and make the
package arch:all. This will fix what was a mysterious arch specific (and
thus version specific) path for the gemspec file without explicit
dependency on the librubx.y package. Polishing in progress.
The NMU would help with the symptoms but not the cure the package, so
let me cancel it.
Cédric
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
elease.debian.org
> > > > Severity: normal
> > > > X-Debbugs-Cc: ruby-mimema...@packages.debian.org
> > > > Control: affects -1 + src:ruby-mimemagic
> > > > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> > > > Usertags: binnmu
> > > >
imema...@packages.debian.org
> > > Control: affects -1 + src:ruby-mimemagic
> > > User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org
> > > Usertags: binnmu
> > >
> > > nmu ruby-mimemagic_0.4.3-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against ruby3.3"
> &
: binnmu
nmu ruby-mimemagic_0.4.3-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against ruby3.3"
Why is this rebuild needed?
Because of bug #1109024. But, why did we miss this in ruby transition?
Is there some automatically injected Depends missing in the packaging?
Paul
OpenPGP_sig
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 moreinfo
Bug #1109054 [release.debian.org] nmu: ruby-mimemagic_0.4.3-1
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
1109054: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1109054
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
; Usertags: binnmu
>
> nmu ruby-mimemagic_0.4.3-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against ruby3.3"
Why is this rebuild needed?
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:ruby-mimemagic
Bug #1109054 [release.debian.org] nmu: ruby-mimemagic_0.4.3-1
Added indication that 1109054 affects src:ruby-mimemagic
--
1109054: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1109054
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: ruby-mimema...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:ruby-mimemagic
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu ruby-mimemagic_0.4.3-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against ruby3.3"
sig
On Sat, 2025-06-07 at 23:50 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> It appears that snapd never built on mips*el and therefore is not
> shipped in bookworm. I think we should just ignore this failure.
Oops, that's my bad for expanding ANY the same for all of the packages
when generating comment files, an
Hi,
On 2025-06-06 21:54, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-05-29 at 18:24 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > nmu 6 snapd_2.57.6-1 . ANY . -m 'Rebuild against glibc 2.36-
> > 9+deb12u11' --extra-depends 'libc-dev-bin (>= 2.36-9+deb12u11)'
>
&g
On Thu, 2025-05-29 at 18:24 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> nmu 6 snapd_2.57.6-1 . ANY . -m 'Rebuild against glibc 2.36-
> 9+deb12u11' --extra-depends 'libc-dev-bin (>= 2.36-9+deb12u11)'
snapd FTBFS on mips*el, although I assume unrelated to any glibc
changes:
the binNMU versions had been
> used before for builds in unstable.
>
> nmu 9 balboa_2.0.0+ds-5 . ANY . bookworm . -m 'Rebuild against glibc
> 2.36-9+deb12u12' --extra-depends 'libc-dev-bin (>= 2.36-9+deb12u12)'
> nmu 2 e2fsprogs_1.47.0-2 . ANY . bookworm .
On Fri, 2025-06-06 at 15:11 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Scheduled, with added " . bookworm ", and the versions updated to
> reference +deb12u12.
I've had to reschedule a few builds, as the binNMU versions had been
used before for builds in unstable.
nmu 9 balboa_2.0.0+
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 + confirmed
Bug #1106777 [release.debian.org] nmu: binNMU against glibc (>=
2.36-9+deb12u11) for CVE-2025-4802
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
1106777: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1106777
Debian Bug Tracking System
Cont
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On Thu, 2025-05-29 at 18:24 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> An untrusted LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable vulnerability has
> been found in the GNU libc, affecting *static* binaries (CVE-2025-
> 4802).
