On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 10:04:07PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 07:06:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 16:19:00 +, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >
> > > gcc-defaults (1.118) unstable; urgency=low
> > > .
> > >* Default to GCC 4.7 for gcc, g++
Cyril Brulebois (28/05/2012):
> Thanks for the clarification. I suggest we wait a few days until
> somebody gets a grip on the current situation (newly-added graphs may
> help figure out what would suffer from that), and we take action soon.
> I should be able to look into that in the next few day
Your message dated Thu, 31 May 2012 00:17:15 +0200
with message-id <20120530221715.gj17...@mraw.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#673482: transition: kdevelop 4.3
has caused the Debian Bug report #673482,
regarding transition: kdevelop 4.3
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the probl
(Obeying MFT, hoping you do read -release…)
Eric Dorland (23/05/2012):
> How would one go about getting a archive-wide rebuild to test this?
Recent blog post covering part of this:
http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=718
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
On Wed May 30, 2012 at 22:29:32 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> > On Wed May 16, 2012 at 13:19:48 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
> >> we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list
Hi,
> On Wed May 16, 2012 at 13:19:48 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
>> we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release
>> architectures for the Wheezy release.
>>
>> Comments on / additions
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed May 16, 2012 at 13:19:48 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
> > we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release
> >
Hi,
On Wed May 16, 2012 at 13:19:48 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
> we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release
> architectures for the Wheezy release.
>
> Comments on / additions and co
On Sat, 2011-09-17 at 19:31 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 06:45 +1000, Matt Flax wrote:
> > I do not request that this package be removed, rather I request that my
> > signed key (which I have already uploaded) be added to the keyring and I
> > finally get the chance to fix
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 675036 ftp.debian.org
Bug #675036 [release.debian.org] RM: mecab-ipadic/2.7.0+20070801-3
Bug reassigned from package 'release.debian.org' to 'ftp.debian.org'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #675036 to the same values
pre
reassign 675036 ftp.debian.org
user ftp.debian@packages.debian.org
usertag 675036 + rm
thanks
On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 22:13 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Please remove ipadic packages in unstable and testing of non-free
> archive to complete non-free to main transition.
Removal from unstable is ft
Your message dated Wed, 30 May 2012 20:25:24 +0100
with message-id <1338405924.5556.9.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#670299: nmu: rebuilds for libgdl soname bump
has caused the Debian Bug report #670299,
regarding nmu: rebuilds for libgdl soname bump
to be marked as
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user release.debian@packages.debian.org
Setting user to release.debian@packages.debian.org (was
a...@adam-barratt.org.uk).
> usertags 675167 + rm
Bug#675167: "Please remove figlet 2.2.2-1 from stable"
There were no usertags set.
Usertags
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 675167 moreinfo
Bug #675167 [release.debian.org] "Please remove figlet 2.2.2-1 from stable"
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
> kthxbye
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
675167: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrep
tag 675167 moreinfo
kthxbye
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 08:58:07 +, Bart Martens wrote:
> Package: ftp.debian.org
> Severity: normal
>
> Please remove figlet 2.2.2-1 from unstable, testing, stable and oldstable.
>
> The package contains material that must not be distributed. One example is
> t
Sending to the right list.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:31:56 -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> dbus-c++ FTBFS on kfreebsd-amd64 due to a buildd timeout, whereas it
> built successfully on all other archs (including kfreebsd-i386), and
> there's been no changes to the latest version of the sou
On 30/05/12 10:54, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> We can as well not aim at an official release, and make an unofficial
> release. In my opinion that'd be already great.
Sounds good, I'd love for hurd-i386 to be able to go through the motions
of a release even if it's not part of the official one.
Ide
On 30/05/12 13:10, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I wonder how that makes a difference, even psychologically. We don't mail
> failed builds for hurd-i386 to maintainers for example.
