Processing changes file: subversion_1.5.1dfsg1-7_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: subversion_1.5.1dfsg1-7_alpha.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: subversion_1.5.1dfsg1-7_arm.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: subversion_1.5.1dfsg1-7_armel.changes
ACCEPT
Processing ch
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 653195 with 648559
Bug #653195 [release.debian.org] transition: libarchive
Was not blocked by any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 653195: 648559
> owner 653195 !
Bug #653195 [release.debian.org] transition: libarchive
Owner recorded as Niels
On Dec 25, 2011 19:42 "Andres Mejia" wrote:
> I have finished checking what changes were required for gmameui,
> tuxcmd-modules, and deb-gview in order to build with both the current
> version of libarchive (2.8.5) and the latest version (3.0.2).
> Fortunately, all changes required are trivial. I
[Julien Cristau]
> And personally I believe it is better to not introduce behaviour
> changes in stable.
In general, I agree. In this case I believe the current behaviour is
so bad that it is better to change it also in stable.
I leave it to the release managers to decide if a fix to stable only
I have finished checking what changes were required for gmameui,
tuxcmd-modules, and deb-gview in order to build with both the current
version of libarchive (2.8.5) and the latest version (3.0.2).
Fortunately, all changes required are trivial. I filed bug reports and
patches in the following locati
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 18:50:27 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Julien Cristau]
> > Can't you just drop the else branch, and leave the failure case
> > (i.e. the one where there's something to say) alone?
>
> Sure, I could. But it would no longer match the new behaviour in
> 0.2-2. And i
[Julien Cristau]
> Can't you just drop the else branch, and leave the failure case
> (i.e. the one where there's something to say) alone?
Sure, I could. But it would no longer match the new behaviour in
0.2-2. And it made more sense to me to bring it in line with the new
version than to only ch
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Andres Mejia wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
>
> I am requesting a transition from libarchive1 to the latest libarchive shared
> library package (which will be libarchive1
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:16:24 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> diff -u ldap2zone-0.1/debian/patches/05_correct_bashisms_ldap2bind.dpatch
> ldap2zone-0.1/debian/patches/05_correct_bashisms_ldap2bind.dpatch
> --- ldap2zone-0.1/debian/patches/05_correct_bashisms_ldap2bind.dpatch
> +++ ldap2zon
Hi,
fix for CVE-2011-1575 in stable. There's some config.log leftovers
from the buildsystem in the debdiff, dunno where that comes from.
The security fix has been isolated from the 1.0.30 release.
Cheers,
Moritz
diff -u pure-ftpd-1.0.28/debian/changelog pure-ftpd-1.0.28/debian/changelog
--
Processing changes file: jasper_1.900.1-5.1+lenny2_i386.changes
Rejecting.
REJECT
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1reoxw-0007ls...@franck.debian.
On 23.12.2011 20:32, Julien Cristau wrote:
> That doesn't seem to have any evolution dependencies
>
>> libreoffice_1:3.4.4-2
libreoffice-evolution?
>> nautilus-sendto_3.0.1-2
You're right, debian/rules contains:
binary-post-install/nautilus-sendto::
# Temporarily remove the evolution
Version: 0.2-2
[Cajus Pollmeier]
> It does not close the bug for squeeze ;-)
Sure, but BTS can track versions, and will know even if it is closed in
unstable. Closing it in unstable to record the status.
> To have it fixed we need to comunicate with the release team. Which
> will not be possib
13 matches
Mail list logo
