+1,10 @@
+nageru (2.2.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * New upstream release.
+* Fixes several crash bugs related to video inputs. (Closes: #1034471)
+
+ -- Steinar H. Gunderson Mon, 17 Apr 2023 18:37:27 +0200
+
nageru (2.2.0-2) unstable; urgency=medium
* Remove ppc64el from futat
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 09:25:04AM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> I don't understand why it considers ppc64el to be important. 2.1.0-2 does not
> have a build for ppc64el, and ppc64el is not in the architecture list of the
> source package. (There is a ppc64el build in stabl
Hi,
I'm trying to figure out why nageru 2.2.0-1 is not in testing (the package is
flagged for autoremoval due to a library transition; 2.2.0 no longer uses the
library in question):
nageru (2.1.0-2 to 2.2.0-1)
Maintainer: Steinar H. Gunderson
Depends: nageru protobuf
Migration s
upstream git,
+fixes resolution calculation in kaeru due to a typo.
+
+ -- Steinar H. Gunderson Sun, 04 Apr 2021 21:26:11 +0200
+
nageru (2.0.1-2) unstable; urgency=medium
* Build without SRT support (remove the build-dependency on
diff -Nru nageru-2.0.1/debian/control nageru-2.0.1/debian
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 08:57:30AM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> In this case a give-back is enough. These days you can also schedule
> them yourself (see
> https://debblog.philkern.de/2019/08/alpha-self-service-buildd-givebacks.html
> for details)
>
> I have given back nageru on armel, amrhf
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu nageru_1.9.1-1.1 . armel armhf i386 mipsel . unstable . -m "rebuild against
movit 1.6.3-5"
Hi,
I'm unsure if this should be a binNMU request or not, but please retry
nageru 1.9.1-1.1 (
while it's still being used in rendering. (Closes: #930570)
+
+ -- Steinar H. Gunderson Sat, 15 Jun 2019 20:08:45 +0200
+
movit (1.6.2-1) unstable; urgency=medium
* New upstream release.
diff -Nru movit-1.6.2/debian/patches/fix-temporary-texture-race-issue.diff
movit-1.6.2/debian/patches/fi
tags 930324 -moreinfo
thanks
>>> I unblocked it, but noticed it's stuck behind gcc-8. Can you prepare a
>>> testing-proposed-updates upload?
>>
>> Sure! I'll upload tonight.
> Please remove the moreinfo tag when the package is available to be
> unblocked.
nageru 1.8.4-1+buster1 uploaded.
/* Ste
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 04:06:30PM +0200, Ivo De Decker wrote:
>> Please unblock package nageru
> I unblocked it, but noticed it's stuck behind gcc-8. Can you prepare a
> testing-proposed-updates upload?
Sure! I'll upload tonight.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: https://www.sesse.net/
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package nageru
It contains a fix for an RC bug that is only seen with recent
versions of Mesa (but buster's Mesa is new enough). The fix
is a trivial backport from upstream g
backported from experimental. (Closes: #909865)
+
+ -- Steinar H. Gunderson Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:40:43 +0100
+
openexr (2.2.1-4) unstable; urgency=medium
* Upload to unstable
diff -Nru openexr-2.2.1/debian/patches/bug909865.patch
openexr-2.2.1/debian/patches/bug909865.patch
--- openexr-2.2.1/debian
a race condition in unit tests
+which would cause FTBFS, especially on builds with only a single CPU.
+(Closes: #909417)
+
+ -- Steinar H. Gunderson Thu, 21 Mar 2019 09:24:41 +0100
+
gtk-vnc (0.9.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium
* [ffcc52b] New upstream version 0.9.0
diff -Nru gtk-vnc
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 04:18:13PM +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
>> I see that my upload of nageru 1.8.4-1 is going to be too late for
>> the freeze, so I'm requesting an exception.
> Unblocked; thanks.
Thank you!
