On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:08:28AM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 02-02-2021 08:47, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > Please rebuild these packages as discussed:
> >
> > $ wb nmu libpar-packer-perl libdevel-cover-perl libclass-xsaccessor-perl
> > libcommon-sense-perl libdevel-mat-dumper-perl
Hi,
On 02-02-2021 08:47, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> Please rebuild these packages as discussed:
>
> $ wb nmu libpar-packer-perl libdevel-cover-perl libclass-xsaccessor-perl
> libcommon-sense-perl libdevel-mat-dumper-perl . ANY . -m "Rebuild against
> perlapi-5.32.1." --extra-depends 'perl-base
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
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
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
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 - moreinfo
Bug #981232 [release.debian.org] unblock: perl/5.32.1-1
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
--
981232: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=981232
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tag -1 - moreinfo
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 11:00:16AM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
>
> Thanks. Looks like all those failures went away, except
> libtest-valgrind-perl. I cannot reproduce that ppc64el failure on
> plummer.debian.org (though it's a bit hard to simulate the exact
> autopkgtest co
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 07:39:36PM +, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> I pressed retry a bunch of times.
Thanks. Looks like all those failures went away, except
libtest-valgrind-perl. I cannot reproduce that ppc64el failure on
plummer.debian.org (though it's a bit hard to simulate the exact
autopk
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 09:13:42PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 07:35:04AM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
>
> > The pseudo excuses [1] report quite some autopkgtest regressions. Can
> > you please check them, fix them if relevant or explain why they are not
> > relevant for bullsey
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 07:35:04AM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> The pseudo excuses [1] report quite some autopkgtest regressions. Can
> you please check them, fix them if relevant or explain why they are not
> relevant for bullseye (e.g. unstable only)?
> [1] https://release.debian.org/britney/pse
Hi,
On 28-01-2021 22:36, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
>> Would you have also asked us if you wouldn't have needed the binNMU's?
>
> Yes, since https://release.debian.org/bullseye/freeze_policy.html says
> changes to build-essential may only be made with pre-approval...
Right. Thank you, I should le
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:21:21PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Dominic,
>
> On 28-01-2021 22:05, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> >>> 5.32.1 would need a binnmu of a few leaf packages
> >>> (libpar-packer-perl libdevel-cover-perl libclass-xsaccessor-perl
> >>> libcommon-sense-perl) as usual.
> >>
>
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:21:21PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Dominic,
>
> On 28-01-2021 22:05, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> >>> 5.32.1 would need a binnmu of a few leaf packages
> >>> (libpar-packer-perl libdevel-cover-perl libclass-xsaccessor-perl
> >>> libcommon-sense-perl) as usual.
> >>
>
Hi Dominic,
On 28-01-2021 22:05, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
>>> 5.32.1 would need a binnmu of a few leaf packages
>>> (libpar-packer-perl libdevel-cover-perl libclass-xsaccessor-perl
>>> libcommon-sense-perl) as usual.
>>
>> Just to be clear, these binNMU's would be needed too if we would go for
>>
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:21:54PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> (Your bug title is wrong, as you can't use that version anymore as it's
> already in experimental ;) )
>
> On 28-01-2021 00:39, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > My preference is to upload 5.32.1 in whole as it's probably overall
> > less
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 moreinfo
Bug #981232 [release.debian.org] unblock: perl/5.32.1-1
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
981232: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=981232
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Hi Dominic,
(Your bug title is wrong, as you can't use that version anymore as it's
already in experimental ;) )
On 28-01-2021 00:39, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> I should have probably
> written all that in a bug instead so it can be tracked effectively.
Indeed.
> As
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
This is a pre-approval request.
As I wrote in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2021/01/msg00296.html
we'd like to get 5.32.1 into bullseye if possible. I should have probably
writt
18 matches
Mail list logo
