Am Do., 8. Juni 2023 um 21:18 Uhr schrieb Simon McVittie :
>
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2023 at 21:33:29 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > [x] attach debdiff against the package in (old)stable
>
> That was, in fact, a lie. See attached (or the nmudiff on #1037206 if
> you'd prefer the unfiltered version).
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package packagekit.
[ Reason ]
Three things fixed:
* A tiny memory leak has been addressed
* The daemon package now recommends the tools package again, this was
changed late
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package debspawn.
[ Reason ]
Packaging of the 0.6.2 bugfix release which contains three changes only:
* Fixes issue where users could not build packages against
NotAutomatic
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package appstream.
[ Reason ]
Backports a few fixes from the 0.16.2 release:
* Fixes two crashes that can happen when the tool is fed invalid or
unexpected input
* Correctl
Hi!
Am Fr., 20. Aug. 2021 um 00:21 Uhr schrieb Sebastian Ramacher
:
> [...]
>
> Please go ahead.
Done, and it looks like everything has rebuilt just fine :-)
Cheers,
Matthias
--
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
Hi Graham!
Am Sa., 10. Juli 2021 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Graham Inggs :
> [...]
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 03:12, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> > Let me know what you think!
>
> Assuming it can happen soon, please go ahead upload to unstable, and
> remove
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Severity: normal
Please unblock package appstream
This is currently a pre-approval request, as the changes - even though
almost all of them are bugfixes - are larger, in a key package, and
we're close to the
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Severity: normal
Please unblock package debspawn
[ Reason ]
Debspawn is a nspawn-based package builder for Debian with a popcon
value of 52, therefore it would normally migrate in this phase of the
freeze v
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
X-Debbugs-Cc: mario.limoncie...@dell.com
Severity: normal
Hi!
As we are already in transition freeze for bullseye, I would like to
request permission to do a transition of libxmlb1 --> libxmlb2 which
unfo
upstreamed and can be reviewed at
https://salsa.debian.org/pkgutopia-team/packagekit/tree/master/debian/patches
as well.
Thank you for considering!
Matthias Klumpp
unblock packagekit/1.1.12-5
ch is planned for a future post-Buster
release, but the changes in this release are already a major
improvement and will help users find the things they are looking for
in software centers included in Debian.
Thank you for considering!
Matthias Klumpp
[1]: https://github.com/ximion/appstream
Hi Niela!
Am So., 30. Dez. 2018 um 20:19 Uhr schrieb Niels Thykier :
>
> Hi,
>
> I am writing to you, because I know that you are (or have been) involved
> in setting up or maintaining a britney instance for a Debian derivative.
> If you are no longer involving please let me know who to contact
>
Am Di., 2. Okt. 2018 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
:
> [...]
> It'd be good if you can mark those bugs as blocking this one, so that we can
> easily track what's missing to finish the transition.
Sorry for the late reply, I was in an internet-.free zone for a while
due to moving.
I m
Am Mo., 10. Sep. 2018 um 22:17 Uhr schrieb Niels Thykier :
>
> Matthias Klumpp:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: transition
> >
> > Hi!
> > Yet another LDC ABI an
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi!
Yet another LDC ABI and standard library transition is currently going
on (since D does not provide a stable ABI, this happens with every
upload of a new LDC release).
The Ben file t
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: britney
Hi!
This is a slightly different form of the issue we recently discussed
on IRC, but it likely has the same cause: arch:all package being
available in different versions in arm64 vs amd64 fo
Hi!
2017-10-04 13:36 GMT+02:00 Matthias Klumpp :
> 2017-10-04 9:39 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
>> [...]
> Thank you!
> Both issues are reported upstream:
> ppc64el: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/2356
> sambamba assert: https://github.com/ldc-developers/
2017-10-04 9:39 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
> [...]
> I did that, and some things built (libundead, libbiod) but others failed
> (gir-to-d/ppc64el, sambamba).
Thank you!
Both issues are reported upstream:
ppc64el: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/2356
sambamba assert: https://gi
2017-10-01 14:06 GMT+02:00 Michael Biebl :
> Hi Matthias,
>
> I see that you made a sourceful upload of gtk-d, so I thought that this
> binNMU request is now moot.