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: https://www.sesse.net/
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:33:11PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Ultimately this is up for Michael to decide, as he's dealing with Chromium
> updates single-handedly.
Agreed.
> Personally I have no reservations against this entering unstable, but this
> doesn't sound
> like something that s
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 12:29:15PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 12:17:21AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>>> Major updates to chromium in stable have so far been contingent on it
>>> being a leaf package, where there is no chance for it
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 12:17:21AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>> Major updates to chromium in stable have so far been contingent on it
>> being a leaf package, where there is no chance for it to break
>> anything else. Adding CEF as a reverse dependency would change th
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
Severity: normal
Hi,
bmusb can benefit strongly from being linked to libusb-1.0 (>= 2:1.0.21-1).
Do you think it would be possible to schedule a binNMU for all architectures?
Once upon a time, the format was
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 09:47:26PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>> The patch itself looks fine, thanks. The version number's a little
>>> unusual though - 2.4.7-02-1.1+deb8u1 is the usual convention.
>> Do you want a re-upload with a different version number?
> Yes, please. (Apologies for the del
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 05:53:22PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> I've already uploaded a version of mpm-itk to stable, but I've told this is
>> the
>> wrong order of things.
> We certainly prefer things in the reverse order, yes.
>
> The patch itself looks fine, thanks. The version number's a
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: jessie
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Hi,
I've already uploaded a version of mpm-itk to stable, but I've told this is the
wrong order of things. So, in short:
I'd like to upload a fix for mpm-itk in stable (jessie), be
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 09:04:08PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Please feel free to upload to sid.
Done, waiting for NEW processing.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 12:41:09PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Same questions as in #791289.
For snappy, this is very clear-cut: The exposed symbols are part of the ABI,
and there are reverse dependencies in Debian (presumably using those symbols).
A transition is definitely needed.
(I
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 12:40:32PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Does this diff you attached mean you have checked that a transition is really
> needed because your ABI is broken when switching to GCC5? Or is this a blind
> change and you don't know? Some explanation/confirmation would be
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 12:56:39AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> I might be missing something here, but if you are going to rename the
> library package, don't you also have to enforce a build against g++-5?
> Otherwise you might end up with a libfoov5 package which was built
> against gcc < 5.
We
an/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+snappy (1.1.2-5) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * Change package name to libsnappy1v5 for rebuild with g++-5.0 with the
+C++11 ABI; conflict with libsnappy1. (Closes: #791289)
+
+ -- Steinar H. Gunderson Fri, 03 Jul 2015 23:58:01 +0200
+
snappy (1.1.2-4) unstable; urgency=lo
0100
+++ movit-1.1.3/debian/changelog 2015-07-03 23:50:13.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+movit (1.1.3-2) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * Change package name to libmovit2v5 for rebuild with g++-5.0 with the
+C++11 ABI; conflict with libmovit2. (Closes: #791205)
+
+ -- Steinar H. Gunderson Fri, 03
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:37:54AM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Source: snappy
> Version: 1.0.5-2
> Severity: serious
> Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
What platform is this? I've never changed the behavior here, so RC on the
grounds of regression
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 06:54:47PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Thankfully the upstream diff doesn't look too huge and I trust any
> regression could be easily tracked down.
I'm basically upstream for this, so I believe this is true, yes.
> I've hinted it this way to let
> it stay in unstable
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 11:46:27PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> The debdiff between 1.0.5-1 and 1.0.5-2 is simple, and I'll be putting it
> upstream as soon as it goes through code review at work.
Oh, and I also have a fix for the build failure on hurd-i386 (it fixes a
division
og
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+snappy (1.0.5-2) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Disable unaligned accesses on ARMv4, not just ARMv5 and ARMv6.
+Fixes unit test segfaults and subsequent FTBFS on armel.
