On 10/24/18 3:54 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> If "a rebuild is required to make them compatible", you should add
> Breaks against those versions, as it maeans the new protobuf is not
> compatible to them and coinstallation should be prevented.
> That would also hint britney to trigger autopkgtest wi
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 03:47:47PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I think these regressions should not add a delay to testing migration as
> autopkgtests are passing in unstable and a rebuild is required to make
> them compatible with new protobuf version.
>
> autopkgtest for gazebo/9.0.0+dfsg5-4.
Hi Emilio,
I think these regressions should not add a delay to testing migration as
autopkgtests are passing in unstable and a rebuild is required to make
them compatible with new protobuf version.
autopkgtest for gazebo/9.0.0+dfsg5-4.2: amd64: Regression ♻
autopkgtest for ignition-msgs/1.0.0+dfs
On 2018, ഒക്ടോബർ 12 12:36:45 PM IST, "László Böszörményi (GCS)"
wrote:
> Uploaded ProtoBuf with the latest gRPC to Sid.
Thanks a lot for your work! I hope to upload them to stretch-backports as soon
as they enter testing (I have rebuilt them for my personal repo before).
--
Sent from my An
Hi Emilio,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:56 PM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>
> On 11/09/2018 09:51, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
> > The last package which fails is gazebo which seems to be team
> > maintained but it has two NMUs already. There's no bug reported her
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 11/09/2018 09:51, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM Pirate Praveen
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 10:21:41 +0200
>> =?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= wrote:
>>> The new protobuf -> protobuf-c / grpc chain compiles
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 confirmed
Bug #901015 [release.debian.org] transition: protobuf
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
901015: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=901015
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 09:51:07 +0200
=?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= wrote:
> The last package which fails is gazebo which seems to be team
> maintained but it has two NMUs already. There's no bug reported here
> for the protobuf update but upstream aware of it and has a patch[1
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 10:21:41 +0200
> =?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= wrote:
> > The new protobuf -> protobuf-c / grpc chain compiles now on all
> > release architectures. Due to the mentioned protobuf soname change, I
>
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 10:21:41 +0200
=?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:53 AM Robert Edmonds wrote:
> > I've released a new upstream version of protobuf-c that fixes the FTBFS
> > issue with protobuf 3.6, which fixes #900621. I will upload it to
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:53 AM Robert Edmonds wrote:
> I've released a new upstream version of protobuf-c that fixes the FTBFS
> issue with protobuf 3.6, which fixes #900621. I will upload it to
> unstable shortly.
To whom it may concern, a status update.
Robert released and uploaded an updated
Hi,
I've released a new upstream version of protobuf-c that fixes the FTBFS
issue with protobuf 3.6, which fixes #900621. I will upload it to
unstable shortly.
László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:14 AM Pirate Praveen
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:55:03 +0200
> > =?U
[Copying Emilio]
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 10:27:58 +0200
=?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= wrote:
> [Removed the Security Team Cc, they were relevant for backporting
> protobuf to Stretch, not for updating it in Sid.]
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:14 AM Pirate Praveen
> wrote:
>
On Thursday 12 July 2018 01:57 PM, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
> How quick do you need to solve this GitLab update? I guess, quick.
We are not able to backport some complex security fixes to gitlab 8.13
in stretch. Security team wants to remove gitlab 8.13 from stable and
I'd like to provide a
[Removed the Security Team Cc, they were relevant for backporting
protobuf to Stretch, not for updating it in Sid.]
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:14 AM Pirate Praveen
wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:55:03 +0200
> =?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= wrote:
> > The most problematic po
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:55:03 +0200
=?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw6lueWkgKEdDUyk=?= wrote:
> The most problematic point is the protobuf-c dependency package. It
> was developed (and packaged) by one of us (an other DD), Robert S.
> Edmonds. It is the most complete C language implementation of P
On July 6, 2018 2:25:03 PM GMT+05:30, "László Böszörményi (GCS)"
wrote:
>Praveen, as I saw you even talked to the Security Team about
>backporting protobuf and grpc packages to Stretch for GitLab
>issues[4]. Please do so with caution about protobuf-c for the reasons
>mentioned above. In the fu
Control: owner -1 !
Hi,
First thing first. Protocol Buffers is a data interchange format used
by several projects and C++ based. Language bindings are available,
but not all of those come from upstream, Google Inc. It also has an
RPC library and framework called gRPC with language bindings on its
18 matches
Mail list logo
