paul Gevers wrote: >> google-cloud-print-connector FTBFS on armel >> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=google-cloud-print-connector&arch=armel&ver=1.12-1%2Bb22

Re: Bug#928227: unblock: golang-golang-x-net-dev/1:0.0+git20181201.351d144+dfsg-3

Hi, On 08-06-2019 23:15, Dr. Tobias Quathamer wrote: > thanks for the update. I suspect that the FTBFS is due to the (probably > accidental) upload of a new version of > golang-github-mendersoftware-mender-artifact to unstable instead of > experimental. > > I've just reverted that package with a

Re: Bug#928227: unblock: golang-golang-x-net-dev/1:0.0+git20181201.351d144+dfsg-3

Hi On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 14:05:44 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote: > On 05-06-2019 21:49, Dr. Tobias Quathamer wrote: > > I think you could start with the binNMUs for the reverse dependencies of > > golang-golang-x-net-dev now, using unstable this time instead of testing. > >

Re: Revert some Go packages in unstable to align with testing/buster

Hi Martín, On 05-06-2019 14:34, Martín Ferrari wrote: > Now, still to this day it is also not clear to me what we can do to > address this problem, could you elaorate? One problem is that the security archive doesn't have the sources available from stable to do binNMUs. One other problem is that

Re: Revert some Go packages in unstable to align with testing/buster

Hi Shengjing, golang maintainers, On 27-05-2019 05:25, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:04 AM Shengjing Zhu wrote: > [...] >> The following are all the affected packages, generated by [2]: >> > > This list is now at > https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianGoTeam/AlignUnstableWithBu

Re: Revert some Go packages in unstable to align with testing/buster

Hi Shengjing, Thanks for working on this. On 26-05-2019 20:04, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > The following are all the affected packages, generated by [2]: Please include testing-proposed-updates in your query, and check for the latest status before uploading something... >

Re: Bug#928227: technical solutions enabling binNMUs in the security archive (support of golang packages)

Hi Ansgar, On 20-05-2019 09:06, Ansgar wrote: > I though about importing the full source to security-master already for > a different reason: `Built-Using` leads to a similar problem as binNMUs > in that uploads require source that is not already present in the > archive. > > It is not necessary

technical solutions enabling binNMUs in the security archive (support of golang packages)

Hi all, [@ftp-master: we're discussing the biggest blocker for picking a buster release date] TL;DR; With this mail I'd like to ask technical background and/or reasoning of why the security archive can't do binNMUs for packages that weren't sourcefully uploaded there and to search for concrete po

Re: Bug#928026: security support for golang packages in Buster

Hi, On 27-04-2019 09:31, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > Please CC debian-go@lists.debian.org and me. Done. [...] > IIUC, there're two concerns for Go packages. [...] > 2. binNMU without full source upload for security-master. > >It's still not possible, and I don't know there's any effort to >