> It allows attacker controlled loading of dynamically shared li
Your message dated Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:52:48 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1105033: nmu: rust-timerfd_1.5.0-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1105033,
regarding nmu: rust-timerfd_1.5.0-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If
ll check of the testing suite, I have found that this
> > problem actually existed for other packages. Here is a list of binNMUs
> > to fix many of them:
> >
> > nmu baobab_48.0-2 . ANY . -m 'Rebuild to fix reproducibility'
> > nmu clapper_0.8.0-2 . ANY . -m
Your message dated Sun, 1 Jun 2025 13:42:56 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1106526: nmu: multiple binNMUs to fix build
reproducibility
has caused the Debian Bug report #1106526,
regarding nmu: multiple binNMUs to fix build reproducibility
to be marked as done.
This means that
Your message dated Sat, 31 May 2025 18:53:42 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1106789: nmu: multiple binNMUs against glibc (>= 2.39)
for CVE-2025-4802
has caused the Debian Bug report #1106789,
regarding nmu: multiple binNMUs against glibc (>= 2.39) for CVE-2025-4802
to be
kages shipping glibc based static binaries do not set Built-Using,
and hasn't been rebuild for other reasons since then, so they need a
binNMU:
nmu 10 tini_0.19.0-1 . ANY. -m 'Rebuild against libc6-dev (>= 2.39)'
nmu tsocks_1.8beta5+ds1-2 . ANY . -m 'Rebuild against libc6-de
Processing control commands:
> block -1 by 1106761
Bug #1106777 [release.debian.org] nmu: binNMU against glibc (>=
2.36-9+deb12u11) for CVE-2025-4802
1106777 was not blocked by any bugs.
1106777 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 1106777: 1106761
--
1106777:
r the point release:
nmu 9 bash_5.2.15-2 . ANY . -m 'Rebuild against glibc 2.36-9+deb12u11'
--extra-depends 'libc-dev-bin (>= 2.36-9+deb12u11)'
nmu 5 busybox_1:1.35.0-4 . ANY . -m 'Rebuild against glibc 2.36-9+deb12u11'
--extra-depends 'libc-dev-bin (>=
Your message dated Tue, 27 May 2025 21:11:14 +0200
with message-id
and subject line nmu: ovito_3.10.5~ds-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1106670,
regarding nmu: ovito_3.10.5~ds-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it
Your message dated Tue, 27 May 2025 18:50:51 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1106672: nmu: fragments_3.0.1-8
has caused the Debian Bug report #1106672,
regarding nmu: fragments_3.0.1-8
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: fragme...@packages.debian.org, debian-r...@lists.debian.org,
debian@fabian.gruenbichler.email
Control: affects -1 + src:fragments
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu fragments_3.0.1-8 . ANY . unstable . -m
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:fragments
Bug #1106672 [release.debian.org] nmu: fragments_3.0.1-8
Added indication that 1106672 affects src:fragments
--
1106672: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1106672
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:ovito
Bug #1106670 [release.debian.org] nmu: ovito_3.10.5~ds-1
Added indication that 1106670 affects src:ovito
--
1106670: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1106670
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org w
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: ov...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:ovito
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu ovito_3.10.5~ds-1 . ANY . experimental . -m "rebuild against libqwt-qt6-dev
6.3"
Provisioning of libq
comparing a new build to the version in the archive, it does
two new builds and check they matches.
After doing a full check of the testing suite, I have found that this
problem actually existed for other packages. Here is a list of binNMUs
to fix many of them:
nmu baobab_48.0-2 . ANY . -m 'Rebui
Your message dated Thu, 22 May 2025 08:45:58 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1106240: nmu: libm4rie_20250103-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1106240,
regarding nmu: libm4rie_20250103-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:libm4rie
Bug #1106240 [release.debian.org] nmu: libm4rie_20250103-1
Added indication that 1106240 affects src:libm4rie
--
1106240: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1106240
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: libm4...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:libm4rie
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu libm4rie_20250103-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against fixed libm4ri
(#1099530)"
libm4rie
Your message dated Mon, 19 May 2025 19:44:54 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1106069: nmu: uwsgi-plugin-ruby_0.0.2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1106069,
regarding nmu: uwsgi-plugin-ruby_0.0.2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with
rebuild to be aligned with this change.