+(Closes: #679964)
+
+ -- Steinar H. Gunderson Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:30:10 +0200
+
snappy (1.0.5-1) unstabl
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 11:36:11PM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>> (Also, FYI, there will be a bit period of time where
>> apache2-mpm-itk will be uninstallable in testing, the time between
>> apache2 entering testing and the buildds binNMUing it against
>> testing.)
> CCing Steinar for this info.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:26:54AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> I'd like to request a freeze exception for apache2-mpm-itk 2.2.6-02-1.
>> It contains a single bugfix (a security hardening) that was brought to my
>> attention only today. The bugfix is a oneliner in the upstream code (I am
>> upstream
ility dropping,
+which was previously broken. (Closes: #492614)
+* Run autoheader before autoconf, so HAVE_LIBCAP gets into the right .h
+ file.
+* Change build-dependency from libcap-dev to libcap2-dev, as libcap-dev is
+ deprecated.
+
+ -- Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:28:24AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Currently debian/testing ships a very old copy of ffmpeg, dated from
> 0.cvs20070307. We, the ffmpeg maintainers (Fabian Greffrath and myself)
> do not consider that version of ffmpeg acceptable for release in debian
> lenny. Many
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 12:41:47PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> You are listed as the advocate of a lenny release goal:
Well, this goal was added without actually asking me first. I think it's a
reasonable goal, but in essence we've supported NFSv4 since etch, so it's
sort of silly. :-)
/* St
Hi,
nfs-utils 1:1.1.1~git-20070709-3 fixes a bug that results in obscure and
rather hard-to-track-down issues compared to the version currently in
testing. Given that it's been five days in unstable (with no known
regressions over the version in testing), would it be possible to bump its
urgency?
Hi,
Apache 2 has been updated, so it's time for the regular round of binNMUs:
apache2-mpm-itk_2.2.3-04-3, Rebuild against apache2.2-common 2.2.4-2, 2, arm
apache2-mpm-itk_2.2.3-04-3, Rebuild against apache2.2-common 2.2.4-2, 3, alpha
amd64 hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390
/* Steinar
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 11:47:49AM -0400, Camm Maguire wrote:
> I suppose everyone is aware that -ffloat-store is a real performance
> loser, especially on slower machines. Would it be preferable to fix
> the testers to not be fooled by extra precision?
Isn't the -ffloat-store flag removed in rec
[Please keep discussion on -devel; -release is not a discussion list and
I'm not subscribed to -qa :-)]
Hi,
As discussed during DebConf, I'd like to propose a new release goal: Packages
should not only build in clean chroots, but also in non-clean environments.
Specifically, adding extra package
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 01:55:12PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Isn't it impossible to run a 2.5 libc with a 2.4 kernel ? If so, there is
> a chicken and egg problem... if someone is running a 2.4 kernel, she can't
> upgrade to the 2.5 libc, and without the 2.5 libc, she can't upgrade to a
> 2.6 ker
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:00:17PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>> Is there any chance to get a fix for #423369 and #423108, a memory leak
>> in both libc6 and nfs-kernel-server, into etch r1?
> FWIW, here is the proposed patch:
...against nfs-utils, that is. The glibc issue
ostent(), both which return a pointer they privately xmalloc()ed,
+ which thus can and should be free()d.
+
+ -- Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 11 May 2007 12:18:46 +0200
+
nfs-utils (1:1.0.10-6) unstable; urgency=medium
* Give --with-tcp-wrappers to configure; for so
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 10:44:55AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> Yikes, what blkid function is rpc.mountd calling all the time which is
> causing this kind of memory leakage?
