Bug#981232: unblock: perl/5.32.1-1

On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 08:38:40PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > Control: tag -1 confirmed > > Hi, > > On 31-01-2021 21:50, Niko Tyni wrote: > > please consider approving 5.32.1. I think it would be > > better to release bullseye with that than a Debian-specific 5.32.0 with > > the patches from 5.3

NEW changes in stable-new

Processing changes file: linux_4.19.171-1_source.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: linux_4.19.171-1_all-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: linux_4.19.171-1_amd64-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: linux_4.19.171-1_arm64-buildd.changes ACCEPT Processing changes

Re: Podman 3.0 and Debian bullseye

On Tuesday, 2 February 2021 4:18:02 PM AEDT Anthony Fok wrote: > Would both podman 2 and podman 3 be a possibility? > I.e., we could keep the existing "podman" package at 2.1.1, while > creating a new "podman3" or "podman-3" package? > > Feasible solution? :-) IMHO definitely not worth the effor

Re: Podman 3.0 and Debian bullseye

Dear all, Would both podman 2 and podman 3 be a possibility? I.e., we could keep the existing "podman" package at 2.1.1, while creating a new "podman3" or "podman-3" package? This way, both the stable podman 2 and the new podman 3 can be released for Debian 11. The two packages will likely confli

Re: Podman 3.0 and Debian bullseye

Hi Reinhard, Thank you for your concerns, feedback and kind words. On Tuesday, 2 February 2021 12:04:35 PM AEDT Reinhard Tartler wrote: > The thing is, this thread didn't > convince me so far that nomad-driver-podman with the varlink interface > provides as much value as I wish it had. Fair eno

Re: Podman 3.0 and Debian bullseye

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:58 PM Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > > > The fact that as has been mentioned in this thread a) bullseye is around > > the corner b) nomad-driver-podman isn't even in testing right now, c) > > podman itself is a much more popular package than nomad-driver-podman > > (or nomad for

Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1

On 2021-01-29 20:35:52 [+0100], To Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On 2021-01-28 00:28:03 [+0100], Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 07:03:37PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > There are a whole bunch of other issues and pull requests related to > > > this. I hope this is the end of the regression

Re: Podman 3.0 and Debian bullseye

On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 05:29:37PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 5:03 PM Antonio Terceiro > wrote: > > > FWIW I have been using podman 3.0.0~rc1 from experimental for a few days > > and haven't noticed anything wrong with it. I hope we can have that > > version in bulls

Re: Podman 3.0 and Debian bullseye

Hi Faidon, On Tuesday, 2 February 2021 4:37:14 AM AEDT Faidon Liambotis wrote: > 2) upgrading both nomad-driver-podman and podman to their latest > upstream releases. These are seemingly compatible with each other, but > breaking one particular use case, which while niche, happens to be > unfortun

Processed: Re: Bug#981232: unblock: perl/5.32.1-1

Processing control commands: > tag -1 confirmed Bug #981232 [release.debian.org] unblock: perl/5.32.1-1 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 981232: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=981232 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#981232: unblock: perl/5.32.1-1

Control: tag -1 confirmed Hi, On 31-01-2021 21:50, Niko Tyni wrote: > please consider approving 5.32.1. I think it would be > better to release bullseye with that than a Debian-specific 5.32.0 with > the patches from 5.32.1 (but both options are better than not having > the patches at all.) Plea

Bug#981581: marked as done (nmu: sa-exim_4.2.1-19)

Your message dated Mon, 1 Feb 2021 20:03:20 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#981581: nmu: sa-exim_4.2.1-19 has caused the Debian Bug report #981581, regarding nmu: sa-exim_4.2.1-19 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not t

Re: planning to upload binutils 2.35.2

Hi On 29-01-2021 12:13, Matthias Klose wrote: >> We would be happy with either of the following: >> 1) upload to unstable with PR27218 only >> 2) upload to experimental first (with a 2.36+really2.35.2 version) to >> check all is fine. > > so I don't see what an upload for 2) would provide you wit

Re: Podman 3.0 and Debian bullseye

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 06:47:25AM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On the tradeoff "podman 3.0 with docker-compose" support vs. > a "nomad driver for podman", I see more value for (more of) > our users for the newer podman. I base that on popcon numbers: > > - nomand: 35 > - nomad-driver-podman

Bug#981581: nmu: sa-exim_4.2.1-19

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu nmu sa-exim_4.2.1-19 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against current exim localscan ABI. (See #981398)" That is necessary to let sa-exim work again in sid and bulleye. The wrong Provides of

Bug#981541: marked as done (nmu: kontrast_20.12.1-1)

Your message dated Mon, 1 Feb 2021 09:38:41 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#981541: nmu: kontrast_20.12.1-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #981541, regarding nmu: kontrast_20.12.1-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is n

Bug#981541: nmu: kontrast_20.12.1-1

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: binnmu X-Debbugs-Cc: Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers nmu kontrast_20.12.1-1 . amd64 . unstable . -m "Rebuild amd64 on buildds after clearing NEW." -- System Information: Debian Release: bullseye/sid