Processing control commands:
> block 976811 by -1
Bug #976811 [release.debian.org] transition: php8.0
976811 was not blocked by any bugs.
976811 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 976811: 977186
> forwarded -1 https://git.osgeo.org/gitea/geos/php-geos/issues/26
Bug #977186 [src:ph
Package: release.debian.org
Followup-For: Bug #976880
Dear Release Team,
Following packages need to have a sourceful upload:
dtkcore
dtkgui
dtkwidget
dtkwm
dde-qt-dbus-factory
dde-qt5integration
dde-calendar
deepin-deb-installer
deepin-menu
deepin-movie-reborn
deepin-music
deepin-screen-recorde
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hello,
I would like to upload glade 3.38 in unstable, but this requires a
transiton (libgladeui-2-6 -> libgladeui-2-13)
I tried to rebuild all the rdeps and they all build fine except l
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 977201 with 977184 977187
Bug #977201 [release.debian.org] transition: glade
977201 was not blocked by any bugs.
977201 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 977201: 977187 and 977184
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 08:05:19AM +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> And let me restate that it’s not my intent to make anyone’s life hell and
> I am willing to help with any package (as usual). I am just trying to do
> the most sane thing to do security and maintainer wise.
oh sure, I never expected a
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
X-Debbugs-Cc: d_br...@kabelmail.de
nmu avldrums.lv2_0.4.1-1 . ANY . bullseye . -m "Upload to bullseye"
-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
This transition was already started by the recent proftpd upload, but is not
caught caught automatically since it is a virtual package name that has
changed.
Ben file:
title = "proftpd-
Your message dated Sat, 12 Dec 2020 17:07:28 +0100
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#977207: nmu: avldrums.lv2_0.4.1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #977207,
regarding nmu: avldrums.lv2_0.4.1-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> summary 977207 nmu avldrums.lv2_0.4.1-1 . amd64 . unstable . -m "Rebuild on
> buildd"
Summary recorded from message bug 977207 message
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
977207: https://bug
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 05:46:26PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
>...
> I think it's necessary to consider what the purpose of the i386 port is,
> and set expectations and an appropriate baseline based on that.
>
> I see two possible use-cases for i386:
>
> 1. It's a compatibility layer for legacy
Hi,
sorry for the late reply and thanks a lot Graham for pinging me
directly. I didn't monitor -devel closely lately, but
I am an active porter for the following architecture and I intend
to continue this for the lifetime of the Bullseye release (est. end
of 2024):
For ppc64el, I
- test most pack
Processing changes file: minidlna_1.2.1+dfsg-2+deb10u1_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: minidlna_1.2.1+dfsg-2+deb10u1_arm64-buildd.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: minidlna_1.2.1+dfsg-2+deb10u1_armel-buildd.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: minidlna_1.2.1+dfsg-2+deb1
On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 at 18:09:02 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 3. Computers that do support MMX and SSE2, but do not support 64bit.
Right, that's basically the second use-case I mentioned, but moving the
boundary for what we do and don't support to be more modern. We could
put the boundary anywhere w
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:17:06PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> What's the status wrt to reverse dependencies? Do they all build with
> the new version?
Only 4 of them FTBFS. 3 of them failed due to other reasons.
OKactiona_3.10.1-1.dsc
OKauto-multiple-choice_1.4.0-5.dsc
OKcaffe
Then there was the short netbook boom, but AFAIR some early ones
had 64bit CPUs but 32bit-only firmware.
My memory is that at the height of the boom the dominant processors
were the N270 and N280, which are 32-bit only. By the time 64-bit
netbook processors showed up the boom was on the dec
Hi all,
As someone who runs amd64/i386 multiarch, this statement from Adrian:
> i386 hardware is so numerous and widely spread, that every tiny fraction
> of i386 users might be more users than half of our release architectures
> combined. It is not even clear whether this is just an exaggeration
16 matches
Mail list logo
