Hi,
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> two at a time. Holding d-i's build dependencies static in unstable for
> more than half a year is just nuts to me! Sure seems like d-i is
> something we should build using the components of the release it will be
> contained in and not unstable... b
On 07.02.2013 08:31, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Technically d-i point release updates are built in
"stable-proposed-updates" and build dependencies are satisfied in
stable
(+ s-p-u maybe). Similarly it should be possible to build d-i for
wheezy
in testing-proposed-updates right now (and have build-
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> on the mirror and not in the package repository (the installer directories
> are shared between wheezy and sid).
Cyril pointed out to me that this specific point is wrong, while
wheezy/main/installer-* and unstable/main/installer-* have the same
conten
On 02/07/2013 09:31, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Technically d-i point release updates are built in
> "stable-proposed-updates" and build dependencies are satisfied in stable
> (+ s-p-u maybe). Similarly it should be possible to build d-i for wheezy
> in testing-proposed-updates right now (and have bu
Hi Jonathan
Now the files are uploaded. Thanks for your help.
// Ola
Uploading to ftp-master (via ftp to ftp.upload.debian.org):
Uploading quantum_2012.1-5+deb70u1.dsc: done.
Uploading quantum_2012.1-5+deb70u1.debian.tar.gz: done.
Uploading quantum-server_2012.1-5+deb70u1_all.deb: done.
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Hi,
I would like to upload a fix for:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699906
The diff file is attached. If the release team thinks it is suitable for
Wheezy, please let me know, and I will upload, rename this bug and tag
accordingly.
Hello,
sadly CVE-2013-0169 also (see 699891) applies to gnutls28.
I have just uploaded gnutls28_3.0.22-3 to unstable, pretty much with
the same set of fixes as gnutls26 2.12.20-4 to unstable. I am not
sure how you would prefer to have this fixed in testing.
Could 3.0.22-3 propagate to testing? Th
On 2013-02-07 10:05, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Hi,
I would like to upload a fix for:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699906
The diff file is attached. If the release team thinks it is suitable
for
Wheezy, please let me know, and I will
Hi Adam,
"Adam D. Barratt" writes:
> I wasn't particularly suggesting re-introducing 3.0 to unstable.
> However, given that packages from tpu get essentially no testing at all
> (no pun intended) before hitting testing, being able to prove a patch in
> unstable first avoids a number of (admittedl
Le 02/07/13 13:15, Michael Stapelberg a écrit :
> Hi Adam,
>
> "Adam D. Barratt" writes:
>> Looking at the proposed tpu diff and the 3.0 -> 3.1 diff, it looks like
>> the armhf changes should apply "as is" to 3.1; has anyone tried that?
> I have ported the patches from 3.0 to 3.1 and successfully
Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Sure seems like d-i is something we should build using the components
> of the release it will be contained in and not unstable... but I
> haven't tried to think hard about what that might imply that's
> problematic. And I certainly don't think this is something we should
> e
Bdale Garbee wrote:
> patch d-i to build successfully against the syslinux in sid
syslinux is GPL'd, so this would result in shipping d-i images in wheezy
which contain a GPL'd binary for which there is no source in wheezy.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Joey Hess (07/02/2013):
> This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are
> already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons.
>
> There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything these days,
> which I don't really understand. Even when not using it causes
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> usertag #76 unblock
User is tho...@goirand.fr
There were no usertags set.
Usertags are now: unblock.
> retitle #76 unblock: horizon/2012.1.1-10
Bug #76 [release.debian.org] Fix for bug #699906: python-django-horizon:
"Launch from volu
On 02/07/2013 07:45 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
>
> The diff looks fine in principle, let's see how it gets on in sid.
>
> Thanks,
Uploaded. Release team bug retitled and usertaged accordingly. Thanks.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subjec
Your message dated Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:02:14 +
with message-id <0387eb18c6c9ebeccdeadaf229ef9...@hogwarts.powdarrmonkey.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#699385: unblock: package quantum/2012.1-5
[pre-approval]
has caused the Debian Bug report #699385,
regarding unblock: quantum/2012.1-5 [pre-appr
Your message dated Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:59:24 +
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#76: Fix for bug #699906: python-django-horizon:
"Launch from volume" broken
has caused the Debian Bug report #76,
regarding unblock: horizon/2012.1.1-10
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Joey Hess (07/02/2013):
> > This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are
> > already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons.
