Processing control commands:
> block 883622 by -1
Bug #883622 [release.debian.org] transition: analitza 17.08
883622 was not blocked by any bugs.
883622 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 883622: 884273
--
883622: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=883622
884273:
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141016165453.23954.91263.reportbug@merkur
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
Hi,
This package is Linux-specific (and as of 3.8.4-8.1 properly marked as
such).
Please could remove associated binaries from the archive?
You may close the following RC bugs when doing so:
#602724
#601106
#612157
#733546
Thanks!
--
Robert Millan
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
Hi,
This package is Linux-specific (and as of 3.8.4-8.1 properly marked as
such).
Please could remove associated binaries from the archive?
You may close the following RC bugs when doing so:
#733122
#735023
Thanks!
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 13:38 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> The table seems to be missing portbox: io
> As KiBi mentioned they porter boxes are not administered by DSA *yet*.
Thanks to DSA, this is no longer the case - falla and fischer now exist.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Robert Millan (16/05/2012):
> Does asdfasdf have i386 chroots? If not, is it feasible to add them?
> Would then asdfasdf qualify as porter box for kfreebsd-i386?
AFAICT: no, yes, no.
DSA said they were willing to set up porterboxes “in time” though, so
I wouldn't worry too much ab
now.
Does asdfasdf have i386 chroots? If not, is it feasible to add them?
Would then asdfasdf qualify as porter box for kfreebsd-i386?
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas..
Hi,
Thanks for the quick response.
On 16.05.2012 13:38, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
The table seems to be missing portbox: io
aiui, io's still down to all intents and purposes; if that's correct
then it doesn't really qualify as a porterbox right now.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
Hi Adam,
The table seems to be missing portbox: io
As KiBi mentioned they porter boxes are not administered by DSA *yet*.
Also for both arches we could say users: 50 (popcon)
I also wrote some brief narrative at:
http://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/Wheezy#Status_of_kfreebsd-.7Bamd64.2Ci
.html would be appreciated,
as would any other information you think is relevant to helping us
determine kfreebsd-i386's status for the release.
Regards,
Adam
pp the Release Team
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe&quo
On 02.05.2012 16:01, Ondřej Surý wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Adam D. Barratt
wrote:
If the binaries are going away, they need removing from unstable,
not
testing.
Manual removals from testing are source-based, binary removals
(including
partial removals) happen as the result of sy
Hi Adam,
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Adam D. Barratt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 02.05.2012 14:51, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>>
>> after some chit-chat with upstream, we have decided that kfreebsd-any
>> isn't supported by upstream code.
>>
>> Please remove from testing, so it can migrate.
>
>
> If the bi
Hi,
On 02.05.2012 14:51, Ondřej Surý wrote:
after some chit-chat with upstream, we have decided that kfreebsd-any
isn't supported by upstream code.
Please remove from testing, so it can migrate.
If the binaries are going away, they need removing from unstable, not
testing.
Manual removals
Hi,
after some chit-chat with upstream, we have decided that kfreebsd-any
isn't supported by upstream code.
Please remove from testing, so it can migrate.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
2011/12/4 Adam D. Barratt :
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 14:13:24 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>>
>> I believe manual removal of kfreebsd-* binaries from testing is needed
>> so that gpe-shield can migrate (if that's not the case then sorry for
>> bothering)
>>
>> For details, see http://bugs.debian.org/647
On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 14:13:24 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I believe manual removal of kfreebsd-* binaries from testing is
needed
so that gpe-shield can migrate (if that's not the case then sorry for
bothering)
For details, see http://bugs.debian.org/647655
Close - manual removal of kfreebsd-* b
I believe manual removal of kfreebsd-* binaries from testing is needed
so that gpe-shield can migrate (if that's not the case then sorry for
bothering)
For details, see http://bugs.debian.org/647655
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a su
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 649004 important
Bug #649004 [libbsd-resource-perl] libbsd-resource-perl: ftbfs on kfreebsd-i386
Severity set to 'important' from 'serious'
> unblock 637809 by 649004
Bug #637809 [release.debian.org] transition
've just NMUed both packages.
>
> Debdiffs attached.
For the record, the NMUs were acked on IRC and accepted earlier today.
I gave the kfreebsd-i386 d-i build back and it built successfully;
thanks.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
2011/10/6 Adam D. Barratt :
> Forgive my ignorance on the precise mechanics, but is it correct that the
> /boot/kernel/kernel.gz symlink creation was also removed?
Yes, this is all curft for backward compatibility with versions of
Debian GNU/kFreeBSD that have never been part of a Debian release.
debian/control
--- kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386-0.6/debian/control 2011-01-10 16:03:41.0 +0100
+++ kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386-0.6.1/debian/control 2011-10-06 23:06:34.0 +0200
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Debian Install System Team
Uploaders: Otavio Salvador , Aurelien
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 07:20:50 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Attached patch should fix the problem. I can upload a fixed
> kfreebsd-8 this evening (feel free to NMU if someone has time to
> verify earlier than that).