(this one was missed in #1104206 because of a typo in the version number)
nmu uwsgi-plugin-ruby_0.0.2 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against latest
uwsgi.h (API change)"
Thanks!
--
Some context for this construct (debian/README.source):
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:uwsgi-plugin-ruby src:uwsgi
Bug #1106069 [release.debian.org] nmu: uwsgi-plugin-ruby_0.0.2
Added indication that 1106069 affects src:uwsgi-plugin-ruby and src:uwsgi
--
1106069: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1106069
Debian
Your message dated Mon, 19 May 2025 00:13:13 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1104206: release team nudging regarding binNMU
has caused the Debian Bug report #1104206,
regarding nmu: uwsgi-plugin-gccgo_0.0.3 uwsgi-plugin-glusterfs_0.0.3
uwsgi-plugin-java_0.0.5 uwsgi-plugin
Hi,
> > > src:uwsgi is currently blocked[2] from transitionning to testing, So now
> > > we have
[...]
> >
> > This misses the point. How does an update with 151 files changed, 2495
> > insertions(+), 3114 deletions(-) qualify as small and targetted fix?
>
> This analysis misses the fact that a
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:rust-timerfd
Bug #1105033 [release.debian.org] nmu: rust-timerfd_1.5.0-1
Added indication that 1105033 affects src:rust-timerfd
--
1105033: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1105033
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: rust-time...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:rust-timerfd
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu rust-timerfd_1.5.0-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against fixed
rust-rustix (#1104704)"
Your message dated Fri, 9 May 2025 09:54:12 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1104543: nmu: nodejs_20.19.0+dfsg1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1104543,
regarding nmu: nodejs_20.19.0+dfsg1-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with
Your message dated Fri, 9 May 2025 01:25:58 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1104917: nmu: petsc_3.22.5+dfsg1-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1104917,
regarding nmu: petsc_3.22.5+dfsg1-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:petsc
Bug #1104917 [release.debian.org] nmu: petsc_3.22.5+dfsg1-2
Added indication that 1104917 affects src:petsc
--
1104917: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1104917
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org w
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: pe...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:petsc
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu petsc_3.22.5+dfsg1-2 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against mpich
4.3.0+really4.2.1"
A broken new
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:libwx-perl
Bug #1104808 [release.debian.org] nmu: libwx-perl_1:0.9932-9
Added indication that 1104808 affects src:libwx-perl
--
1104808: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1104808
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact
Your message dated Tue, 6 May 2025 21:19:52 +0200
with message-id <3506381e-7515-4913-8016-68c1628d9...@rclobus.nl>
and subject line Sorry for the noise
has caused the Debian Bug report #1104808,
regarding nmu: libwx-perl_1:0.9932-9
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the p
Your message dated Tue, 06 May 2025 20:14:04 +0100
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1104807: nmu: libalien-wxwidgets-perl_0.69+dfsg-8
has caused the Debian Bug report #1104807,
regarding nmu: libalien-wxwidgets-perl_0.69+dfsg-8
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: libwx-p...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:libwx-perl
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu libwx-perl_1:0.9932-9 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild with wxWidgets
3.2.8+dfsg-1"
Plea
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: libalien-wxwidgets-p...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:libalien-wxwidgets-perl
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu libalien-wxwidgets-perl_0.69+dfsg-8 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:libalien-wxwidgets-perl
Bug #1104807 [release.debian.org] nmu: libalien-wxwidgets-perl_0.69+dfsg-8
Added indication that 1104807 affects src:libalien-wxwidgets-perl
--
1104807: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1104807
Debian
Your message dated Tue, 6 May 2025 09:09:37 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1104712: nmu: libalien-wxwidgets-perl_0.69+dfsg-8
has caused the Debian Bug report #1104712,
regarding nmu: libalien-wxwidgets-perl_0.69+dfsg-8
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Your message dated Tue, 6 May 2025 09:10:07 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1104714: nmu: libwx-perl_1:0.9932-9
has caused the Debian Bug report #1104714,
regarding nmu: libwx-perl_1:0.9932-9
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If