> Unfortunately, tilix still doesn't want to start:
>
> The error is a different one now though:
> $ tilix
> tilix: symbol lookup error
2017-09-30 15:52 GMT+02:00 Matthias Klumpp :
> 2017-09-30 11:30 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
>> [...]
>>> Agreed. Ideally we'd need to coordinate binNMUs on new ABI versions
>>> better, so thinks are rebuilt in order, and not randomly.
>>
>>
2017-09-30 11:30 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
> On 29/09/17 13:45, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> 2017-09-29 13:38 GMT+02:00 Michael Biebl :
>>> Package: release.debian.org
>>> Severity: normal
>>> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
>>> Usert
2017-09-29 13:38 GMT+02:00 Michael Biebl :
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: binnmu
>
> nmu gtk-d_3.6.5-2 . amd64 . unstable . -m "Rebuild against libphobos2-ldc74"
>
> tilix was built with the latest version of ldc and as a
2017-07-26 18:55 GMT+02:00 Andreas Tille :
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 06:44:31PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>>
>> Just rebuilding the thing should do the job - bonus points for having
>> the static library -dev package depend on libphobos2-ldc-dev.
&
2017-07-26 18:29 GMT+02:00 Andreas Tille :
> [...]
> I admit your explanation was interesting in general but I have no idea
> what practical implications it has to fix this bug. In short: I have
> no idea what to do now.
Just rebuilding the thing should do the job - bonus points for having
the s
2017-07-26 14:28 GMT+02:00 Gianfranco Costamagna :
>
>
>>Adding ldc to depends would be cheap - but how to switch to shared
>>versions? I did the package with the help of Debian D team and
>>have no idea how to do this.
>
>
> I have no idea too :)
>
> I looked at the meson stuff, and changed "stat
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Severity: normal
Please unblock appstream/0.10.6-2
Here's the changelog with further explanations on the changes:
> * vala-deps.patch: Add Vala dependency file
> - Fixes Vala builds which don't explicitly d
2017-03-15 20:07 GMT+01:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
> On 13/03/17 14:06, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> Hello!
>> I ran into an interesting problem with the Terminix package[1].
>>
>> Upstream was sent a trademark infringement letter from a lawyer of
>> Terminix, a pest
Hello!
I ran into an interesting problem with the Terminix package[1].
Upstream was sent a trademark infringement letter from a lawyer of
Terminix, a pest control company, asking upstream to rename the
project, which they did now.
(See [2] for details)
Aside from the issue whether the trademark ac
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Severity: normal
Please unblock mustache-d/0.1.3-1, which is a reverse-dependency of
the LDC D compiler.
The LDC package as well as its reverse dependencies have been caught
by an unfortunate bug which made
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Severity: normal
Please unblock LDC 1:1.1.1-1.
The LDC package as well as its reverse dependencies have been caught
by an unfortunate bug which made builds fail on ppc64el, leaving us
the choice to drop this
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Severity: normal
Please unblock LDC 1:1.1.0+r-1 and its reverse-dependencies.
This would bring the LLVM D Compiler to its final version and replace
the beta version currently in Stretch. It will also complet
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Severity: minor
Please unblock dustmite 0~20170126.e95dff8-2.
This is a new package for testing which unfortunately didn't make the
deadline due to being stuck in NEW for almost 2 months. It has no
reverse-d
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Severity: normal
Please unblock appstream-glib 0.6.8-1. This is a new upstream bugfix
release, which was unfortunately released after the freeze deadline
and resolves a pretty large amount of issues, which pr
2017-01-25 8:52 GMT+01:00 Julien Cristau :
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 16:12:36 +0100, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> LDC[1] is an LLVM-based compiler for the D programming language.
>> Due to a mistake, we currently have a Beta release of LDC in Debian,
>
if it
is not easily fixed - fortunately, it looks like we might just need a
re-bootstrap).
Thank you for considering!
