Dear Cyril,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 06:31:43PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Kumar Appaiah (11/04/2012):
> > - try building the rdepends against the latest version, and hold off
> > on uploading until they are fixed?
> > - OR upload, request binNMUs and then file bugs against the rdepends
> >
hi,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Konstantin Khomoutov
wrote:
> So my question is: is there some upgrade path the users of
> request-tracker3.8 may follow to convert their current installs to the
> new package? I'm mostly concerned with the database, the settings and
> custom "scrips".
I've
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:13:41AM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> request-tracker3.8 represents an old (in deep maintenance
> mode by upstream) branch of RT, and it shouldn't be released with
> wheezy.
[...]
I see there's the request-tracker4 package in Wheezy so it looks like
the way to move
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: rm
Hello,
request-tracker3.8 represents an old (in deep maintenance
mode by upstream) branch of RT, and it shouldn't be released with
wheezy. There is an RC bug #647126 to hint that it shouldn't be
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Hello RT,
I'm hereby requesting permission to upload a fix for wicd to p-u, bug #668397
(CCed), CVE-2012-2095. "git diff" attached.
The patch for stable is slightly different from the one just
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 22:19:13 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> Dear release team,
>
> We have prepared an upload of imagemagick that fixes
> recently-uncovered security-related problems (#667635). I'm unsure
> about what to do currently with the imagemagick ongoing transition
> (#652650).
Dear release team,
We have prepared an upload of imagemagick that fixes
recently-uncovered security-related problems (#667635). I'm unsure
about what to do currently with the imagemagick ongoing transition
(#652650). Shall I upload right now with urgency=high, knowing that
anyway, it will have
On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 17:21 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 18:49 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/boost1.49.html
>
> I've scheduled binNMUs for the packages listed in level 1 on the
> tracker.
Level 2 have now been (mostly) schedul
Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:54:00 +0100
with message-id <1334174040.6525.2.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#668430: nmu: itksnap_2.2.0-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #668430,
regarding nmu: itksnap_2.2.0-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu itksnap_2.2.0-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libvtk5.8"
itksnap currently depends on the no longer available libvtk5.6,
it rebuilds in a clean sid environment without problems
Andreas
Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:37:04 +0200
with message-id <20120411193704.gb8...@mraw.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#668428: nmu: 3depict_0.0.10-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #668428,
regarding nmu: 3depict_0.0.10-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu 3depict_0.0.10-1 . amd64 . -m "Rebuild against libpng12-0"
3depict/amd64 was built against libpng 1.5 from experimental and is
uninstallable in sid:
3depict/amd64 unsatisfiable Depend
Hi Kumar,
Kumar Appaiah (11/04/2012):
> - try building the rdepends against the latest version, and hold off
> on uploading until they are fixed?
> - OR upload, request binNMUs and then file bugs against the rdepends
> that don't build?
the former is preferable (at least the checking + filin
Dear Release Team,
I intend uploading the latest armadillo package to sid. It bumps the
soname from 2 to 3, so I wanted to check with you if I should go
ahead with the upload. Since I haven't dealt with this situation
before, should I:
- try building the rdepends against the latest version, and h
Hi,
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Axel Beckert (11/04/2012):
> > I'd have sent that anyway, just wanted to ask beforehand. Will let you
> > know when I have the package ready.
>
> (having look quickly at the bug report now:) please make sure to fix the
> package in unstable beforehands.
Planned, yes
Hello again,
Axel Beckert (11/04/2012):
> I'd have sent that anyway, just wanted to ask beforehand. Will let you
> know when I have the package ready.
(having look quickly at the bug report now:) please make sure to fix the
package in unstable beforehands.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Descriptio
Hi,
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Axel Beckert (11/04/2012):
> > Nico Golde wrote:
> > > Please upload these fixes to stable-proposed-updates instead.
> >
> > I guess that's ok with the SRM.
>
> We can't tell until we see a debdiff against the package in stable.
I'd have sent that anyway, just want
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 11.04.2012, 12:05 +0100 schrieb Adam D. Barratt:
> >> A source upload isn't "just a rebuild" in Debian. It's an NMU and
> >> requires building and testing the package with at least as much care
> >> as
> >> any other NMU would. It doesn't scale, it's a waste of resources
>
Axel Beckert (11/04/2012):
> Nico Golde wrote:
> > Please upload these fixes to stable-proposed-updates instead.
>
> I guess that's ok with the SRM.
We can't tell until we see a debdiff against the package in stable.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 11.04.2012 11:50, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 11.04.2012, 11:01 +0100 schrieb Adam D. Barratt:
On 11.04.2012 10:30, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> The current state is that M-A: same packages must have the same
> version
> and identical Changelog files across all architectures. Th
Hi,
JFTR, the security team proposed an upload of links2 to SPU to fix
some security issues reported by upstream.
(http://bugs.debian.org/668227)
Nico Golde wrote:
> > Links2 upstream sent patches for security issues which also affect
> > Debian Stable. [...]
> > For the stable security update: D
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 11.04.2012, 11:01 +0100 schrieb Adam D. Barratt:
> On 11.04.2012 10:30, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > The current state is that M-A: same packages must have the same
> > version
> > and identical Changelog files across all architectures. That means
> > binNMU on all archite
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:47:35AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:30:08 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> > The current state is that M-A: same packages must have the same version
> > and identical Changelog files across all architectures. That means
> > binNMU on a
On 11.04.2012 10:30, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
The current state is that M-A: same packages must have the same
version
and identical Changelog files across all architectures. That means
binNMU on all architectures or a sourcefull upload.
A source upload isn't "just a rebuild" in Debian. It'
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:30:08 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> The current state is that M-A: same packages must have the same version
> and identical Changelog files across all architectures. That means
> binNMU on all architectures or a sourcefull upload.
>
Or accept that such packages a
Julien Cristau writes:
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 12:15:58 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>
>> Discussion in Bug#595139 led to the conclusion that packages which are
>> Multi-arch: same must not be binNMUed (or in fact, binNMUed on all
>> architectures).
>>
> I very much disagree with that "co
Your message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:26:17 +0200
with message-id <4f854e39.10...@dogguy.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#651326: muparser transition is finished, thanks!
has caused the Debian Bug report #651326,
regarding transition: muparser
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
27 matches
Mail list logo