Your message dated Tue, 6 May 2025 08:44:18 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1104771: nmu: mustache-d_0.1.4-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1104771,
regarding nmu: mustache-d_0.1.4-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this
Your message dated Tue, 6 May 2025 08:34:04 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1104770: nmu: diet-ng_1.8.1-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #1104770,
regarding nmu: diet-ng_1.8.1-3
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
X-Debbugs-Cc: mustach...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:mustache-d
nmu mustache-d_0.1.4-1 . armhf s390x . unstable . -m "Rebuild with gcc-14"
libmustache-d0
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:mustache-d
Bug #1104771 [release.debian.org] nmu: mustache-d_0.1.4-1
Added indication that 1104771 affects src:mustache-d
--
1104771: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1104771
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:diet-ng
Bug #1104770 [release.debian.org] nmu: diet-ng_1.8.1-3
Added indication that 1104770 affects src:diet-ng
--
1104770: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1104770
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org w
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
X-Debbugs-Cc: diet...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:diet-ng
nmu diet-ng_1.8.1-3 . armel armhf . unstable . -m "Rebuild with gcc-14"
libdiet0 armhf depends on l
+ src:libalien-wxwidgets-perl
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu libalien-wxwidgets-perl_0.69+dfsg-8 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild
with wxWidgets 3.2.8"
NOTE: Please make this depwait for wxwidgets3.2 3.2.8+dfsg-1.
The debdiff for wxwidgets3.2 is "16
: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu libalien-wxwidgets-perl_0.69+dfsg-8 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild with
wxWidgets 3.2.8"
NOTE: Please make this depwait for wxwidgets3.2 3.2.8+dfsg-1.
The debdiff for wxwidgets3.2 is "169 files changed, 3252 insertions(+),
Your message dated Mon, 5 May 2025 15:31:37 +0200
with message-id
and subject line nmu: ocaml-fdkaac_0.3.3~gitd3393eb-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #1104736,
regarding nmu: ocaml-fdkaac_0.3.3~gitd3393eb-3
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:ocaml-fdkaac
Bug #1104736 [release.debian.org] nmu: ocaml-fdkaac_0.3.3~gitd3393eb-3
Added indication that 1104736 affects src:ocaml-fdkaac
--
1104736: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1104736
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: serious
X-Debbugs-Cc: ocaml-fdk...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:ocaml-fdkaac
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu ocaml-fdkaac_0.3.3~gitd3393eb-3 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild with
libfdk-aac2t64 succes
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 moreinfo
Bug #1104712 [release.debian.org] nmu: libalien-wxwidgets-perl_0.69+dfsg-8
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
1104712: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1104712
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
.org
> Usertags: binnmu
>
> nmu libalien-wxwidgets-perl_0.69+dfsg-8 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild with
> wxWidgets 3.2.8"
>
> NOTE: Please make this depwait for wxwidgets3.2 3.2.8+dfsg-1.
The debdiff for wxwidgets3.2 is "169 files changed, 3252 insertions(+),
26
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:libwx-perl
Bug #1104714 [release.debian.org] nmu: libwx-perl_1:0.9932-9
Added indication that 1104714 affects src:libwx-perl
--
1104714: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1104714
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: libwx-p...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:libwx-perl
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu libwx-perl_1:0.9932-9 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild with wxWidgets 3.2.8"
NOTE: Please
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:libalien-wxwidgets-perl
Bug #1104712 [release.debian.org] nmu: libalien-wxwidgets-perl_0.69+dfsg-8
Added indication that 1104712 affects src:libalien-wxwidgets-perl
--
1104712: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1104712
Debian
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: libalien-wxwidgets-p...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:libalien-wxwidgets-perl
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu libalien-wxwidgets-perl_0.69+dfsg-8 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild
Your message dated Sun, 4 May 2025 19:39:31 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1104624: nmu: python-onewire_0.2-2+b3
has caused the Debian Bug report #1104624,
regarding nmu: python-onewire_0.2-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If
Hi,
> > > > uwsgi.h has changed in the latest upstream, and externally built
> > > > plugins need a
> > > > rebuild to be aligned with this change.