Actually, when looking into kfreebsd-* issues, I find it very helpful to
see hurd-i386 on buildd.d.o, along with log excerpts
* Betr.: " Bits from the Release Team: Freeze approaching!" (Sun, 13 May 2012
22:45:36 +0200):
Hi,
> Freeze planning
> ===
>
> As you might remember, we are aiming at a freeze in June. The exact
> date has not been determined yet. However, given the large amount of
> work remainin
I'm intending to release Linux 3.2.19 later today. The complete release
(files uploaded) depends on Greg K-H and probably won't be done until
later in the week, but we don't use pristine tarballs so this doesn't
hold up a Debian upload. It will include the usual mixture of security
fixes, other i
Philipp Kern, le Wed 30 May 2012 14:10:02 +0200, a écrit :
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:01:21PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > What is a problem is not appearing on buildd.debian.org. That makes
> > maintainers way less receptive to patches or even fix their package
> > themselves.
>
> I wonder
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:01:21PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> What is a problem is not appearing on buildd.debian.org. That makes
> maintainers way less receptive to patches or even fix their package
> themselves.
I wonder how that makes a difference, even psychologically. We don't mail
faile
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 675167 release.debian.org
Bug #675167 [ftp.debian.org] "Please remove figlet 2.2.2-1 from stable"
Bug reassigned from package 'ftp.debian.org' to 'release.debian.org'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #675167 to the same va
Joerg Jaspert, le Tue 29 May 2012 09:02:32 +0200, a écrit :
> There is only one thing I would agree on: If the RT decides to not
> include them in wheezy but add them to wheezy+1 right after wheezy is
> released (so we would be doing it during the process) and keep them
> there for the next release
Adam D. Barratt, le Sat 19 May 2012 19:04:40 +0100, a écrit :
> I'm not sure we've ever released with an architecture which was in
> either broken or fucked, but hopefully someone will correct me if I'm
> mistaken on that.
We can as well not aim at an official release, and make an unofficial
relea
On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 11:34 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Wed 30 May 2012 11:31:24 +0200, a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 11:23 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Svante Signell, le Wed 30 May 2012 11:14:24 +0200, a écrit :
> > > > > * its archive coverage is far lower tha
Svante Signell, le Wed 30 May 2012 11:31:24 +0200, a écrit :
> On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 11:23 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, le Wed 30 May 2012 11:14:24 +0200, a écrit :
> > > > * its archive coverage is far lower than required
> > >
> > > What is required, currently the percentage
On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 11:23 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Wed 30 May 2012 11:14:24 +0200, a écrit :
> > > * its archive coverage is far lower than required
> >
> > What is required, currently the percentage is 77%.
>
> No, it is rather 76%.
It would be interesting to know ho
Svante Signell, le Wed 30 May 2012 11:14:24 +0200, a écrit :
> > * its archive coverage is far lower than required
>
> What is required, currently the percentage is 77%.
No, it is rather 76%.
> How large was it when kFreeBSD was released as a tech preview in
> Squeeze.
Simple, see the graph at
On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 09:53 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 06:08:16PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On 19.05.2012 19:04, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > >I'm not sure we've ever released with an architecture which was in
> > >either broken or fucked, but hopefully someone will
Neil McGovern, le Wed 30 May 2012 09:53:53 +0100, a écrit :
> In order to release hurd, even as a tech preview, we need hurd in
> testing and users actually testing it. This is a problem at this stage
> because:
> * there isn't a functional D-I port yet
?? It is functional. The last bug I was seei
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 06:08:16PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On 19.05.2012 19:04, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >I'm not sure we've ever released with an architecture which was in
> >either broken or fucked, but hopefully someone will correct me if I'm
> >mistaken on that.
>
> Anyone? :-)
>
> Op
Hi,
dbus-c++ FTBFS on kfreebsd-amd64 due to a buildd timeout, whereas it
built successfully on all other archs (including kfreebsd-i386), and
there's been no changes to the latest version of the source package
that could've caused this FTBFS to suddenly appear.
gb dbus-c++_0.9.0-5 . kfreebsd-amd6
33 matches
Mail list logo
