clone 650840 -1
reassign -1 ir.lv2
found -1 1.3.1~dfsg0-1
retitle -1 Uninstalllable and needs porting to zita-convolver's new API
severity -1 serious
block 650840 by -1
thanks
On 2011-12-10 16:51, Alessio Treglia wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Please go ahead an
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> clone 650840 -1
Bug#650840: transition: zita-convolver
Bug 650840 cloned as bug 652019.
> reassign -1 ir.lv2
Bug #652019 [release.debian.org] transition: zita-convolver
Bug reassigned from package 'release.debian.org' to 'ir.lv2'.
> found -1 1.3.
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 10:13:43PM +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: pu
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear maintainer,
>
> Since you did not yet fix this bug in stable I submit the
> attached patch for review by the
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:05:34PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Working on the four-monthly schedule for oldstable, the next lenny point
> release would be due in early February.
>
> As the security team have recently confirmed that security support for
> lenny will end on February 6th (a year
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:07:32PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Yep, it's that time again. Based on a bi-monthly schedule, 6.0.4 would
> be due around mid-January.
>
> We may want to adjust timings a little, so that we don't end up trying
> to set deadlines for things like kernel and d-i chang
Hi!
Am 13.12.2011 00:07, schrieb Adam D. Barratt:
> As an opening gambit, I'd propose we look at one of the following
> Saturdays in January: 14th, 21st, 28th.
Would all work for me.
Best regards,
Alexander
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
Hi!
Am 13.12.2011 22:52, schrieb Joerg Jaspert:
> For *me*, set the end point at around mid March, after that I wont
> guarantee availability right now.
I would prefer, if we could get it done in February.
Best regards,
Alexander
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.de
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:07:32PM +, Adam Barratt wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Yep, it's that time again. Based on a bi-monthly schedule, 6.0.4 would
>be due around mid-January.
>
>We may want to adjust timings a little, so that we don't end up trying
>to set deadlines for things like kernel and d-i change
Hi all,
last week I did an upload of the current version 3.2.3 libnl3 to experimental.
Libnl >= 3.2 is for example necessary for network-manager.
Beginning from 3.2 upstream changed the soname changed from libnl3 to
libnl3-200 and due to now correct .pc files it was possible to also create
sep
Tuesday, December 13, 2011 6:17 PMValessio Brito wrote:
>I think the attempt to tender / call for proposal has already happened more
>than once and did not work very well.
>
>My proposal would be the convening of interested people to work under the
>same concept and proposal.
I like this ide
Hi,
I'm working through the list of build failures for armhf while we
bring up the new architecture, and I've just got to evolver. I'm
concerned about the status of this package:
* the last maintainer upload into Debian was over a year ago
* there are 2 serious bugs open against it (one for 2 m
Hi,
I'm working through the list of build failures for armhf while we
bring up the new architecture, and I've just got to wiican. I'm
concerned about the status of this package:
* the only maintainer upload into Debian was many months ago
* there are 2 RC bugs open against it for months without
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 04:58:58PM +0100, Luigi Gangitano wrote:
>
>Il giorno 02/dic/2011, alle ore 12:41, Steve McIntyre ha scritto:
>>
>> OK, that's fair enough I guess. But are you going to do any work on
>> the package in the meantime, like fixing the RC bugs? If not, it
>> should be pulled fr
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 09:17:39PM -0200, Valessio Brito wrote:
> I think the attempt to tender / call for proposal has already happened
> more than once and did not work very well.
Well, it is also true we could have done more to advertise the call for
proposals. For instance, it seems to me that
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 650993 + squeeze confirmed
Bug #650993 [release.debian.org] pu: package masqmail/0.2.27-1.1+squeeze1
Added tag(s) squeeze and confirmed.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
650993: http://bugs.deb
tags 650993 + squeeze confirmed
thanks
On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 22:13 +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> +masqmail (0.2.27-1.1+squeeze1) stable; urgency=low
> +
> + * Non-maintainer upload.
> + * Fix improper seteuid() calls in src/log.c and src/masqmail.c
> +(Closes: #638002)
Please go ahead;
tag 652015 + squeeze confirmed
thanks
On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 14:54 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> iotop bug #644616 needs to be fixed in stable because the elevant change
> in Linux has been added to the 2.6.32 longterm tree, which the Debian
> Linux kernel team intends[1] to add to the next Debian stab
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 652015 + squeeze confirmed
Bug #652015 [release.debian.org] pu: package iotop/0.4-2
Added tag(s) squeeze and confirmed.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
652015: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bu
Hi,
I'd like to know what's going on with the transition to gnat 4.6. The
reason I ask is some ada packages are involved in other library
transitions (grib-api right now, hdf5 soon, ...), so it'd be nice to
have some estimate of when it'll be ready. From what I could tell when
I looked last week
On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 07:54 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 06:41:54PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 17:55 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > Would it be possible to upload this, and do a call for test for people
> > > wanting to test it before the a
Hello,
On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 18:04 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working through the list of build failures for armhf while we
> bring up the new architecture, and I've just got to evolver. I'm
> concerned about the status of this package:
>
> * the last maintainer upload into Debi
tag 651808 + pending
thanks
On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 09:58 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 20:19:29 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 10:57 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > I'd like to get #651621 fixed in squeeze. jabberbot has a
> > > race-condition o
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 651808 + pending
Bug #651808 [release.debian.org] pu: package jabberbot/0.9-1+squeeze1
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
651808: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi
Your message dated Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:47:45 +
with message-id <1323892065.427.6.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#651940: nmu: koffice_1:2.3.3-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #651940,
regarding nmu: koffice_1:2.3.3-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you cla
tag 651897 + squeeze confirmed
thanks
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 23:54 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> The security team asked us to consider an upload to pu fixing 2 low
> severity security issues (which don't warrant a DSA).
[...]
> +cifs-utils (2:4.5-2+squeeze1) stable; urgency=low
> +
> + * Stable updat
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 651897 + squeeze confirmed
Bug #651897 [release.debian.org] pu: package cifs-utils/2:4.5-2+squeeze1
Added tag(s) squeeze and confirmed.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
651897: http://bugs.debia
Processing changes file: jabberbot_0.9-1+squeeze1_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: eglibc_2.11.3-1_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 07:20:57PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 22:13 +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> > +masqmail (0.2.27-1.1+squeeze1) stable; urgency=low
> > +
> > + * Non-maintainer upload.
> > + * Fix improper seteuid() calls in src/log.c and src/masqmail.c
> > +
On 12/14/2011 08:55 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 23:54 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>> The security team asked us to consider an upload to pu fixing 2 low
>> severity security issues (which don't warrant a DSA).
> [...]
>> +cifs-utils (2:4.5-2+squeeze1) stable; urgency=low
>> +
>>
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Hi Release Team
libpar-packer-perl 1.006-1 and libpar-perl 1.000-1 in Squeeze are
affected by CVE-2011-4114: "PAR packed files are extracted to unsafe
and predictable temporary directories.".
A
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: patch squeeze
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Dear maintainer,
I've prepared an NMU for mutt (versioned as 1.5.20-9+squeeze2) to fix a
security problem. The diff is attached to this message and it is a backport
of your f
On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 19:25 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Please go ahead; thanks.
Uploaded.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
32 matches
Mail list logo