blkid_probe_all_new() seems to be the one. It happens at every mount and
umount, I believe; it's not like it's being called
+
+ * Give --with-tcp-wrappers to configure; for some reason it stopped being
+enabled by default in 1.0.8. (Closes: #408365)
+
+ -- Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:45:38 +0100
+
+nfs-utils (1:1.0.10-5) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * The NFS kernel serve
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:17:18AM +0100, Jan Christoph Nordholz wrote:
> But IMO this solution is an ugly hack and highly counterintuitive - init
> scripts are config files after all, and if I wanted to adapt a package's
> initscript to my needs, I'd expect to find it at /etc/init.d/${package},
>
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 08:33:23PM +0100, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> Why do we ship both bind 8 and bind 9 in etch? Sorry if the question is
> stupid, but considering that we ship only one version of python, one
> version of PostgreSQL, one version of Zope I do not see any obvious reason
> to ship
e; urgency=high
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * In the uri_lookup() macro, cast to unsigned char instead of unsigned
+(which equals unsigned int), to avoid buffer overruns and SIGSEGV when
+parsing URIs with non-ASCII characters; patch from Modestas Vainius.
+(Closes: #404723)
+
+ --
Merry Christmas; here are two RC bug fixes to celebrate (both needing
unblocking, of course):
#
# Fixes #392415 (ships architecture-dependent files in /usr/share); it
# was also fixed in 1.5.0-8-1.1 with the exact same diff (sans changelog),
# but I forgot to send the diff to the BTS, so the maint
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 10:33:08PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>> The problem has already been sorted out by the release team, but failed
>>> on arm due to a recurrent problem with the build daemon.
>> In that case, it is not a bug in apache2-mpm-itk; closing after conferring
>> with the RMs.
> W
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 03:13:27PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>> aptitude in etch is _much_ better at conflict resolution than the one
>> in sarge.
> Can you elaborate on the "much better"? Much better how or in which
> specific cases?
Any case involving a non-ideal upgrade (ie. one with conflicts).
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 12:02:22AM -, peter green wrote:
> 2: the aptitude part also seems to have been copied straight from the sarge
> notes, is it still relavent
aptitude in etch is _much_ better at conflict resolution than the one in
sarge. (However, sometimes the upgrades get too big for
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:46:41AM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Is this ready for a stable release?
Despite the description; yes, I believe so. We've been running the Apache 2.0
version in production for over a year now, and so does NTNU (serving millions
of hits every week).
I'm not willin
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 08:06:38AM +0100, Joey Schulze wrote:
> I assume that you are part of the Debian Apache Maintainers and hence
> should notice when the security team updates Apache 2/2.2.
No, I am not.
> Why isn't apache2-mpm-itk built as part of the Apache 2 package?
Because the Apache t
Hi,
I was asked to check this with you before the RMs would let apache2-mpm-itk
into etch.
apache2-mpm-itk is an unofficial MPM for Apache 2.0 and up (although it has
only ever existed in Debian for 2.2). It basically builds by depending on
apache2-src, extracting that, patching itself in, buildi
Hi,
There seems to have been something wrong with my i386 pbuilder when uploading
apache2-mpm-itk, hindering its testing migration:
apache2-mpm-itk (- to 2.2.3-01-1)
Maintainer: Steinar H. Gunderson
Too young, only 1 of 10 days old
apache2-mpm-itk/i386 unsatisfiable Depends: apache2.2
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 08:03:12PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Does the current NFSv4 implementation already allow client-side on-disk
> caching? IIRC the standard does specify it, but a quick look at
> linux-nfs.org confuses me - some pages speak about delegations, but OTOH
> the end use
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 01:18:41PM +, Marc Brockschmidt wrote:
> There was a new request for another approved release goal, that is NFS
> v4 support. We approved that goal.
AFAICS, that goal has been completed for a while. What's needed in etch is:
- nfs-utils 1.0.7 or newer (check, 1.0.9 i
21:45 < vorlon> Sesse: since bigloo screwed the ABI but not in a released
version, binNMUs of all the reverse-deps are probably what
we want here
22:27 < Sesse> vorlon: could you binNMU the bigloo stuff?
