On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 05:11:27PM -0300, sawb...@xsmail.com wrote:
> I have received yet another notification in my system mail related to
> an unhandled exception in a backintime Python script.
This has nothing to do with exim. If you intended to file a new bug for
the backintime package, please
Thanks a lot, Andreas.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 12:39:06AM -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> Yes, 990743, already granted. It doesn't appear to have reduced the delay
> below what the autopkgtest already gave, though.
>
> -- Aaron
>
> On July 15, 2021 12:08:17 AM EDT, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >Hi Aar
Yes, 990743, already granted. It doesn't appear to have reduced the delay below
what the autopkgtest already gave, though.
-- Aaron
On July 15, 2021 12:08:17 AM EDT, Andreas Tille wrote:
>Hi Aaron,
>
>did you filed an unblock request to release.debian.org bug report?
>
>Kind regards
>Andrea
Hi Aaron,
did you filed an unblock request to release.debian.org bug report?
Kind regards
Andreas.
- Forwarded message from Debian testing autoremoval watch
-
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 04:39:03 +
From: Debian testing autoremoval watch
To: ncbi-entrez-dir...@packages.debian.org
S
Your message dated Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:39:55 +0900
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#991128: libqt5core5a: .pc file missing from
installation causing configure scripts to failg
has caused the Debian Bug report #991128,
regarding libqt5core5a: .pc file missing from installation causing conf
Package: libqt5core5a
Version: 5.15.2+dfsg-9
Severity: serious
Tags: a11y ftbfs
Justification: 7
The package installs correctly as per dpkg, but the corresponding .pc file is
missing. This is serious because
many packages require a configure script to be run which checks for the
presence of Qt5
Your message dated Wed, 14 Jul 2021 22:48:29 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#988439: fixed in slurm-wlm 20.11.7+really20.11.4-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #988439,
regarding slurm-wlm: CVE-2021-31215
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated Wed, 14 Jul 2021 20:52:19 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#986686: fixed in texworks-manual 20210308-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #986686,
regarding missing b-d netpbm?
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this
Package: backintime
Version: 1.1.24-0.1
Severity: normal
I have received yet another notification in my system mail related to
an unhandled exception in a backintime Python script.
Here is the transcript:
---
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 16:45:01 -0300
Unhandled exception in thread started by
Traceb
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 991040 varnish: CVE-2021-36740: VSV7
Bug #991040 [varnish] Varnish VSV7
Changed Bug title to 'varnish: CVE-2021-36740: VSV7' from 'Varnish
VSV7'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance
Your message dated Wed, 14 Jul 2021 19:30:25 +0200
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#31: NS_ERROR_NET_INADEQUATE_SECURITY error on
armhf/arm64 at least
has caused the Debian Bug report #31,
regarding [firefox-esr] NS_ERROR_NET_INADEQUATE_SECURITY for https sites -
libnss3 dependen
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 979973 libpam-yubico does not use multiarch paths
Bug #979973 [libpam-yubico] libpam-ubico does not use multiarch paths
Bug #990412 [libpam-yubico] libpam-ubico does not use multiarch paths
Changed Bug title to 'libpam-yubico does not use
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 bookworm sid
Bug #979973 [libpam-yubico] libpam-ubico does not use multiarch paths
Bug #990412 [libpam-yubico] libpam-ubico does not use multiarch paths
Added tag(s) sid and bookworm.
Added tag(s) bookworm and sid.
--
979973: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin
Control: tags -1 bookworm sid
libpam-yubico not using multiarch paths should no longer be a problem
for bullseye with #990790 fixed/workarounded.
cu
Adrian
Processing control commands:
> severity 980047 normal
Bug #980047 {Done: Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a }
[libpam-chroot] libpam-chroot: pam_chroot.so installed in wrong directory on
amd64
Severity set to 'normal' from 'serious'
--
980047: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=980
Package: libpam-chroot
Version: 0.9-5
Severity: serious
Control: severity 980047 normal
The original #980047 is now fixed/workarounded in pam through #990790.
Unfortunately the change in 0.9-5 introduced a regression:
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/pam_chroot.so
This file belongs under
/lib/x86_64-li
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 09:18:45AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 7/13/21 9:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 04:51:40PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> No, 2.36 is not required. Perfectly fine to build with 2.35.2.
> >
> > That's correct.
> > But if you build with 2.36, w
Hi Hilmar, hi Adrian,
On Wed, 14 Jul 2021, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I would suggest to upload 20210308-2 to unstable and try to
> get an unblock for that on the basis of "only documentation".
I agree with that, better no strange version numbers.
Best
Norbert
--
PREINING Norbert
On 13.07.21 22:19, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Package: gir1.2-diodon-1.0
> Version: 1.8.0-1
> Severity: serious
>
> ${gir:Depends} needs "dh --with gir" in debian/rules.
> The manual dependency on gir1.2-glib-2.0 is no longer necessary
> when this is fixed.
>
> Something still seems to go wrong afterwa
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 09:39:05AM +0200, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
> Am 14.07.2021 um 00:50 teilte Norbert Preining mit:
>...
> I understand this as: we branch from 20200329-1 and go with
> "20200329-1bullseye1".
20200329-1+deb11u1 would be the normal versioning for that,
but see below.
> In this cas
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 990228 + bookworm
Bug #990228 [ssl-cert] openssl: breaks ssl-cert installation:
8022CB35777F:error:127A:random number generator:RAND_write_file:Not a
regular file:../crypto/rand/randfile.c:190:Filename=/dev/urandom
Added tag(s) book
Processing control commands:
> fixed -1 2.0.6-1+deb9u1
Bug #990671 [src:libjdom2-java] libjdom2-java: CVE-2021-33813
The source 'libjdom2-java' and version '2.0.6-1+deb9u1' do not appear to match
any binary packages
Marked as fixed in versions libjdom2-java/2.0.6-1+deb9u1.
> severity -1 serious
B
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> found 989344 1.12.10+dfsg2-2~exp3
Bug #989344 {Done: Jochen Sprickerhof } [libogre-1.12]
libogre-1.12: package name does not match soname
Marked as found in versions ogre-1.12/1.12.10+dfsg2-2~exp3 and reopened.
> found 990228 1.1.0+nmu1
Bug #9902
Am 14.07.2021 um 00:50 teilte Norbert Preining mit:
Hi Norbert,
@Norbert: do you have an opinion. Should be rather branch from 20200329-1,
which is currently in testing?
Seems to be ok.
Documentation fixes are explicitly included in the freeze exception
list.
I understand this as: we branc
Your message dated Wed, 14 Jul 2021 07:32:07 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#990748: fixed in linuxptp 1.9.2-1+deb10u1
has caused the Debian Bug report #990748,
regarding linuxptp: CVE-2021-3570
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If th
On 7/13/21 9:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 04:51:40PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> No, 2.36 is not required. Perfectly fine to build with 2.35.2.
>
> That's correct.
> But if you build with 2.36, what does the runtime dependency say?
why don't you look yourself? the binar
26 matches
Mail list logo
