Hi,
I made the upload, so I guess I should comment on this.
On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 15:39 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Philipp Kern , 2011-08-28, 10:52:
> >The package FTBFS'es on mips, powerpc, s390, sparc and the inofficial
> >ports s390x and powerpcspe because of changes in the symbol set wrt t
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 639059 patch
Bug #639059 [src:z88] z88: FTBFS: /usr/include/gtk-2.0/gdk/gdktypes.h:55:23:
fatal error: gdkconfig.h: No such file or directory
Added tag(s) patch.
> user ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Setting user to ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 639196 patch
Bug #639196 [src:timidity] timidity: FTBFS: nas_a.c:201: undefined reference to
`AuNextEvent'
Added tag(s) patch.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
639196: http://bugs.debian.org/c
tags 639196 patch
thanks
Hi,
I attach a debdiff with a QA Upload to solve this bug.
As this package has an ITA, maybe this patch can be added to the
adoption :-)
I can try to ask for a sponsor to make the QA upload if the adopter
prefers it.
Cheers,
Mònica
diff -Nru timidity-2.13.2/debian/chang
Thanks -- I do have (essentially) that fix in my intended upload, but
forgot about the dpkg-dev versioned build dependency. I'll fix that and
will poke my sponsor again.
--
Geoffrey Thomas
geo...@ldpreload.com
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Mònica Ramírez Arceda wrote:
tags 639196 patch
thanks
Hi,
I
tagsoup_1.2-3_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
tagsoup_1.2-3.dsc
tagsoup_1.2-3.diff.gz
libtagsoup-java_1.2-3_all.deb
libtagsoup-java-doc_1.2-3_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
tinylaf_1.4.0-2_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
tinylaf_1.4.0-2.dsc
tinylaf_1.4.0-2.diff.gz
tinylaf_1.4.0-2_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-packages-requ..
Accepted:
libtagsoup-java-doc_1.2-3_all.deb
to main/t/tagsoup/libtagsoup-java-doc_1.2-3_all.deb
libtagsoup-java_1.2-3_all.deb
to main/t/tagsoup/libtagsoup-java_1.2-3_all.deb
tagsoup_1.2-3.diff.gz
to main/t/tagsoup/tagsoup_1.2-3.diff.gz
tagsoup_1.2-3.dsc
to main/t/tagsoup/tagsoup_1.2-3.ds
Accepted:
tinylaf_1.4.0-2.diff.gz
to main/t/tinylaf/tinylaf_1.4.0-2.diff.gz
tinylaf_1.4.0-2.dsc
to main/t/tinylaf/tinylaf_1.4.0-2.dsc
tinylaf_1.4.0-2_all.deb
to main/t/tinylaf/tinylaf_1.4.0-2_all.deb
Override entries for your package:
tinylaf_1.4.0-2.dsc - source utils
tinylaf_1.4.0-2_al
Package: ca-certificates
Version: 20110502
Severity: critical
Tags: security
Please see the following:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=682956
http://pastebin.com/ff7Yg663
http://pastebin.com/SwCZqskV
(or just search current news for "DigiNotar", optionally in conjunction
with "gmail"
https://blog.mozilla.com/security/2011/08/29/fraudulent-google-com-certificate/
Looks like Mozilla plans to disable the entire root for now.
ca-certificates should follow suit.
- Josh Triplett
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-packages-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscri
On Monday 29 August 2011 16:03:57 Josh Triplett wrote:
> Whatever resolution Mozilla and others end up with (revocation of the
> certificate or of the entire CA), ca-certificates will likely need to
> do the same.
FWIW, individual certificates can't be "revoked" in ca-certificates.
Shipping revoca
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 08:09:02PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> On Monday 29 August 2011 16:03:57 Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Whatever resolution Mozilla and others end up with (revocation of the
> > certificate or of the entire CA), ca-certificates will likely need to
> > do the same.
>
> FWIW,
On Monday 29 August 2011 20:19:11 Josh Triplett wrote:
> Does OpenSSL not have any facility for a system-wide revocation list?
No, I already checked that back when the Comodo hack occurred.
Every application needs to manually load the revocation lists, just like they
need to manually check the tr
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 08:32:40PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> On Monday 29 August 2011 20:19:11 Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Does OpenSSL not have any facility for a system-wide revocation list?
>
> No, I already checked that back when the Comodo hack occurred.
> Every application needs to manua
On lun., 2011-08-29 at 20:24 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 08:32:40PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > On Monday 29 August 2011 20:19:11 Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > Does OpenSSL not have any facility for a system-wide revocation
> list?
> >
> > No, I already checked that b
16 matches
Mail list logo
