Re: transition to OCaml 3.11

Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : > [ can we upload OCaml 3.11 to unstable? ] I can see that pcre3 is blocking a lot of packages in unstable from migrating to testing (including OCaml-related ones). I think we should at least wait for this transition to complete. Any hints on when this will be done?

Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:23:37PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > Lenny is now out, so I think it is time to decide how to proceed with what > was discussed during DC8. Is the release team still ok with the idea of > keeping orphaned packages out of testing? how should it be done? via > severity:

Re: Whoos with GnuTLS and md5-signed certificates

Would those who have an interest in this topic please test the patch in and report if it improves things for them? Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscri

squid: fix for #513102 in lenny 5.0.1

Hi releasers, can you please provide me direction on how to get a small bug fix in the next point release of lenny? This bug was known before lenny release, but since I was waiting for 2.7.STABLE3-4.1 to get in testing (it included a security fix), I could not prepare a new upload in time

Re: squid: fix for #513102 in lenny 5.0.1

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:29:49AM +0100, Luigi Gangitano wrote: > can you please provide me direction on how to get a small bug fix in the > next point release of lenny? This bug was known before lenny release, but > since I was waiting for 2.7.STABLE3-4.1 to get in testing (it included a > sec

Re: please binNMU arts on all archs in unstable

* Sune Vuorela [Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:51:53 +0100]: > The reverse dep, jack-audio-connection-kit, dropped .la files and arts > .la files references them. Please binNMU arts on all archs. > Version is 1.5.9-2 It seems arts was binNMUed on all arches 2 weeks ago for this issue, and made it into Len

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

Le dimanche 15 février 2009 à 22:14 +0100, Bastian Blank a écrit : > Can you do a size estimate for this? It would need in addition > - the X server, > - evdev input module and > - a framebuffer video module. > > Anything else? XKB data, a number of libraries, a "fixed" font, I guess. Currently

Re: squid: fix for #513102 in lenny 5.0.1

* Luigi Gangitano [Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:29:49 +0100]: > Hi releasers, > can you please provide me direction on how to get a small bug fix in the > next point release of lenny? This bug was known before lenny release, but > since I was waiting for 2.7.STABLE3-4.1 to get in testing (it included a

Re: please binNMU arts on all archs in unstable

On Monday 16 February 2009 12:15:37 Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Sune Vuorela [Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:51:53 +0100]: > > The reverse dep, jack-audio-connection-kit, dropped .la files and arts > > .la files references them. Please binNMU arts on all archs. > > > > Version is 1.5.9-2 > > It seems arts was b

libcommoncpp2 library transition

Hi, Not sure exactly what info we should be providing for transitions, but here goes. I propose a library transition for libcommoncpp2 to match a new upstream soname (which has already been transitioned via experimental) libcommoncpp2-1.6-0 (sid) Reverse Depends: twinkle libzrtpcpp-1.3-0

Re: GTK+ update proposal for stable

Le dimanche 15 février 2009 à 17:07 -0300, Otavio Salvador a écrit : > Josselin Mouette writes: > > I don’t have anything right now that I’d like to put in these packages, > > so the thing they need the most is testing. I can upload them to s-p-u > > as soon as you want. > > If SRM do not object

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 12:16 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 15 février 2009 à 22:14 +0100, Bastian Blank a écrit : > > Can you do a size estimate for this? It would need in addition > > - the X server, > > - evdev input module and > > - a framebuffer video module. > > > > Anything els

Re: About the current state of the Yum package in Lenny

Vincent Danjean wrote: > 3) perhaps, try to push what is available in lenny backport into a > point-release >of lenny. This will depends on how many bug fix are present, how intrusive >the changes are, the release maintainers opinion, ... > > For me, 3 is not the more important. Work on y

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:49:11PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 12:16 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > XKB data, a number of libraries, a "fixed" font, I guess. > > Some sort of XKB data will probably be needed by console-setup, AIUI > (although looking closer it seems t

Re: [Pkg-scicomp-devel] Uploading lapack 3.2.0 to unstable

Hello, > As you all know, lenny is released. It is time now to migrate lapack 3.2.0 > to unstable. There was no shlib bump, so this migration should be safe, > UNLESS the library has changes in the API/ABI in spite of the SONAME not > changing. Does anyone know whether this is really the case?

