Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 533934 serious
Bug #533934 [pperl] pperl: FTBFS: tests failed directory
Bug #539028 [pperl] pperl: FTBFS: pperl: perl script failed to start: No such
file or directory
Severity set to 'serious' from 'normal'
Severity set to 'serious' fr
2011/5/1 Julien Cristau :
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 15:28:01 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
>> I propose libnss-db removal from testing and stable, because it:
>>
>> - has a serious security bug in stable and testing
>> - is unmaintained in upstream (removed from glibc, no upstream)
>> - is unmaintain
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:33:35PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 06:26:51PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Adam D. Barratt:
> >
> > > I do share Florian's concern about the potential breakage as a result of
> > > the change. Do we have any idea how many packages in
On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 10:14 +, Cron Daemon wrote:
[...]
> File "/srv/release.debian.org/britney/code/b2/britney.py", line 2243, in
> iter_packages
> pkg_name, suite, affected, undo = self.doop_source(pkg)
> File "/srv/release.debian.org/britney/code/b2/britney.py", line 2039, in
> doo
Hello,
Once upon a time, zope2.X could be easily installed on Debian (until
2.10), and thanks to dzhandle, it was pretty easy and straightforward to
use. Unfortunately it is not anymore since the upstream decided to move
to a modularized approach (with ZTK) ratherthan having a monolithic
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 622279 with 624889
Bug #622279 [release.debian.org] transition: python-defaults
Was blocked by: 624810 616364 624824 623165 624740 621993 614619 622966 618094
622978 623578 606681 622976 622912 622154 624787 622001 623927 606006 624429
621
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 622279 with 624901
Bug #622279 [release.debian.org] transition: python-defaults
Was blocked by: 624810 616364 623165 624824 624740 614619 621993 622966 618094
623578 622978 606681 624889 622912 622976 622154 624787 622001 623927 606006
621
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 14:30:13 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> One alternative would be to adopt the package both in debian and as a
> upstream (or convince (e)glibc people to pick it up) and care about it
> if it's important for Debian.
>
> I don't know the Debian infrastructure enough to be able
I am Ccing the DSA team, because this affect them most...
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 19:54, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 14:30:13 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
>> One alternative would be to adopt the package both in debian and as a
>> upstream (or convince (e)glibc people to pick it
tags 619988 + pending
thanks
On 03/28/2011 11:57 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Please give your green light when you think it is possible to do the
upload to unstable.
Looks like this happened. Tagging it as such.
Regards,
--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 619988 + pending
Bug #619988 [release.debian.org] transition: eglibc 2.13
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
619988: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=619988
Processing changes file: qemu-kvm_0.12.5+dfsg-5+squeeze1_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: qemu-kvm_0.12.5+dfsg-5+squeeze1_i386.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: spip_2.1.1-3squeeze1_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
On Mon, 02 May 2011, Ondrej Surý wrote:
> Well, libnss-ldap(d) + NSCD could do the trick for short offline
> periods (with HA LDAP setup).
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/LDAP/NSS
I don't think libpam-ldap would meet our requirements. And nscd is best
avoided.
--
| .''`
It's been pointed out that we haven't had a d-d-a mail about the
transition like we have before[0]. Would it be possible for the release
time to send a short note about the fact that we're in a transition
period now, just to stem any further confusion about the large
number of uninstallable package
Your message dated Tue, 03 May 2011 00:12:34 +0200
with message-id <4dbf2c52.80...@dogguy.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#619874: transition: Xfce 4.8
has caused the Debian Bug report #619874,
regarding transition: Xfce 4.8
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been de
Hello (again):
El Lunes, 25 de Abril de 2011, Raúl Sánchez Siles escribió:
> Hello:
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 04:58:26PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 19:39 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 15:13 +0200, Raúl Sánchez Siles wrote
Hi,
The testing migration excuses [1] claims insighttoolkit is out of
date on kfreebsd-amd64 and mipsel. In fact, however, both arches
are installed in the pool [2].
Can someone help this package to transition, please?
Thanks,
-Steve
[1] http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=insighttoolk
Dominic Hargreaves writes:
> This adds
> - libafs-perl #623924, #621999
#623924 is easy to fix, but #621999 turns out to be a huge mess that's
going to take significant work in OpenAFS to fix. Apart from a few
changes to the interfaces that the AFS Perl module uses, the AFS Perl
module was mix
18 matches
Mail list logo
