Re: libgcc2 rdepends on hppa

On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 01:05:02PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Packages still depending on libgcc2, without depending on libg2c0 > (can't do anything about libg2c0, built from gcc-3.4). > ale This one can't be binNMUed on the autobuilders because it's previously been binNMUed using the old v

Re: libsdl1.2-dev: Dropping *-dev dependencies breaks package builds too close to release

On Wednesday 01 November 2006 00:17 am, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:12:17PM +0100, Daniel Schepler wrote: > > After the recent upload of libsdl1.2-dev downgrading the *-dev > > dependencies to recommends, lots of packages (for example mednafen, > > missing a libgl-dev depende

Re: gcj/java status

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Please consider moving the following packages to testing: > gcj-4.1 I'm wondering whether the build-dependencies of gcj-4.1 are really accurate. Is it really the case that gcj-4.1 will build against any version of gcc-4.1-so

Re: RC bugfixes uploaded with urgency=low

On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 01:50:06AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > I noticed several RC bugfixes, which were uploaded with urgency=low. > You might want to check, whether these should be bumped: (I've left > out cases, where a new upstream has been incorporated) FWIW, I already use

Re: Pushing console-data in testing (was: Re: [D-I] RC1 - final push of udebs)

On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 06:59:07AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > > AFAIKT this has not happened yet. Please approve ASAP as otherwise RC1 may > > get delayed further, or this change will miss RC1. > > The new version fixes the sort order of keymaps during keyboard selection > > which I'd very

Re: Relicensing progress: etch-ignore possible? (was: Bug#393519: Thailatex upgrade fixes.)

tags 394283 etch-ignore thanks On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 07:17:16PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > I'm not sure about your policies in these things, but maybe this > progress already warrants an etch-ignore tag? Yes, the below seems to warrant an etch-ignore tag under the stated policy. > "Theppitak

Re: SE Linux in Etch

On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 12:56:50AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > As per Bug#390760We are at a point where we can support a > targeted SELinux policy, at least in permissive mode, I suggest that > we ship SELinux installed, but turned off by default; and a README or > a short shell scr

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:09:13AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:52:59 +0200 (CEST), Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> said: > >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 02:05:37PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > >> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 10:58:25PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: >

Re: Bug#344686: fixed in cyrus-sasl-2.1 2.1.22-0~pre01

On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:44:13PM +0300, Fabian Fagerholm wrote: > The package names were chosen with the help of the library packaging guide > without much consideration of the old names. If the library packaging guide recommends this particular naming scheme for binary packages related to libra

Re: Bug#396331: upgrade-reports: sarge to etch removes kernels

On Wednesday 01 November 2006 02:54, Ryan Finnie wrote: > So, should the release notes not encourage people to install an > updated aptitude before dist-upgrading? As a workaround, I did find > that if you "aptitude -f install initrd-tools", it just updates > initrd-tools and no other packages. S

Re: Bug#396331: upgrade-reports: sarge to etch removes kernels

On 10/31/06, Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/31/06, Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The etch libc6 Conflicts: initrd-tools (<< 0.1.84.1), however the etch > initrd-tools *IS* 0.1.84.1. So yeah, there is a problem (supposedly > fixed in sid) with conflict resolution. As it

Re: Bug#396331: upgrade-reports: sarge to etch removes kernels

On 10/31/06, Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The etch libc6 Conflicts: initrd-tools (<< 0.1.84.1), however the etch initrd-tools *IS* 0.1.84.1. So yeah, there is a problem (supposedly fixed in sid) with conflict resolution. As it turns out, you can continue to use 2.6.8 on an etch machin

Re: Bug#396331: upgrade-reports: sarge to etch removes kernels

On 10/31/06, Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:57:25AM -0800, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: >> This problem (automatic removal of old kernel packages) is apparently >> fixed in the version of aptitude in Sid, 0.4.4-1. If this version was >>

Re: D-I RC1 related hint reqest

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:53:35PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > Please add the following hint: > # Important fix for inputbox breakage under non-ASCII locales > unblock newt/0.52.2-8 Added. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer

Re: Bug#396331: upgrade-reports: sarge to etch removes kernels

Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:04:49PM -0800, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: >> Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself understood well, or else I didn't >> understand the bug report. If I read correctly, the submitter is >> complaining that his dist-upgrade wanted to remove the package >>

Re: Bug#379090: Still no news on 64bit i386 kernels

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 02:01:22PM +0100, Frederik Schueler wrote: [...] >> Adding amd64 as subarch to i386 would mean 3 additional flavors to >> build, raising the overall build-time of that package by 1.5-2h. > > Which doesn't sound like a blocker to

Re: Bug#379090: Still no news on 64bit i386 kernels

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 02:01:22PM +0100, Frederik Schueler wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 01:30:59AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Can someone from the kernel team comment on whether there are problems with > > this particular patch that have not yet been noted in the bug report? If > > the

Re: Bug#396331: upgrade-reports: sarge to etch removes kernels

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:04:49PM -0800, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself understood well, or else I didn't > understand the bug report. If I read correctly, the submitter is > complaining that his dist-upgrade wanted to remove the package > containing the **currently r

Re: D-I RC1 related hint reqest

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:26:10AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Please add the following hint: > > # Important fix for inputbox breakage under non-ASCII locales > > unblock newt/0.52.2-8 > > Please also force hint cryptsetup. It seems to be block