> > >
> > > We are past the point of updates that are large or disruptive. Requiring
> > > rebuilds of reverse dependencies falls into the later cate
Hi Alexandre,
On 2025-05-04 10:27:35 +0200, Alexandre Rossi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > uwsgi.h has changed in the latest upstream, and externally built plugins
> > > need a
> > > rebuild to be aligned with this change.
> >
> > We are past the point of updates that are large or disruptive. Requiring
>
Hi,
> > uwsgi.h has changed in the latest upstream, and externally built plugins
> > need a
> > rebuild to be aligned with this change.
>
> We are past the point of updates that are large or disruptive. Requiring
> rebuilds of reverse dependencies falls into the later category. So
> unless there
-1 + src:python-onewire
Please schedule a binNMU for python-onewire, so the buildinfo picks
up the fixed owfs-common. Thanks!
nmu python-onewire_0.2-2+b3 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild with fixed
owfs-common"
Could you please provide more context why this rebuild is needed? From
the ch
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 forky
Bug #1104206 [release.debian.org] nmu: uwsgi-plugin-gccgo_0.0.3
uwsgi-plugin-glusterfs_0.0.3 uwsgi-plugin-java_0.0.5 uwsgi-plugin-lua_0.0.2
uwsgi-plugin-psgi_0.0.2 uwsgi-plugin-pypy_0.0.3 uwsgi-plugin-python_0.0.2
uwsgi-plugin-rados_0.0.3 uw
e latest upstream, and externally built plugins need
> a
> rebuild to be aligned with this change.
>
> nmu uwsgi-plugin-gccgo_0.0.3 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against latest
> uwsgi.h (API change)"
> nmu uwsgi-plugin-glusterfs_0.0.3 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebui
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 moreinfo
Bug #1104624 [release.debian.org] nmu: python-onewire_0.2-2
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
1104624: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1104624
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
src:python-onewire
>
> Please schedule a binNMU for python-onewire, so the buildinfo picks
> up the fixed owfs-common. Thanks!
>
> nmu python-onewire_0.2-2+b3 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild with fixed
> owfs-common"
Could you please provide more context why this rebuild
Your message dated Sat, 3 May 2025 10:34:42 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1104625: nmu: collectd_5.12.0-22.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1104625,
regarding nmu: collectd_5.12.0-22.1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If
Processing control commands:
> retitle -1 nmu: python-onewire_0.2-2
Bug #1104624 [release.debian.org] nmu: python-onewire_0.2-2+b3
Changed Bug title to 'nmu: python-onewire_0.2-2' from 'nmu:
python-onewire_0.2-2+b3'.
--
1104624: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport
Control: retitle -1 nmu: python-onewire_0.2-2
On Sat, May 03, 2025 at 10:23:36AM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> nmu python-onewire_0.2-2+b3 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild with fixed
> owfs-common"
This was an old (binary) version, please use the current one.
Hopefully thi
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:python-onewire
Bug #1104624 [release.debian.org] nmu: python-onewire_0.2-2+b3
Added indication that 1104624 affects src:python-onewire
--
1104624: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1104624
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:collectd
Bug #1104625 [release.debian.org] nmu: collectd_5.12.0-22.1
Added indication that 1104625 affects src:collectd
--
1104625: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1104625
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.
. Thanks!
nmu collectd_5.12.0-22.1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild with fixed owfs-common"
. Thanks!
nmu python-onewire_0.2-2+b3 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild with fixed
owfs-common"
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:nodejs
Bug #1104543 [release.debian.org] nmu: nodejs_20.19.0+dfsg1-1
Added indication that 1104543 affects src:nodejs
--
1104543: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1104543
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.
fix for CVE-2025-47153,
which affects only i386.