22:27 < vorlon> Sesse: if you send me a reminder mail
In parti
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 09:52:30PM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's related to this, but on another, pretty similar
> system I did the upgrade and got the same errors. When I try to boot
> now I get
> Begin: Running /scripts/local-top
> Error returned from evms_open_engine(): No su
Hi,
I just discovered that the patch in evms 2.5.2-1.sarge2 introduces a memory
leak in RAID-5 resizing, so please reject that upload. I'll make a new one
(with the bug fixed) ASAP.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject o
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 01:58:20PM +1100, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
>> we noticed that you uploaded perl. Could you please give a more verbose
>> reasoning why this upload should go into the next stable point release.
>> Your changelog did not really point out which of the issues are release
>> critical
Hi,
I just uploaded evms 2.5.3-2, but it can't reach testing since it has an
udeb. Please add the appropriate hint so it can enter testing when it's time.
Thanks :-)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
severity 309966 grave
merge 309966 279489
thanks
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 03:55:22PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> This does not fix the problem for me; it should be noted that this happens
> _only_ on my remote NX setup (where fonts are somewhat broken -- xlsfonts
> displays on
tags 279489 -fixed
thanks
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:53:57AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I've prepared a 0-day NMU for this bug, based on Timo's patch. The full
> diff is attached.
This does not fix the problem for me; it should be noted that this happens
_only_ on my remote NX setup (where f
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 09:41:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> I've uploaded autofs 4.1.3+4.1.4beta2-8 to sid, which fixes (to the best of
>> my knowledge -- I can't reproduce the problems myself) two important bugs,
>> and contains no other changes. vorlon promised me a freeze exception for th
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 03:01:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> 1) Let 4.1.4beta2-8 go into sarge, fixing one important bug (#304245) but
>>letting others (#297359) pass. (Looks like my Closes: line in 4.1.4beta2-8
>>was too broad; I'll reopen #297359 later today.)
>> 2) Try to backport
from 4.1.4beta2 to 4.1.4 final anyhow).
What are your thoughts on this? I'd much prefer #3, but I've been told
earlier it's out of the question...
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Steinar,
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 12:52:25PM +0200, Steina
Hi,
I've uploaded autofs 4.1.3+4.1.4beta2-8 to sid, which fixes (to the best of
my knowledge -- I can't reproduce the problems myself) two important bugs,
and contains no other changes. vorlon promised me a freeze exception for the
upload, so letting it through to sarge would be nice :-) Thanks.
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:01:21PM -0300, Daniel Andre Vaquero wrote:
>> Well, at least one user seems to think that 304245 is important enough to be
>> worth fixing; if you agree with him, then it's fine to allow this fix in via
>> unstable. That wouldn't apply to whatever low-priority fixes upst
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 12:46:03AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Well, at least one user seems to think that 304245 is important enough to be
> worth fixing; if you agree with him, then it's fine to allow this fix in via
> unstable. That wouldn't apply to whatever low-priority fixes upstream has
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 01:48:02PM -0300, Daniel Andre Vaquero wrote:
> Is there any chance of considering an upload of autofs 4.1.4 to sarge,
> now that it is frozen? Version 4.1.4 + the patches from kernel.org fixes
> #304245 and possibly #297359. I think I should have set the severity of
> #3042
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 02:05:40PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> | autofs (4.1.3+4.1.4beta2-3) unstable; urgency=low
> ^^^
> | .
> | * Urgency=high, fixes RC-bugs.
Ouch, not my day today :-) Cc-ing debian-release; would you be as kind as to
fix t
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:39:25AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> I attached the lists of packages which failes because of
> - generic errors,
> - non-resolvable Build-Depends.
Please, could you group this by maintainer?
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:02:21AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>> - rpvm should NOT check for a static library if it cannot use a static
>> library. This is a bug in rpvm upstream.
> Nope: rpvm can only assume static libs, as the rest of the world uses only
> static libs. We are different, a
[Cc-ing debian-release to reach an RM; please keep the discussion on the bug
as I'm not subscribed to -release.]
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:21:34AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>> But when there is no shared one, the static one is used, which simply does
>> not work; this is not pvm's fault. T
75 matches
Mail list logo
