wiipdf is marked for autoremoval from testing

2020-09-08 Thread Debian testing autoremoval watch
wiipdf 1.4-3 is marked for autoremoval from testing on 2020-09-18 It (build-)depends on packages with these RC bugs: 92: xpdf: FTBFS with poppler 0.85.0: error: 'getModRegion' was not declared in this scope https://bugs.debian.org/92 This mail is generated by: https://salsa.debian.org

xpdf is marked for autoremoval from testing

2020-09-08 Thread Debian testing autoremoval watch
xpdf 3.04-13 is marked for autoremoval from testing on 2020-09-18 It is affected by these RC bugs: 92: xpdf: FTBFS with poppler 0.85.0: error: 'getModRegion' was not declared in this scope https://bugs.debian.org/92 This mail is generated by: https://salsa.debian.org/release-team/rele

Bug#777009: debian-builder: please make the build reproducible

2020-09-08 Thread Chris Lamb
Chris Lamb wrote: > [..] Friendly ping on this? Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-

Bug#969319: [Pkg-utopia-maintainers] Bug#969319: Bug#969319: wifi cannot connect after combined suspend & gateway reboot

2020-09-08 Thread Michael Biebl
Hi Lyndon, thanks for testing the iwd backend in NM. You might be interested in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919619 I'm bringing Andreas, the maintainer iwd into the loop here. Personally, I'm not using the iwd backend, so I'm not really qualified to tell whether the problems

altermime_0.3.10-12_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

2020-09-08 Thread Debian FTP Masters
Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 21:35:56 +0100 Source: altermime Architecture: source Version: 0.3.10-12 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian QA Group Changed-By: Sudip Mukherjee Closes: 969797 Changes: alterm

Processing of altermime_0.3.10-12_source.changes

2020-09-08 Thread Debian FTP Masters
altermime_0.3.10-12_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: altermime_0.3.10-12.dsc altermime_0.3.10-12.debian.tar.xz altermime_0.3.10-12_amd64.buildinfo Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)

Bug#969797: marked as done (altermime: autopkgtest should be marked superficial)

2020-09-08 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Tue, 08 Sep 2020 21:03:26 + with message-id and subject line Bug#969797: fixed in altermime 0.3.10-12 has caused the Debian Bug report #969797, regarding altermime: autopkgtest should be marked superficial to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has

Bug#969870: tcpspy: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: tcpspy Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'tcpspy' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.package

Bug#969861: rdist: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: rdist Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'rdist' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.package-t

Bug#969849: ncap: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: ncap Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'ncap' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.package-tes

Bug#969840: lxmms2: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: lxmms2 Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'lxmms2' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.package

Bug#969843: makebootfat: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: makebootfat Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'makebootfat' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/READ

Bug#969842: mailcheck: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: mailcheck Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'mailcheck' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.p

Bug#969832: gox: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: gox Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'gox' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.package-tests

Bug#969828: fwlogwatch: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: fwlogwatch Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'fwlogwatch' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README

Bug#969826: flpsed: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: flpsed Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'flpsed' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.package

Bug#969822: dyndns: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: dyndns Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'dyndns' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.package

Bug#969821: dpatch: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: dpatch Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'dpatch' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.package

Bug#969817: diffmon: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: diffmon Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'diffmon' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.packa

Bug#969811: changetrack: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: changetrack Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'changetrack' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/READ

Bug#969812: cldump: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: cldump Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'cldump' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.package

Bug#969808: cfourcc: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: cfourcc Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'cfourcc' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.packa

Bug#969797: altermime: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: altermime Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of 'altermime' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.p

Bug#969795: 2vcard: autopkgtest should be marked superficial

2020-09-08 Thread Sudip Mukherjee
Source: 2vcard Severity: serious Usertags: superficialtest X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org Hi, The test done in the autopkgtest of '2vcard' does not provide significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.package