new hylafax upload

2004-09-14 Thread Giuseppe Sacco
Hi all, hylafax in sarge isn't working correctly. A few bugs were submitted against version 4.2.0-6 and I am preparing a new upload for tomorrow. May I send it to testing-proposed-update or should I use unstable? Thanks, Giuseppe

About Xmame

2004-09-14 Thread Bruno Barrera C.
[Please CC me since I'm not subscribed to the list] Hi, I'm the new maintainer of xmame, and I'm a little confused of what should I do to gets this new version (0.86) into testing. This is really important since this new version fixs a lot of bugs, and has new interesting elements to the users.

Re: Pushing perl 5.8.4-2.2 into testing.

2004-09-14 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 09:50:30AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > Hello, > Afaict the NMU to make perl autobuildable was successful and I think > it should be pushed into testing (perhaps not immediately, but I'd > rather note it now than forget it). > Problem: The perl as shipped in the 5.8.4-2

Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'

2004-09-14 Thread Dirk Eddelbuettel
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 02:55:08PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:45:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:35:40AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > > I haven't seen your bug report in detail (having delivery issues with > > > @debian.org m

Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'

2004-09-14 Thread Dirk Eddelbuettel
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:45:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:35:40AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > I haven't seen your bug report in detail (having delivery issues with > > @debian.org mail, some has been days late), but octave2.0 is unlikely to > > change: >

Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'

2004-09-14 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:35:40AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > I haven't seen your bug report in detail (having delivery issues with > @debian.org mail, some has been days late), but octave2.0 is unlikely to > change: > -- code development was frozen / stopped years ago, all development went

Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'

2004-09-14 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 03:01:02PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > > > As long as you're working on arm build issues, this seems like as good > > > a time as any to mention that xerces23 and xerces24 are still in a > > > false state of Dep-Wait even though the dependency problem that got > >

Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'

2004-09-14 Thread Jay Berkenbilt
> > As long as you're working on arm build issues, this seems like as good > > a time as any to mention that xerces23 and xerces24 are still in a > > false state of Dep-Wait even though the dependency problem that got > > them there has been resolved for weeks. I've sent multiple polite a

Re: util-linux broken in sarge

2004-09-14 Thread Colin Watson
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 11:07:09PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > A bug in util-linux (#216567) is not fixed in sarge. This makes the > package uninstallable on s390x kernels, which are shiped in sarge. I've given util-linux 2.12-7 a freeze exception. Cheers, -- Colin Watson

Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'

2004-09-14 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 10:37:05AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > As long as you're working on arm build issues, this seems like as good > a time as any to mention that xerces23 and xerces24 are still in a > false state of Dep-Wait even though the dependency problem that got > them there has been

Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'

2004-09-14 Thread Jay Berkenbilt
As long as you're working on arm build issues, this seems like as good a time as any to mention that xerces23 and xerces24 are still in a false state of Dep-Wait even though the dependency problem that got them there has been resolved for weeks. I've sent multiple polite and gentle messages to [E

Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'

2004-09-14 Thread Krzysztof Krzyzaniak
Dnia 14-09-2004, wto o godzinie 13:06 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar napisaƂ(a): > Dear arm buildd-administrator, > > Based on [1], I went by a few builds on arm that are in state > 'Building' for a longer time, and didn't yet move to another state. I > process them on the order of [1], since that i

Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'

2004-09-14 Thread Dave Beckett
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > ... > redland: Unsatisfyable build-depends, should be Dep-Wait librasqal0-dev >= > 0.9.2 librasqal0-dev_0.9.2-1_arm.deb has been in the archive since August 15th (6 days after it tried and failed to build redland) and should have been buildabl

Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'

2004-09-14 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 01:06:47PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > gmfsk: configure failure, should be Failed, #271651 filed I would've guessed this is an fftw bug, but I have absolutely no way to prove it either way. Can someone help me out? Maybe a rebuild of gmfsk with the latest fftw wo

Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'

2004-09-14 Thread Dirk Eddelbuettel
Jeroen, I haven't seen your bug report in detail (having delivery issues with @debian.org mail, some has been days late), but octave2.0 is unlikely to change: -- code development was frozen / stopped years ago, all development went into octave2.1 -- octave2.0 is there for "legacy" code -- it d

Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'

2004-09-14 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
(Hm, you shouldn't have cc'ed all...) On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:35:40AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > Jeroen, > > I haven't seen your bug report in detail (having delivery issues with > @debian.org mail, some has been days late), but octave2.0 is unlikely to > change: > > -- code developmen

Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'

2004-09-14 Thread Michael Koch
On Tuesday 14 September 2004 13:06, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: Thanks for your work. > sear: Unsatisfyable build-depends, should be Dep-Wait libmercator-0.2-dev >= 0.2.1 libmercator-0.2-dev >= 0.2.1 was built and uploaded for arm into the archive some weeks ago (its in sarge already too) M

Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'

2004-09-14 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Dear arm buildd-administrator, Based on [1], I went by a few builds on arm that are in state 'Building' for a longer time, and didn't yet move to another state. I process them on the order of [1], since that is a release-oriented order of missing-builds-that-hurt-sarge-propagation-most-first. All

Re: Removing convertfs from sarge

2004-09-14 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 03:44:35PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > convertfs seems to be severly broken, two rc-bugs, one of them > http://bugs.debian.org/238246 > diagnosed properly and leading to data loss. > I suggest to not ship it in testing in its current status, ccing the > maintainer for c

Re: f-spot should not be in testing

2004-09-14 Thread Steve Langasek
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:21:17PM +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote: > I have filled RC bug on f-spot package to prevent it to come to testing. > This software is still in early development (usable, but not > maintainable for long time...), so I am letting you know this (I think > that Steve Langasek asked

Re: removal suggestions

2004-09-14 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 02:23:03AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > # RoM: 271051 > remove xen/1.2-4.1 > # RoM (me): 270461 > # (current discussions with the maintainers indicate that the BR is > # valid) > remove lincvs/1.3.2-3 > # unusable in its current state: 218497 > remove lids-2.4/1.1.1r2