Please binNMU the usual packages that need to be rebuilt when nodejs abi is
changed:
nmu node-libpq_1.8.12+~1.8.10-2 . i386 . unstable . -m "Rebuild against fixed
nodejs on i386, see #1076350"
nmu node-node-pty_1.0.0+ds1+~6.3.0-1 . i386
uwsgi-plugin-luajit
Bug #1104206 [release.debian.org] nmu: uwsgi-plugin-gccgo_0.0.3
uwsgi-plugin-glusterfs_0.0.3 uwsgi-plugin-java_0.0.5 uwsgi-plugin-lua_0.0.2
uwsgi-plugin-psgi_0.0.2 uwsgi-plugin-pypy_0.0.3 uwsgi-plugin-python_0.0.2
uwsgi-plugin-rados_0.0.3 uwsgi-plugin-ruby_0.0.2 uwsgi-plugi
-luajit
X-Debbugs-Cc: uWSGI packaging team
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
Severity: normal
Hi,
uwsgi.h has changed in the latest upstream, and externally built plugins need a
rebuild to be aligned with this change.
nmu uwsgi-plugin-gccgo_0.0.3 . ANY . unstable . -m
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 01:05:33PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:50:15 +0200 Sebastian Ramacher
> wrote:
> > > Right. But coot is the only reverse-depdency, and I think it is ok to
> > > rebuild it for trixie and then re-assess the situation post-trixie. E.g.
> > > we cou
Hi,
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:50:15 +0200 Sebastian Ramacher
wrote:
> Right. But coot is the only reverse-depdency, and I think it is ok to
> rebuild it for trixie and then re-assess the situation post-trixie. E.g.
> we could remove the shared library.
It is not ideal, but scheduled the rebuild.
Your message dated Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:56:52 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1103608: nmu: multiarch sync for contrib/non-free
has caused the Debian Bug report #1103608,
regarding nmu: multiarch sync for contrib/non-free
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Your message dated Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:50:15 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1103162: nmu: coot_1.1.15+dfsg-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1103162,
regarding nmu: coot_1.1.15+dfsg-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this
Your message dated Sun, 20 Apr 2025 19:50:32 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1103565: nmu: ndpi (fix wireshark plugin path)
has caused the Debian Bug report #1103565,
regarding nmu: ndpi_4.2-2.1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with
Your message dated Sun, 20 Apr 2025 19:50:32 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1103565: nmu: ndpi (fix wireshark plugin path)
has caused the Debian Bug report #1103565,
regarding nmu: ndpi (fix wireshark plugin path)
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem
.
Here are the needed binNMUs in wb format:
nmu 2 genesisplusgx . ANY . unstable . -m 'Rebuild for multiarch sync'
nmu 12 libydpdict . ANY . unstable . -m 'Rebuild for multiarch sync'
nmu 1 rust-proton-call . ANY . unstable . -m 'Rebuild for multiarch sync'
nmu 3 thunar-d
/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1082040
nmu ndpi_4.2-2.1+b2 . ANY . -m 'Rebuild against wireshark to install
the Lua plugin to the right place'
Cheers,
Balint
Your message dated Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:16:29 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1103480: nmu: docker.io/podman with
golang-1.24/1.24.2-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1103480,
regarding nmu: docker.io/podman with golang-1.24/1.24.2-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: n...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:ndpi
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
nmu ndpi_4.2-2.1 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild with #1082040 fixed"
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:ndpi
Bug #1103493 [release.debian.org] nmu: ndpi_4.2-2.1
Added indication that 1103493 affects src:ndpi
--
1103493: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1103493
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 + src:docker.io src:podman
Bug #1103480 [release.debian.org] nmu: docker.io/podman with
golang-1.24/1.24.2-2
Added indication that 1103480 affects src:docker.io and src:podman
--
1103480: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1103480
Deb
1 - 100 of 1800 matches
Mail list logo
