Your message dated Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:18:20 +0200
with message-id <5588fa2c.1090...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#789478: nmu: mlpack_1.0.12-4
has caused the Debian Bug report #789478,
regarding nmu: mlpack_1.0.12-4
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
On 21/06/15 11:22, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>
> On 21/06/15 03:50, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Package: release.debian.org
>> Severity: normal
>> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
>> Usertags: transition
>>
>> Qscintilla2 2.9 is now available in experimen
On 2015-06-22 19:33, Roli Steiger wrote:
> Hallo,
>
Hi,
Danke für dein interesse. Ich sprache nicht sehr gute Deutsch und will
in English antworten. (Für Deutsch haben wir ein Deutsche mailing list:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user-german/)
Thanks for your interest. Unfortunately, I do n
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On Sun, 2015-06-21 at 18:03 +0200, Dr. Tobias Quathamer wrote:
> Am 21.06.2015 um 17:52 schrieb Adam D. Barratt:
> > The repetition there is slightly odd, to me at least. It'd be more
> > conventional for the 1.2.2-1~deb8u1 entry to simply say "Rebuild for
> > Jessie"
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 + confirmed
Bug #787635 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package libisocodes/1.2.1-1
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
787635: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=787635
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNS
On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 21:04 +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 23:12 +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> > I would like to fix #759544 in jessie.
>
> Just to clarify, #759544 seems to affect people who use systemd and
> network-manager together with nslcd. The bug is a race condition
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 789133 with 789619
Bug #789133 [release.debian.org] transition: ocaml 4.02.2
789133 was blocked by: 789354 789402 789614 789403
789133 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 789133: 789619
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Ple
Hallo,
Da habt Ihr uns ja ein schöner Mist eingebrockt!!!
Zuerst die völlig unnötige init System änderung mit Jessie. Sowie die
PermitRootLogin without-password Standard Einstellung, und dann auch noch
sämtliche Pakete von Roundcube mit Jessie gekickt.
Damit nicht genug, nicht mal mehr per b
Le 22/06/2015 15:59, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
> Or if you can give a more detailed explanation of what will happen after ocaml
> is uploaded, binNMUs are scheduled, and we have ~30 packages that are holding
> the transition.
I say we remove them from testing. "dak rm -Rn -s testing" shows
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 789133 with 789614
Bug #789133 [release.debian.org] transition: ocaml 4.02.2
789133 was blocked by: 789402 789354 789403
789133 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 789133: 789614
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please con
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 08:43:27AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:52:52PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > On 17/06/15 18:14, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > > Please binNMU the list of packages below in unstable. As changelog
> > > entry, we can use
> > >
> > >
On 20/06/15 18:02, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Le 19/06/2015 12:56, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
>> > I see some of the failing packages have in the log:
>> >
>> > -> Finished parsing the build-deps
>> > Wrong version of OCaml!
>> >
>> > That does that mean the package couldn't be built because
On Thursday 04 June 2015 11:12:35 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
> Control: forwarded -1
> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/qtbase-abi-5-4-2.html
> On 04/06/15 00:16, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> > Hi RT! We are near ready to push the new Qt5 v
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:52:52PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 17/06/15 18:14, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > Please binNMU the list of packages below in unstable. As changelog
> > entry, we can use
> >
> > Rebuild for ruby2.2 support
> >
> > The list:
>
> That happened, and only a
On 17/06/15 18:14, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Please binNMU the list of packages below in unstable. As changelog
> entry, we can use
>
> Rebuild for ruby2.2 support
>
> The list:
That happened, and only a couple of packages failed to build on one
architecture:
https://release.debian.org/trans
On 22/06/15 09:28, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I seem to miss the forest for the trees, but what does
> old binaries left on amd64: libharminv2 (from 1.3.1-10)
> mean at [1]?
It means what it says: the old binaries are still there. They need to be
decrufted, and for that, but that cannot
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> Yes, but as soon as I could solve the problems with harminv, there will be
> also new versions of all meep packages. So from my point of view the binNMU
> is not really needed.
So the solution is to rebuild all the meep packages against
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Paul Wise wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
I seem to miss the forest for the trees, but what does
old binaries left on amd64: libharminv2 (from 1.3.1-10)
mean at [1]?
You started a (minor) transition, please read this:
https://wiki.d
Hello!
2015-06-19 10:12 GMT+03:00 Salvatore Bonaccorso :
> p.s.: in the git version:
>
> + * Removed /var/log/mysql.log from logrotate. No mysql related log should be
> + not directly under /var/log. The correct place is in /var/log/mysql
>
> a small typo/error (double negation about mysql log l
Hi Adam,
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Adam D. Barratt
wrote:
>
> Please go ahead.
The package is uploaded.
--
Sergei Golovan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 789365 with 783682 786539 786540 786541 786542 786543 787449 787451
> 787452 787565 788800 789014 789015 789016 789017 789018 789456 789459
Bug #789365 [release.debian.org] transition: ghc-7.8
789365 was blocked by: 789521
789365 was not bl
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> I seem to miss the forest for the trees, but what does
> old binaries left on amd64: libharminv2 (from 1.3.1-10)
> mean at [1]?
You started a (minor) transition, please read this:
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions
Hi,
I seem to miss the forest for the trees, but what does
old binaries left on amd64: libharminv2 (from 1.3.1-10)
mean at [1]?
Thanks!
Thorsten
[1]https://tracker.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co
23 matches
Mail list logo
