Hi Release Team,
[Please cc me on replies, thanks]
I have prepared an update to boost-defaults. I'd like some
guidance as to whether it is appropriate to upload now.
At present, boost-defaults points to 1.40. Since Boost 1.42 is
uploaded and built on most architectures, I am considering
leapfr
Theppitak Karoonboonyanan writes:
> swath 0.4.0-4 appears to build succesfully on mipsel buildd [1] but it's not
> installed yet [2]. What can I do to get it into testing?
It just needed the build admin to sign the build log. That happened now,
the package has been uploaded and installed into the
"Steve M. Robbins" writes:
> So, three questions:
>
> 1. Is it appropriate to change boost-defaults now (from a transitions
>point of view)?
No. We are currently trying to work out the hdf5 and ghc6 transitions
and have enormous buildd backlogs on mips*, making a binNMU campagain
for long-bui
Santiago Vila writes:
> I've decided to implement "Plan B" anyway: create autopoint as an
> empty package which depends on gettext and cvs, as doing so will not
> break packages currently having cvs in their build-depends. Then will
> submit normal bugs asking to change their build-depends.
Thank
Thomas Weber writes:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 01:39:32PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Thomas Weber writes:
>> > please schedule the following binNMUS:
>> Done.
> Now, two more
>
> nmu octave-communications . ALL . -m "Rebuild against hdf5"
> dw octave-communications . ALL . -m "octav
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt (h...@ftwca.de) [100228 12:05]:
> Theppitak Karoonboonyanan writes:
> > swath 0.4.0-4 appears to build succesfully on mipsel buildd [1] but it's not
> > installed yet [2]. What can I do to get it into testing?
>
> It just needed the build admin to sign the build log. That
-=| Adam D. Barratt, Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:13:45PM + |=-
> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 11:56 +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> > Please approve the upload of liblog-handler-perl/0.45-1+lenny1.
> > This would fix a grave bug, #502853 in stable.
>
> Please go ahead.
Uploaded. Thanks!
signature.asc
D
* Luca Falavigna (dktrkr...@debian.org) [100227 20:19]:
> after some discussions on #debian-python, I'd like to propose
> increasing severity of Python 2.6 related bugs [1] to serious.
>
> Some Release Team members already stated they want Python 2.6 for
> Squeeze, and having more focus on those b
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
Hello,
liblouis has changed its ABI and thus the library package name.
liblouisxml now needs to be rebuilt against the new library (it is the
only package using it).
nmu liblouisxml_2.1.0-1
OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du samedi 27 février 2010, vers 20:19,
Luca Falavigna disait :
> after some discussions on #debian-python, I'd like to propose
> increasing severity of Python 2.6 related bugs [1] to serious.
Well, I disagree. Python 2.6 is not the default. Packages are current
Hi,
I just multiplied all build-priorities with 100. Reason behind that is
that there is an patch that will add different priorities. So please
replace any usage of "1" with "100" etc. (Of course, you could use
more fine-granular dependencies as well - feel free to do that. But
don't be surprised
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 571359 with 571949
Bug #571359 [src:dots] dots: FTBFS: Unsatisfiable build-dependency:
liblouisxml-bin: Depends: liblouis0 but it is not installable
Was not blocked by any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 571359: 571949
> thanks
Stopping proc
Your message dated Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:08:57 +
with message-id
<1267369737.22579.681.ca...@kaa.jungle.aubergine.my-net-space.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#571949: nmu: liblouisxml_2.1.0-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #571949,
regarding nmu: liblouisxml_2.1.0-1
to be marked as done.
This m
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 15:29, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du samedi 27 février 2010, vers 20:19,
> Luca Falavigna disait :
>
>> after some discussions on #debian-python, I'd like to propose
>> increasing severity of Python 2.6 related bugs [1] to serious.
>
> Well,
Le dimanche 28 février 2010 à 15:29 +0100, Vincent Bernat a écrit :
> It would be far easier to let Python 2.6 be the default, then file (or
> upgrade) serious bugs and solve them in a week or two.
Yeah sure, let’s knowingly break dozens of packages by switching instead
of fixing them before
* Josselin Mouette (j...@debian.org) [100228 16:50]:
> Le dimanche 28 février 2010 à 15:29 +0100, Vincent Bernat a écrit :
> > It would be far easier to let Python 2.6 be the default, then file (or
> > upgrade) serious bugs and solve them in a week or two.
>
> Yeah sure, let’s knowingly break
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 04:46:09PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 28 février 2010 à 15:29 +0100, Vincent Bernat a écrit :
> > It would be far easier to let Python 2.6 be the default, then file (or
> > upgrade) serious bugs and solve them in a week or two.
>
> Yeah sure, let’s kn
Jonathan Wiltshire (28/02/2010):
> I think we need to do both before we end up running out of time. I
> propose that we upgrade/file bugs as serious so that they get
> maintainer attention where possible, and allow (let's say) 7 days to
> react.
What about providing with patches instead of only p
* Jonathan Wiltshire (deb...@jwiltshire.org.uk) [100228 17:19]:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 04:46:09PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le dimanche 28 février 2010 à 15:29 +0100, Vincent Bernat a écrit :
> > > It would be far easier to let Python 2.6 be the default, then file (or
> > > upgrade)
As far as I can tell, no reverse build-dep of liblo is involved in the
current ghc or hdf transitions. Can we upload new liblo to unstable and
schedule binNMUs?
csound
dssi
fluidsynth-dssi
freej
hexter
jackbeat*
jamin
ll-scope
nekobee
qtractor
rosegarden*
sineshaper*
whysynth
wsynth-dssi
xsynth-ds
[please cc me on replies]
Marc,
I appreciate the rapid feedback.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:09:51PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> "Steve M. Robbins" writes:
> > So, three questions:
> >
> > 1. Is it appropriate to change boost-defaults now (from a transitions
> >point of view)?
>
Hi release team,
although the haskell packages are not really close to a transitional
state yet (armel just built the compiler, mips and mipsel haven’t yet),
I had a look at the haskell packages on
http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php. I did not see any surprising
problems, but I was wondering wh
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
Please rebuild these two packages against xmms2 0.7DrNo. All other xmms2
clients needs to be patched to support 0.7DrNo.
nmu promoe/0.1.1-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against xmms2 0.7DrNo."
nmu x
* Joachim Breitner (nome...@debian.org) [100228 18:17]:
> although the haskell packages are not really close to a transitional
> state yet (armel just built the compiler, mips and mipsel haven’t yet),
> I had a look at the haskell packages on
> http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php. I did not see a
OoO Vers la fin de l'après-midi du dimanche 28 février 2010, vers 16:46,
Josselin Mouette disait :
>> It would be far easier to let Python 2.6 be the default, then file (or
>> upgrade) serious bugs and solve them in a week or two.
> Yeah sure, let’s knowingly break dozens of packages by swit
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 23:11, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> I also tend to believe that there are a lot of packages that will just
> fail to run with Python 2.6 but will have no problem to build, because
> for most packages, building just means to copy files in the right
> location. The late
Hi Release Team,
Graphviz 2.26.3 has been in experimental for just about a month and we
(as in the graphviz maintainers) now feel it is ready for uploading to
unstable.
This involves a transition as the existing libgraphviz4 package has been
split into separate packages for each library and two l
27 matches
Mail list logo
