Re: please consider a newer version of approx for stable-proposed-updates

Hi Eric, not a member of the release team, but since I've pushed a bit to get a fixed package considered for stable, following up… Eric Cooper (08/05/2011): > The introduction of InRelease files makes the current stable version > of approx (4.5-1) mostly useless for caching the wheezy and sid >

please consider a newer version of approx for stable-proposed-updates

The introduction of InRelease files makes the current stable version of approx (4.5-1) mostly useless for caching the wheezy and sid distributions. A typical use case is with pbuilder or d-i work. The version in sid, 4.6-1, understands InRelease files and builds in squeeze with no changes. But i

Re: Heads up: update for e2fsprogs intended for stable-proposed-updates

On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 05:05:33PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > nope. The process is that all problems ought to be fixed in unstable > first and then you send us a debdiff for a targetted upload to > stable-proposed-updates (diff against what's currently in stable), > we approve it and then you

Re: Perl 5.12 transition underway; summary of blockers

Dominic Hargreaves writes: > remctlamd64+kfreebsd-amd64 ftbfs > #626047, caballero fail I'm on semi-vacation through Tuesday evening but should be able to take a look at this on Wednesday. This is an unrelated failure, although I don't yet know why it's

Perl 5.12 transition underway; summary of blockers

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:15:26PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > As detailed on > > the transition to perl 5.12, beginning with the upload of 5.12.3 to > unstable, is almost upon us. There are quite a few blocking bugs > still though, a

Re: Stable update for FTBFS bug?

On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 11:42 -0500, John Lightsey wrote: > So my question is, does a FTBFS bug in the stable version of a package > where the package is fully functional and installable on all > architectures merit a stable update? Yes. Packages in stable need to be rebuildable in case of, e.g., a

Processed (with 1 errors): blocks

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > block 619117 by 626019 Bug #619117 [release.debian.org] perl 5.12 transition Was blocked by: 555000 625695 621999 623929 539028 599963 579450 616052 616454 615571 624787 623726 623930 624578 623927 613199 624767 625908 617212 613780 553387 59995

Stable update for FTBFS bug?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi there, I'm writing in regards to bug 612914. In a nutshell, libfinance-quotehist-perl 1.14 FTBFS in stable due to faulty unit tests that are run during the build process. This bug if fixed in libfinance-quotehist-perl 1.16 in testing/unstable. Th

Re: Heads up: update for e2fsprogs intended for stable-proposed-updates

Ted, On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 12:44:51PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > I assume the process is that we wait for this to go into testing, and > then someone (I assume from the release team?) moves it into the > stable-proposed-updates queue? nope. The process is that all problems ought to be fixed

Re: Uploads durign the Perl 5.12 transition ?

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 15:08:59 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I am working on a package that has recently been binNMUed for the Perl 5.12 > transition, libbio-samtools-perl. Do I have to refrain to upload any update > until the transition is over ? > Unless it's urgent, y