Jonathan Wiltshire writes:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 06:53:59PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> tis 2025-01-14 klockan 17:59 + skrev Adam D. Barratt:
>> > On Tue, 2025-01-14 at 14:31 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> > > Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
>&g
tis 2025-01-14 klockan 17:59 + skrev Adam D. Barratt:
> On Tue, 2025-01-14 at 14:31 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> >
> > > On 14/01/2025 09:32, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > >
> [...]
> > > > Or is this ex
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> On 14/01/2025 09:32, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Hi
>> I uploaded 'gss', but I don't see it anywhere, shouldn't there be
>> some
>> indication of this being built?
>> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/gss
>&g
ng
gss_1.0.4-1+deb12u1_amd64.buildinfo
2025-01-11 16:13:50,819 - dput[272776]: uploader.invoke_dput - Uploading
gss_1.0.4-1+deb12u1_source.changes
/Simon
Simon Josefsson writes:
> Thanks. I have done the upload -- let's hope datefudge fix works on
> all architectures.
>
&
Thanks. I have done the upload -- let's hope datefudge fix works on
all architectures.
/Simon
lör 2025-01-11 klockan 13:42 + skrev Jonathan Wiltshire:
> Control: tag -1 confirmed
>
> Please go ahead.
>
> Thanks,
>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Santiago Vila writes:
> Hi. Since this is standard procedure, I've just filed the bugs:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian...@lists.debian.org;tag=gettext-0.23
>
> but with the caveat that I don't know when I will able to do the upload
> for unstable. At this moment I
gency=medium
+
+ * Use datefudge to fix time bomb. Closes: #1076885.
+
+ -- Simon Josefsson Sun, 29 Dec 2024 22:44:14 +0100
+
gss (1.0.4-1) unstable; urgency=medium
[ Debian Janitor ]
diff -Nru gss-1.0.4/debian/control gss-1.0.4/debian/control
--- gss-1.0.4/debian/control 2022-08-06
Reinhard Tartler writes:
> My takeaway is that we need to update a large number of packages at the
> same time, starting with src:golang-google-genproto
> and src:golang-google-grpc. This will unblock a number of packages that are
> currently in experimental, and will allow them to enter unstable
I could upload a real version too, maybe that is faster? Can do today unless
someone objects.
/Simon
> 28 aug. 2022 kl. 14:40 skrev Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
> :
>
> Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2022-08-28 14:20:48)
>> Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues (2022-08-28):
>>> The current version
> That knowledge from observing how the archive and testing migration
> software is working right now, in theory what we are seeing is a bug.
Great -- I thought it was something I was supposed to know about and
already should have done as part of dropping the binary package and/or
the transition.
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 04:03:36PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>...
>> Also, there is an arch:all missing build of libidn, is that a real
>> problem? Should I do a binary upload to correct it? I thought
>> source-only uploads was suffi
Hi! With my ui-utilcpp NMU I think the libidn transition should be
complete, please compare:
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libidn.html
but the ben rule is wrong so it matches some packages incorrectly. I'm
not sure about is the clamv reverse dependency, does it have to be
fix
sön 2021-08-22 klockan 17:53 +0200 skrev Sebastian Ramacher:
> On 2021-08-22 15:47:43 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > > Please go ahead
> >
> > Thank you -- I have uploaded it now. When it is a good time to
> > close
> > this bug? I don't see anyt
> Please go ahead
Thank you -- I have uploaded it now. When it is a good time to close
this bug? I don't see anything on
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions - should I keep
it open until the entire transition has been completed?
/Simon
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hello,
I want to transition libidn to a newer upstream version, and they
API/ABI bumped. This is my first transition in many years, so I'm
looking for guidance here.
I have uploaded 1.38-1 to experimen
* Build-Depends on default-libmysqlclient-dev. Closes: #845857.
* Build-Depends on libssl1.0-dev|libssl-dev until
jabberd2 builds with OpenSSL 1.1. Closes: #828360.
-- Simon Josefsson Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:06:52 +0100
Below is a debdiff output between 2.4.0-2 (that was in testing) and
2.4.0
fre 2013-03-08 klockan 01:08 + skrev peter green:
> Even with the autohell stuff filtered out the debdiff (filtered debdiff
> attached)
> still looks pretty intimidating. Release team how should we play this? do you
> want
> to unblock the version in sid or should we look into backporting th
Andreas Metzler writes:
>>
>> Transition plan:
>> 1. Find all packages linking against the OpenSSL wrapper library (extract
>> everything depending on libgnutls26, use objdump -p | grep NEEDED to
>> find linking binaries/librarires.) Last time I checked there were iirc
>> about 8
Stefan Fritsch writes:
> Putting debian-release on cc, they may want to comment.
>
> On Monday 06 December 2010, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> On 2010-12-05 Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>> > we are currently working on an upgrade for openssl and nss in
>> > lenny to support secure renegotiation. Do you hav
Roger Leigh writes:
> I think it is a problem extending to all virtual packages, and I would
> like to see a more general solution which is applicable to all. It
> might be worth revisiting past discussion, for example this thread:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/08/msg01281.html
>
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shishi 0.0.37 has been released, and I'd like to see it in lenny. I
> know the timing is tight because libraries should be freezed by the end
> of June, but the changes since the last version are small (mostly
> generated code
Shishi 0.0.37 has been released, and I'd like to see it in lenny. I
know the timing is tight because libraries should be freezed by the end
of June, but the changes since the last version are small (mostly
generated code from gnulib and updated translations) and the debian
package changes are mini
eving revision 1.68
retrieving revision 1.70
diff -u -p -r1.68 -r1.70
--- changelog 5 Nov 2006 22:35:54 - 1.68
+++ changelog 15 Feb 2007 08:50:54 - 1.70
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+shishi (0.0.30-2) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ [ Simon Josefsson ]
+ * Put libpam_shishi.so in /lib/security
Shouldn't the usertags be visible on the actual bug report?
Look at:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=365201
There are no indications that it has the 'nonfree-doc rfc' usertags
set. Is that correct?
If you look at (sorry about long URL):
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgrepor
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 11:14:32AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> > This appears to be a consequence of 395208. :/
>
>> > According to the outcome of that bug, the tags will have to be readded by
>> > hand.
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:41:50PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I've noticed that user tags for debian-release@lists.debian.org went
>> missing yesterday, try the 'Status page in the BTS' link on:
>
>>
I've noticed that user tags for debian-release@lists.debian.org went
missing yesterday, try the 'Status page in the BTS' link on:
http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation
This link used to contain the bugs that were tagged as containing
non-free documentation.
Was this done inte
27 matches
Mail list logo