Re: Re: squid: fix for #513102 in lenny 5.0.1

I want to see the patch first. I don't agree with the snippet proposed in the bug report. The snippet in the bug report is a simple revert of the change that broke resolvconf. The proposed change is to add a PATH definition including /usr/sbin: --- squid.orig 2009-02-16 16:00:41.0

Re: [Pkg-scicomp-devel] Uploading lapack 3.2.0 to unstable

* Sylvestre Ledru [2009-02-16 14:58]: > > As you all know, lenny is released. It is time now to migrate lapack 3.2.0 > > to unstable. There was no shlib bump, so this migration should be safe, > > UNLESS the library has changes in the API/ABI in spite of the SONAME not > > changing. Does anyon

Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

I've forwarded lunar's message to the directfb ML (directfb-...@directfb.org) and got the following reply: - From: Niels Roest Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:47:00 +0100 To: Davide Viti Subject: Re: [directfb-dev] [lu...@debian.org: Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid] Hi Davide, this is a

Re: [directfb-dev] Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid

Hi, On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 17:26 +0100, Davide Viti wrote: > So I see the issue, I also see patches floating around (such as > mentioned by Colin Watson e.g.) and I'm also willing to but effort in > this to get it working again. > > Thing is, with the submitted patch, I do not see someone at GTK

Re: GTK+ update proposal for stable

Le lundi 16 février 2009 à 12:48 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit : > Le dimanche 15 février 2009 à 17:07 -0300, Otavio Salvador a écrit : > > If SRM do not object I think it would be nice to have them there ASAP so > > we can start testing them. > > Unfortunately a new GTK+ version needs to be upl

Re: About the current state of the Yum package in Lenny

Thomas Goirand wrote: > Vincent Danjean wrote: >> 3) perhaps, try to push what is available in lenny backport into a >> point-release >>of lenny. This will depends on how many bug fix are present, how intrusive >>the changes are, the release maintainers opinion, ... >> >> For me, 3 is not

RFC: gThumb upload for Lenny

Hello, bug #420195, "gthumb: Drag and Drop from Folders Pane Causes Copying Loop", was reported more than a year ago. Unfortunately, I had a look at it only very recently, on Feb, 12. I underestimated it, leaving it at priority "normal", while it's a "critical" bug -- sorry for having missed Lenny

Re: [directfb-dev] [lu...@debian.org: Re: Uploading GNOME 2.24 to sid]

Hi, just to say that I made a patch in order to get the last version of gtk working with directfb. This pach is available here: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=126611&action=view Probably not perfect, but at least with this patch GTK is compiling and running. (I had some graphical art

Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing

[No CC please, thanks] Lucas Nussbaum wrote: [...] > > Something like a DEP about "handling of orphaned packages". Do you want > to start that? :-) No offence, but DEPs sound like a lot of unneeded bureaucracy to me. A proper RFC should cover all the needs without making it boring and too long.

Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing

[No CC please, thank] Philipp Kern wrote: > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:23:37PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: >> Lenny is now out, so I think it is time to decide how to proceed with >> what was discussed during DC8. Is the release team still ok with the idea >> of keeping orphaned packages out o

Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing

Hi, On Montag, 16. Februar 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote: > The idea was to leave them out of *testing*, not immediately dropping them > from the archive. Such a hint file could also (after a while...) be autogenerated and thus maintainance free! :) regards, Holger, who likes the idea

Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing

On 2009-02-16 15:44, Raphael Geissert wrote: > The idea was to leave them out of *testing*, not immediately dropping them > from the archive. +1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

please unblock reportbug-ng

thanks and cheers, Bastian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing

W. Martin Borgert wrote: On 2009-02-16 15:44, Raphael Geissert wrote: The idea was to leave them out of *testing*, not immediately dropping them from the archive. +1 I'm struggling a little with this. Obviously I'm the first person to want to see cruft removed and I realize we ar

Testing removals and freeze requests:

Hi, Please remove AND freeze the following source packages from testing: gnome-libs 1.4.2-37 libnet0 1.0.2a-7 imlib 1.9.15-7 Please also remove the following r(b)depends from testing: gnome-libs: powershell 0.9-8 soundtracker 0.6.8-2 libnet0: nemesis 1:1.4-1 paketto 1.10-7 sing

Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Barry deFreese wrote: > I'm struggling a little with this. Same. For example defoma has 113 rbdepends & 148 rdepends. Removing all of them would likely remove all fonts from Debian. I don't think it is acceptable to break testing this much. Perhaps removing al

Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing

On 16/02/09 at 15:44 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > [No CC please, thank] > > Philipp Kern wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:23:37PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > >> Lenny is now out, so I think it is time to decide how to proceed with > >> what was discussed during DC8. Is the release

Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing

On 16/02/09 at 15:31 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > [No CC please, thanks] > > Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > [...] > > > > Something like a DEP about "handling of orphaned packages". Do you want > > to start that? :-) > > No offence, but DEPs sound like a lot of unneeded bureaucracy to me. A > prope

Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing

Lucas Nussbaum writes: > Now, back to the topic. We have a problem, which is: >We have too many orphaned packages. > Those orphaned packages are orphaned either: >(A) because they are 'crap' (poor quality/useless software, or >software for which better alternatives exist) >(B)