Bug#906016: transition: gjs built with mozjs60

2018-12-12 Thread Simon McVittie
On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 at 20:47:38 +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 20:10:52 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > Please go ahead. > > I have uploaded the new gjs, and Jeremy uploaded the matching polari > version. gjs has been waiting to migrate for a while, with no warning

Bug#915956: marked as done (nmu: anbox_0.0~git20181014-1)

2018-12-12 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:19:58 +0800 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#915956: nmu: anbox_0.0~git20181014-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #915956, regarding nmu: anbox_0.0~git20181014-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.

Bug#915956: nmu: anbox_0.0~git20181014-1

2018-12-12 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 12/12/2018 18:08, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:00 AM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort > wrote: >> >> On 08/12/2018 15:39, Shengjing Zhu wrote: >>> Package: release.debian.org >>> Severity: normal >>> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org >>> Usertags: binnmu >>> >>> nmu anbox_

Bug#915956: nmu: anbox_0.0~git20181014-1

2018-12-12 Thread Shengjing Zhu
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:00 AM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > On 08/12/2018 15:39, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > > Usertags: binnmu > > > > nmu anbox_0.0~git20181014-1 . amd64 arm64 armhf . unstable

Bug#915956: nmu: anbox_0.0~git20181014-1

2018-12-12 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 08/12/2018 15:39, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: binnmu > > nmu anbox_0.0~git20181014-1 . amd64 arm64 armhf . unstable . -m "Rebuild > against lxc3. (Closes: #915821)" > Why is this needed? Your

Re: glew transition ?

2018-12-12 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 10/12/2018 10:02, Alastair McKinstry wrote: > Hi, > > Did something strange happen with the glew transition ? glew 2.1.0 has entered > testing, which I don't understand. > > On the transitions page https://release.debian.org/transitions/ glew is listed > as "almost complete" with 24% done (!)

Re: MPICH as default MPI; WAS: MPI debugging workflows

2018-12-12 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 07/12/2018 12:49, Alastair McKinstry wrote: > Looking into it further, I'm reluctant now to move to mpich for buster as the > default. One was the experience of the openmpi3 transition, shaking out many > issues. Ack. Given how long it took to complete the last transition and how many packages f

Re: MPICH as default MPI; WAS: MPI debugging workflows

2018-12-12 Thread Alastair McKinstry
On 11/12/2018 18:26, Drew Parsons wrote: On 2018-12-08 12:31, Drew Parsons wrote: On 2018-12-07 19:49, Alastair McKinstry wrote: Looking into it further, I'm reluctant now to move to mpich for buster as the default. One was the experience of the openmpi3 transition, shaking out many issues.

Bug#915751: marked as done (nmu: gr-limesdr_0.9~beta-1)

2018-12-12 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:11:35 +0100 with message-id <36774de5-8427-cdb7-e9b1-f0b2691b7...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#915751: nmu: gr-limesdr_0.9~beta-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #915751, regarding nmu: gr-limesdr_0.9~beta-1 to be marked as done. This means that you

Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

2018-12-12 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
This thread went OT talking about ports, but oh well… On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 04:03:25AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:46:21PM +0100, Gregor Riepl wrote: > > The build and package delivery infrastructure should offer the same features > > for both first and second class