>
What's the status of that upload?
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
rlier than that).
Forgive my ignorance on the precise mechanics, but is it correct that
the /boot/kernel/kernel.gz symlink creation was also removed?
Would you be able to also upload a kfreebsd-i386 build? That would
help reduce the turnaround time before we can schedule a rebuild of
kfreebsd
2011/10/6 Philipp Kern :
> That said, this needs to be fixed, and we're all not very happy, given
> the fact that we actually did ask before if something changes in the
> udeb output.
I have to say in my defense that I did check for changes in udeb
output. However these changes don't happen on my
2011/10/6 Adam D. Barratt :
> test -e ./tmp/cdrom/tree/boot/zfs || rmdir ./tmp/cdrom/tree/boot/
> rmdir: failed to remove `./tmp/cdrom/tree/boot/': Directory not empty
> [...]
> $ debdiff kernel-image-8.1-1-486-di_0.6_kfreebsd-i386.udeb
> kernel-image-8.1-1-486-di_0.6+b1_kfreebsd-i386.udeb
> [...]
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 11:20:00PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> [tl,dr; these changes broke d-i in stable]
I think in the worst case we can just keep the current (as in
non-point release version) of d-i on kfreebsd-* for the next point
release and don't update to the binNMU. It's actually from
> > query, has a test build of kfreebsd-kernel-di-* been performed in order
> > to find out whether any additional modules get pulled in to the
> > packages?
>
> I just tried. The resulting file lists are identical.
debian-installer was binNMUed earlier today in preparatio
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 622363 by 635724
Bug #622363 [release.debian.org] transition: libnotify 0.7
Was blocked by: 630300 636297 630266 630281 636344 636397 630294 630265 633973
630302 619874 630283 630312 630277 630307 630279 630295 630289 630264 630298
630311
2010/12/6 Julien Cristau :
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 14:09:37 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
>> Are you sure?
>
> Yes.
Done, thanks.
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
2010/12/5 Julien Cristau :
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 19:06:59 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
>> For details see http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2010/12/msg00031.html
>>
> You need to request the removal of the binary from sid by filing a bug
> against ftp.d.o.
Are you sure? sid version is kfreeb
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 14:09:37 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> Are you sure?
Yes.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 19:06:59 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> For details see http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2010/12/msg00031.html
>
You need to request the removal of the binary from sid by filing a bug
against ftp.d.o.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
For details see http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2010/12/msg00031.html
Thanks
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/aanlktik8zta-s6x
Hi,
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 09:46 +0530, Onkar Shinde wrote:
> Currently the migration of libxmlrpc3-java [1] to testing is blocked
> because of build failure on certain architectures. But the build
> failure is a tool chain issue [2] and not an issue with package
> itself. It was suggested by Dann
the architectures where the build fails. [3]
So I am requesting the same.
The packages that need to be removed are:
1. libxmlrpc3-client-java-gcj
2. libxmlrpc3-common-java-gcj
3. libxmlrpc3-server-java-gcj
The architectures affected are hppa, kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64.
[1] http
Marco d'Itri (07/12/2009):
> The packages was built by mistake by precedent releases but it is
> only needed on old 32 bit architectures.
http://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
The packages was built by mistake by precedent releases but it is only
needed on old 32 bit architectures.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
2007 22:06:11 +0100 (CET)
> From: Petr Salinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Announce of the upcoming NMU for the atlas3 package
> (kfreebsd-i386
> support)
> X-CRM114-Status: UNSURE (2.2818) This message is 'unsu
rier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Announce of the upcoming NMU for the atlas3 package (kfreebsd-i386
support)
X-CRM114-Status: UNSURE (2.2818) This message is 'unsure'; please train it!
Hello.
May I ask you to include in NMU for the atlas3 also patch #379161.
It only adds "
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 05:33:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051017 17:24]:
> > Please, could you add kfreebsd-i386 to etch_arch_qualify.html ?
>
> Basically, the page is restricted to architectures in unstable. The only
> exception is
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051017 17:24]:
> Please, could you add kfreebsd-i386 to etch_arch_qualify.html ?
Basically, the page is restricted to architectures in unstable. The only
exception is amd64, because we consider the addition of amd64 to
unstable as an release bloc
Hi!
Please, could you add kfreebsd-i386 to etch_arch_qualify.html ?
I've filled up a wiki page with the information:
http://wiki.debian.org/kfreebsd-i386EtchReleaseRecertification
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe
42 matches
Mail list logo