Regards,
Matthias Klumpp
[1]: https://wiki.dlang.org/LDC
[2]: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/1977#issuecomment-274184641
--
I welcome VSRE emails. See
"limba" package has cleared NEW, I will do an upload of the
"apper" package, which is the last remaining reverse dependency on Listaller.
(I'll ping this bug report then)
Thanks!
Matthias Klumpp
[1]: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/limba_0.4.2-1.html
-- System Informa
Sorry for the later reply, this week was crazy...
2014-11-16 22:46 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Wiltshire :
> Control: tag -1 moreinfo
>
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 06:50:01PM +0100, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> 2014-11-06 17:48 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Wiltshire :
>> > On 2014-11-06 16:3
2014-11-06 17:48 GMT+01:00 Rebecca N. Palmer :
>> Could you please clarify which information is specifically needed?
>
> I'm not release team, but he probably means you forgot the debdiff.
>
> https://release.debian.org/jessie/freeze_policy.html
Yes, thanks - I didn't include it in the first place,
2014-11-06 17:48 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Wiltshire :
> On 2014-11-06 16:34, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>>
>> 2014-11-06 16:13 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Wiltshire :
>>>
>>> Control: tag -1 moreinfo
>>>
>>> On 2014-11-06 14:23, Matthias Klumpp wro
2014-11-06 16:13 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Wiltshire :
> Control: tag -1 moreinfo
>
> On 2014-11-06 14:23, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>>
>> Please unblock package appstream
>
>
> Please send all the required information.
Could you please clarify which information is specificall
plain it.
There were no larger changes on the packaging, which are unrelated to the
upstream release, and this package should be pretty safe to unblock at the
current time.
If you have further questions, please ask!
Kind regards,
Matthias Klumpp
unblock appstream/0.7.4-1
-- System Information:
D
Hi!
Sorry for the delay on the PK transition, that thing became a bit
complex, since some dependencies of it were not yet ready upstream,
and I was writing a thesis, which took priority.
Anyway, I just wanted to give a quick heads up, since I am going to
upload PK 0.9.x to unstable - depending on t
2014-07-27 13:36 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
> On 26/07/14 17:38, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> 2014-07-09 21:35 GMT+02:00 Matthias Klumpp :
>>> 2014-07-09 20:13 GMT+02:00 Niels Thykier :
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Any news on this? AFAICT, we
2014-07-09 21:35 GMT+02:00 Matthias Klumpp :
> 2014-07-09 20:13 GMT+02:00 Niels Thykier :
>> Hi,
>>
>> Any news on this? AFAICT, we are still waiting for an upload of
>> PackageKit to experimental.
>>
>> Once in experimental, our tooling should auto-generate
2014-07-09 20:13 GMT+02:00 Niels Thykier :
> Hi,
>
> Any news on this? AFAICT, we are still waiting for an upload of
> PackageKit to experimental.
>
> Once in experimental, our tooling should auto-generate the desired
> tracker your transition.
Yes, sorry for the lack of feedback... There were som
Sorry, the Benfile mentioned above is wrong... Here's the correct one:
title = "packagekit 0.9";
is_affected = .build-depends ~ /libpackagekit/;
is_good = .depends ~ "libpackagekit-glib2-18" | .depends ~ "libpackagekitqt4-0";
is_bad = .depends ~ "libpackagekit-glib2-16" | .depends ~ "libpackagekit
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
I want to upload a new version of PackageKit very soon, which has some API/ABI
breaks.
Most of the affected packages are maintained by me and need bigger adjustments,
the others should be
2013/6/26 Julien Cristau :
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 18:53:27 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>
>> So, we would have these options at time:
>> 1) Remove the compat-layer - aptdaemon will remain functional, and
>> the PK dependency will be eliminated
>> 2) Wait
2013/6/26 Julien Cristau :
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 17:51:28 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>
>> Package: release.debian.org
>> Severity: normal
>> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
>> Usertags: transition
>>
>> I would like to request a tran
2013/6/23 Julien Cristau :
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 17:51:28 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>
>> Package: release.debian.org
>> Severity: normal
>> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
>> Usertags: transition
>>
>> I would like to request a transi
Hi!
Is there something I can do to make this transition happen faster?
