Re: britney: Failing autopkgtest for package that got merge into another one

Am Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 05:44:15PM +0100 schrieb Markus Blatt: Hi, I maintain package opm-models [1] that got merged into opm-simulators [2] (by upstream) for the new release 2024.10. The opm-models package has autopkgtests. I have added transitional packages for opm-models in debian/control

britney: Failing autopkgtest for package that got merge into another one

Hi, I maintain package opm-models [1] that got merged into opm-simulators [2] (by upstream) for the new release 2024.10. The opm-models package has autopkgtests. I have added transitional packages for opm-models in debian/control of opm-simulators version >=2024.10~, e.g.: Package: libopm-mod

Should we drop t64 library suffic after soversion bump?

Hi, if a package was part of the t64 transition then the library now has a t64 suffix added. How should one proceed if there is a new version of that software that needs a bump in the soversion. Should I keep the t64 suffix or drop it. This is about alberta, which currently has libalberta4t64 a

Re: Re: Cannot create chroots with cowbuilder because of usr-is-merged

Hi Luca, Am Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 05:50:19PM + schrieb Luca Boccassi: Try DEBOOTSTRAPOPTS="--merged-usr" in your ~/.pbuilderrc In trixie and sid, all chroots, including those to build packages, are already supposed to be usr-merged. Enabling proposed-updates on Debian 11 or 12, to get the

Cannot create chroots with cowbuilder because of usr-is-merged

Hi, I cannot create or update chroots (for sid or unstable) with cowbuilder anymore, neither on Debian 12 nor 11. $ sudo cowbuilder create I: Invoking pbuilder I: forking: pbuilder create --buildplace /var/cache/pbuilder/base.cow --mirror http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ --distribution sid -

How are parallel build parameters choosen by buildd,

Hi, from time to time i am experiencing some hanging builds that get killed due to inactivity, or even failing tests. I am not 100% sure why that happens but my suspicion is that the available memory per make thread might be insuffient. It fluctuates quite a bit between machines used by buildd

Might failed builds for unofficial ports block migration?

Hi, I am currently preparing/testing Debian packages of the upcoming OPM release by uploading them to experimental. I noted that packages for both hppa and riscv64 are failing for this release of opm-common [1] that did build before. riscv64 [2] might be a compiler issue of g++-12 and hence no

Re: Do autopkgtest for non-listed architectures prevent migration?

Hi, Am Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 10:38:32AM +0100 schrieb Helge Deller: On 1/24/22 09:10, Ole Streicher wrote: Wookey writes: If the package builds on the 32bit arches then I would advise that you let it build. We always try to build for all arches in debian and it is very annoying if you have sa

Do autopkgtest for non-listed architectures prevent migration?

Hi, still an newbie and so many questions. Please bear with me. My package opm-common list as one of the blocking migration that autopkgtest fails for armhf and i386. https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=opm-common The reason is that there are no packages built for these architecture as I l

How to resolve unsatisfied dependency (verisoned) after ftpmaster acception

Hi, I have created a new Debian package that finally got accepted into unstable by ftpmaster. Thanks a lot. This is really great. When I look at the package tracker https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/opm-common I see "unsatisfied dependency on libfmt7 (>= 7.1.3+ds1)" that is blocking migration to te

lib package name of dependency changed after ftpmaster acceptance (was Re: How to resolve unsatisfied dependency (verisoned) after ftpmaster acception)

Hi Am Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 10:06:22AM +0100 schrieb Markus Blatt: When I look at the package tracker https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/opm-common I see "unsatisfied dependency on libfmt7 (>= 7.1.3+ds1)" that is blocking migration to testing. Current version of libfmt in unstable i

Bug#994272: New packages for release 2021.10 of OPM

Dear all, I have packaged the new release 2021.10-1. You can find the packages on mentors.debian.org: https://mentors.debian.net/package/opm-common/ https://mentors.debian.net/package/opm-material/ https://mentors.debian.net/package/opm-grid/ https://mentors.debian.net/package/opm-models/ https

Bug#994272: Continuing packaging effort (was: Bug#994272: RFS: opm-{common|material|grid|models|simulators|upscaling}/2021.04-1 [ITP] -- opm -- Open Porous Media Software Suite)

Hi, We are still looking for a sponsor for the OPM packages. FYI: We are about to release the next upstream version 2021.10 and intend to update the prospective Debian packages (see [0], [1] for all details). Any comments and recommendations about the current packages are of course welcome and w

Bug#994272: Acknowledgement (RFS: opm-{common|material|grid|models|simulators|upscaling}/2021.04-1 [ITP] -- opm -- Open Porous Media Software Suite)

Hi Two additional comments: These packages depend on dune-common, dune-geometry, dune-grid, dune-istl, for which Debian is currently uploading new versions to experimental. Therefore I have also tested the build with the dune packages from experimental. If it is more suitable for you to have RF

Bug#994272: RFS: opm-{common|material|grid|models|simulators|upscaling}/2021.04-1 [ITP] -- opm -- Open Porous Media Software Suite

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/opm-upscaling/opm- upscaling_2021.04-1.dsc Changes for the initial release: opm-upscaling (2021.04-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * Initial release (Closes: #987