Re: D-I RC1 related hint reqest

Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please add the following hint: > > # Important fix for inputbox breakage under non-ASCII locales > unblock newt/0.52.2-8 > > Please also force hint cryptsetup. It seems to be blocked by an FTBFS, but > I don't think that should block migration. The FTBFS i

Re: Bug#379090: Still no news on 64bit i386 kernels

Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061031 15:01]: >> Frederik Schueler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I asked this before and haven't yet recieved an answere: >> >> What does w-b do when the amd64 build uploads amd64+i386 64bit kernel >> debs b

Re: Bug#396346: severity of 396346 is wishlist

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 11:52:41PM +0100, A Mennucc wrote: > Pierre HABOUZIT ha scritto: > > that bug would almost have deserved an "important" severity as every > > Marillat packages user won't see mplayer is in debian now. > > hmmm > > when the user adds another repository to the sources.list ,

Re: libsdl1.2-dev: Dropping *-dev dependencies breaks package builds too close to release

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:12:17PM +0100, Daniel Schepler wrote: > After the recent upload of libsdl1.2-dev downgrading the *-dev dependencies > to > recommends, lots of packages (for example mednafen, missing a libgl-dev > dependency) have started failing to build from source because they don'

Re: Bug#396331: upgrade-reports: sarge to etch removes kernels

Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:57:25AM -0800, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: >> This problem (automatic removal of old kernel packages) is apparently >> fixed in the version of aptitude in Sid, 0.4.4-1. If this version was >> allowed to pass into Etch (currently aptitude in Etch is o

Re: Bug#396331: upgrade-reports: sarge to etch removes kernels

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:57:25AM -0800, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > > Upgrade went well, except for one rather big problem. If I do a > > straight "aptitude -f dist-upgrade", it removes kernel-image-* (IE, > > kernel-image-2.6.8-3-686; I didn't try a 2.4 installation->upgrade). > > Now, I unde

libsdl1.2-dev: Dropping *-dev dependencies breaks package builds too close to release

Package: libsdl1.2-dev Version: 1.2.11-6 Severity: serious Tags: sid After the recent upload of libsdl1.2-dev downgrading the *-dev dependencies to recommends, lots of packages (for example mednafen, missing a libgl-dev dependency) have started failing to build from source because they don't pr

Permission for Evolution 2.8 transition

This is a request for approval from the release team to transition the Evolution packages in unstable from version 2.6 to 2.8. There is a transition planning status page at http://folk.ntnu.no/oysteigi/evolution-transition-status.html Evolution 2.8 was released September 4th along with its backen

D-I RC1 related hint reqest

Please add the following hint: # Important fix for inputbox breakage under non-ASCII locales unblock newt/0.52.2-8 Please also force hint cryptsetup. It seems to be blocked by an FTBFS, but I don't think that should block migration. An unblock hint is already in place (vorlon). Note that for de

Re: gaim and totem transition for testing.

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:26:55PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > "Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I guess that gaim[0] and totem[1] transition for testing needs some love. > > The new gaim 2 beta is a valid candidate but makes 7 packages > > (extensions/plugins for gaim 1.

Re: Bug#379090: Still no news on 64bit i386 kernels

* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061031 15:01]: > Frederik Schueler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I asked this before and haven't yet recieved an answere: > > What does w-b do when the amd64 build uploads amd64+i386 64bit kernel > debs but not 32bit. Afaik the package should be detected

Re: Bug#396331: upgrade-reports: sarge to etch removes kernels

Argh. Sorry, this was of course supposed to go to debian-release@LISTS.debian.org ... Original Message Subject: Re: Bug#396331: upgrade-reports: sarge to etch removes kernels Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:57:25 -0800 From: Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] C

Re: gaim and totem transition for testing.

"Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I guess that gaim[0] and totem[1] transition for testing needs some love. > > The new gaim 2 beta is a valid candidate but makes 7 packages > (extensions/plugins for gaim 1.x) uninstallable. I see no reason why these should be broken, so let's see wha

Re: Bug#379090: Still no news on 64bit i386 kernels

Frederik Schueler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello, > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 01:30:59AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: >> Can someone from the kernel team comment on whether there are problems with >> this particular patch that have not yet been noted in the bug report? If >> there aren't any

Re: m68k release future

On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 01:46:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Wouter? Michael? Sorry. Ack, on all this. It sounds like the best thing to do. Now all I need is to make some time to figure out how all this is supposed to work, and I can jump in. -- Home is where you have to wash the dishes.

gaim and totem transition for testing.

Hi, I guess that gaim[0] and totem[1] transition for testing needs some love. The new gaim 2 beta is a valid candidate but makes 7 packages (extensions/plugins for gaim 1.x) uninstallable. Totem wasn't building on arm, it seems to be a matter of rebuild attempt due to missing-depends that are a

Re: Bug#379090: Still no news on 64bit i386 kernels

Hello, On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 01:30:59AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Can someone from the kernel team comment on whether there are problems with > this particular patch that have not yet been noted in the bug report? If > there aren't any known objections, I could review the patch myself and

Re: gcc-4.1 status in unstable

Hi Matthias, On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 02:20:39PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > gcc-4.1 4.1.1-19 in unstable now looks like not showing build time > regressions compared to 4.1.1-13 in testing, validated on amd64. > Lucas Nussbaum volunteered to build testing from 2006-10-24 with -13 > and -17, the

Re: Still no news on 64bit i386 kernels

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:59:29PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > just a small reminder that etch still has no 64bit kernels for > i386. This is a regression from sarge which has them. The bug > (#379090) has a simple patch to reintroduce those kernel images (+5/-1 > lines code change and th