NEW changes in stable-new

2014-05-04 Thread Debian FTP Masters
Processing changes file: super_3.30.0-6+deb7u1_i386.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: super_3.30.0-6+deb7u1_amd64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: super_3.30.0-6+deb7u1_armel.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: super_3.30.0-6+deb7u1_armhf.changes ACCEPT Processing changes f

NEW changes in stable-new

2014-05-04 Thread Debian FTP Masters
Processing changes file: dpkg_1.16.13_amd64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: dpkg_1.16.13_armel.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: dpkg_1.16.13_armhf.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: dpkg_1.16.13_i386.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: dpkg_1.16.13_ia64.changes ACC

Bug#746946: wheezy-pu: package distro-info-data/0.20~deb7u1

2014-05-04 Thread Stefano Rivera
Hi Philipp (2014.05.04_22:50:53_+0200) > I'd argue that 8 would be right for Jessie and 7.0 somewhat wrong for > Wheezy, hence I'd tend to agree to the change. Stefano, where is this > used? I don't know of anything that uses the --release flag (or that data). It's possible that people use it in

Bug#746946: wheezy-pu: package distro-info-data/0.20~deb7u1

2014-05-04 Thread Philipp Kern
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 01:03:22PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Stefano Rivera (2014-05-04): > > There are also a couple of minor support date updates, included, trivial > > packaging changes, and a bugfix to the Debian release versions. I don't > > think that risks regressions. > > > > As in

Bug#739611: Current status of ruby1.9.1-rm transition

2014-05-04 Thread Christian Hofstaedtler
A quick status update of the current state of the transition. If ruby1.9.1 was removed today, the following things would break / removed too: coquelicot # FTBFS (ruby1.9.1) sup-mail # FTBFS (ruby1.9.1) + waiting for xapian-bindings ruby-libvirt # not-ruby-caused FTBFS # ruby-gnome2 FTBFS 744809 -

Bug#746946: wheezy-pu: package distro-info-data/0.20~deb7u1

2014-05-04 Thread Stefano Rivera
Hi Cyril (2014.05.04_13:03:22_+0200) > Adding an Ubuntu entry would look OK to me. Updating dates, probably so. > Changing behaviour in stable doesn't look right to me. Who knows how > many packages and local scripts rely on the current output? Yeah, I'm fine with not including that bit. It is bac

please remove kfreebsd-any from Architecture

2014-05-04 Thread Robert Millan
Please could you remove "kfreebsd-any" from Architecture in gnome-shell ? You may close the following RC bugs when doing this: #733122 #735023 A patch is attached for your convenience. Thanks! -- Robert Millan diff -ur gnome-shell-3.8.4.old/debian/control gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/control

please remove kfreebsd-any from Architecture

2014-05-04 Thread Robert Millan
Please could you remove "kfreebsd-any" from Architecture in gdm3 ? You may close the following RC bugs when doing this: #602724 #601106 #612157 #733546 A patch is attached for your convenience. Thanks! -- Robert Millan diff -ur gdm3-3.8.4.old/debian/control gdm3-3.8.4/debian/control --- gdm3

Bug#746946: wheezy-pu: package distro-info-data/0.20~deb7u1

2014-05-04 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Hi Stefano. Stefano Rivera (2014-05-04): > There are also a couple of minor support date updates, included, trivial > packaging changes, and a bugfix to the Debian release versions. I don't > think that risks regressions. > > As in the past, e.g. #727020, I'd be nice if this could go through > s

Bug#746946: wheezy-pu: package distro-info-data/0.20~deb7u1

2014-05-04 Thread Stefano Rivera
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: wheezy User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu Hi, can we please update distro-info-data, to add the next Ubuntu release, 14.10 - Utopic Unicorn. There are also a couple of minor support date updates, included, trivial packaging