> >
> > There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything these days,
> > which I don't really unders
On 07.02.2013 14:46, Joey Hess wrote:
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Joey Hess (07/02/2013):
> This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are
> already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons.
>
> There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything these
days,
>
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:55:11AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On a personal note, I'm unsure how we came up with a situation where a
> single maintainer can *actively* stall a release… Not caring about the
> release process put into place years ago is a thing. Stopping people
> from fixing pro
Hi all,
Apologies for taking as long as I have to get around to sending this mail.
I would like to request an unblock of the udev udeb at version 175-7.1.
unblock-udeb udev/175-7.1
This package is a prerequisite for having a useful version of upstart in
wheezy (bug #686387), and the change sh
Hi Adam,
Michael Stapelberg writes:
> Therefore, I will now build it on armhf, which will take around a day.
Update: the armhf build failed because about 100 testcases fail.
I have no clue on how to fix this and can’t spend much more time on
debugging this either.
Given that the 3.0 version wor
Le 02/07/13 18:07, Michael Stapelberg a écrit :
> Hi Adam,
>
> Michael Stapelberg writes:
>> Therefore, I will now build it on armhf, which will take around a day.
> Update: the armhf build failed because about 100 testcases fail.
>
> I have no clue on how to fix this and can’t spend much more tim
Control: retitle -1 unblock: xen/4.1.4-2
In the meantime this is 4.1.4-2. It fixes a lot of things including a
few security problems.
xen (4.1.4-2) unstable; urgency=low
* Use pre-device interrupt remapping mode per default. Fix removing old
remappings.
CVE-2013-0153
-- Bastian Blank
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 14:32:02 +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: unblock
>
> Please unblock package nsd3
>
> Hi,
>
> please unblock nsd3 3.2.12-2 which includes Response Rate Limiting.
> Unfort
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:33:00AM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> As Adam already pointed out we would still need another d-i upload to
> unstable to make sure unstable has a higher-or-equal version compared to
> testing.
Sometimes I wonder why it cannot simply propagate to the upper suite.
We d
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> debian/rules doesn't seem to have a 'clean' rule change to go with the
> 'autoreconf' addition?
I am not sure I get what exactly do you have in mind? Do you want to
clean-up generated files (autom4ke, ...) or something else?
Ondrej
--
Ondř
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 20:33:24 +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > debian/rules doesn't seem to have a 'clean' rule change to go with the
> > 'autoreconf' addition?
>
> I am not sure I get what exactly do you have in mind? Do you want to
> clea
Your message dated Thu, 7 Feb 2013 20:52:54 +0100
with message-id <20130207195254.gp8...@radis.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#698831: unblock: xen/4.1.4-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #698831,
regarding pre-approval: xen/4.1.4-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the p
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 21:03:36 +0100, Piotr Ozarowski wrote:
> > And as discussed on IRC the prerm/postrm changes are broken and need a
> > revert.
>
> please be more verbose for those of us who did not participate in this
> discussion (or do not remember it)
- removing configuration in postrm
Hi,
polarssl 1.1.4-2 just hit unstable. Fixes security bug #699887,
CVE-2013-0169, so please unblock.
Thanks!
(Will contact the security team separately for the respective security
update for the version in stable.)
Roland
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
w
On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 22:53 +0100, Roland Stigge wrote:
> polarssl 1.1.4-2 just hit unstable. Fixes security bug #699887,
> CVE-2013-0169, so please unblock.
Unblocked; thanks.
Please consider filing a usertagged unblock tag (e.g. via reportbug) in
future. They're much easier for us to keep track
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package xnbd. It fixes a local symlink attack vulnerability
being tracked as CVE-2013-0265. This upload includes a patch changing the
default logfile location to a location wh
On Wed 2013-02-06 17:25:37 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> If you think it's worth it, i'll set aside some time to work on this
> tomorrow, to get 1:2.20100701.2961-3 to build cleanly against stock wheezy.
I've just uploaded 1:2.20100701.2961-3+deb7u2 to
testing-proposed-updates.
On 02/04/2013 01:28 PM, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 03:31:33PM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
>> FWIW, I've asked about the same on the Monkeysphere mailing-list last
>> October, see dkg's answer there:
>> https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/monkeysphere/2012-10/
I've just pushed a p
You are talking about my changes apparently :)
Right, prerm purge really does not exist according to the Policy. This
makes me wondering how this change was fixing the problem for the
original reporter..
The revert is attached and alternatively available at
bzr branch
bzr+ssh://bzr.debian.org/
36 matches
Mail list logo