I tested all packages now, and I can do the NMUs if necessary (but
there is no package needing that, most packages depending on PK are
things I maintain, and these are prepared in Experimental already).
So, if there's something
ht break temporarily during the
transition.
Kind regards,
Matthias Klumpp
Ben file:
title = "packagekit";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libpackagekit-glib2-14" | .depends ~ "libpackagekit-
glib2-16";
is_good = .depends ~ "libpackagekit-glib2-16";
is_bad
(Please keep me CC'ed as I am not subscribed to the list)
Hi!
The removal of the old update-manager is fine with me. Since Apper is
available, KDE already gets shiny new notifications, so from a KDE
perspective the old update-notifier is no longer needed. (we patched
Apper for that)
For GNOME, I t
2013/1/24 Neil McGovern :
> [...]
>
> Pinging on IRC 30 seconds after you ping via mail is not a good way to
> endear yourself to the release team.
>
> Anyway, unblocked.
Wow, thank you! - Yes, I haven't read the backlog, so sorry again ^^
(was a bad idea anyway)
Regards,
Matthias
--
To UNSU
Hi!
Please unblock this release, it is highly recommended! It will not
only fix an issue with packagekitd locking the cache for far too long,
but also it will close this bug, which really is a severe one if
people don't know how to deal with it:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1103989
Cheers,
M
the original
commits too. (but urls are nicer)
> - Patch 01 looks ok
> - My C/C++ is not good enough to really follow patches 02 and 03, but 02
> contains a spurious empty line removal.
I promise that this won't change how the code works ;-) (I probably
overlooked it)
> [...]
2
after
+ a transaction has completed
+ * aptcc: Fix trusted/untrusted package handling
+ * aptcc: Don't accidentially mark packages as auto-installed
+ * Removed some unused build dependencies
+
+ -- Matthias Klumpp Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:16:33 +0100
+
packagekit (0.7.6-1) unstable; u
lt, and by
doing this, this bug will be fixed: http://bugs.debian.org/691757
The concepts have been discussed with Niels Thykier who wanted a patch for
review.
Thank you for looking into this!
Kind regards,
Matthias Klumpp
Here is the full patch applied to the Apper sources:
Forwarded: yes
Author
ulien Cristau :
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 15:46:10 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>
>> aptcc: Don't use tempfile with fixed name for conffiles:
>> Resolves security issue in Debian, tracked as RC bug #678189
>> See
>> http://gi
012 at 03:46:10PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> Okay, breaking down the changes:
>
> Since the review resources of the release managers are scarce and since we
> should
> get the security fixes into Wheezy, what about preparing a 0.7.5-2+deb7u1
> upload
> to testing-proposed-upda
ds/yum)
lost of alpm changes:
The alpm backend is also not shipped in Debian, so you can ignore all
changes affecting this backend (in backends/alpm) too.
All changes affecting global or Debian-related code are mentioned above.
Hope this helps :-)
Regards,
Matthias
2012/9/3 Matthias Klumpp :
&
n instead just read my comments). I'll do thiswhen I'm back home.
Cheers,
Matthias
Am 03.09.2012 12:18 schrieb "Julien Cristau" :
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 18:16:24 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package gnome-packagekit
The only change here is compression with XZ to keep the GNOME disk images
small. So this should be safe to go.
Regards,
Matthias
unblock gnome-p
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package packagekit
PackageKit 0.7.6 is a bugfix-only release, which fixes some bugs (some of them
can cause crashes) and one RC bug reported against Debian.
I recomment accep
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: freeze-exception
Please unblock package libqt4pas
Rev7 only contains adjustments on the package's symbols file to build on more
(now all) architectures. It does not introduce any new issue and is t
make the projectM version
which is currently in testing unusable for some users. You can find the
changelog of the package
here:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/projectm/current/changelog
Thanks,
Matthias Klumpp
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ
ectM. The old "libprojectm" package only
exists cause libprojectm-data has been renamed to projectm-data. (So DAK is
not able to mark the old pkg as to-be-removed)
Upgrading to the new packaging of projectM is possible without any
problems.
Kind regards
Matthias Klumpp (maintainer of
67 matches
Mail list logo
