On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 02:06:33AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Control: reassign -1 libhamlib4 4.0-6
> Control: fixed -1 4.1-1
> Control: affects -1 cubicsdr
> Control: forwarded -1
> https://sourceforge.net/p/hamlib/code/ci/31dedcf4f79d8fc5fcf287360e5d017842c8e4c0/
>
> The oneline fix for hamlib
On Thu, 2021-07-15 at 21:18 -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> The Debian package disables building against Netty via this patch:
> https://salsa.debian.org/java-team/zookeeper/-/blob/master/debian/patches/13-disable-netty-connection-factory.patch
Ah I see.
> This is certainly a valid point. There i
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 03:12:35PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-06-27 at 14:46 +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > To me this looks like CVEs in other products, but which zookeeper
> > uses
> > as dependency? Is this correct?
>
> Indeed, but I couldn't find that the zoo
On Fri, 2021-07-16 at 12:41 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> I can add an alias easily enough. Using reload is very wrong so
> corekeeper do the right thing but it's a one line change for procps.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "Using reload is very wrong"?
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.or
I can add an alias easily enough. Using reload is very wrong so corekeeper
do the right thing but it's a one line change for procps.
- Craig
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021, 12:31 Paul Wise, wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-07-16 at 02:25 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> > … this isn’t right. This is an RC bug in
On Fri, 2021-07-16 at 02:25 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> … this isn’t right. This is an RC bug in corekeeper but nōn-RC
> in procps because of Policy §9.3.2:
I still think it is RC as it is a feature regression breaking install
of reverse dependencies in supported configurations (sysvinit).
>
Paul Wise dixit:
>> Yes, the procps init script does not have the action reload.
>
>Looks like this is a regression in procps in buster and later.
Hrm. OK, but…
>I've bounced the thread to the procps maintainer and reassigned.
… this isn’t right. This is an RC bug in corekeeper but nōn-RC
in pr
Processing control commands:
> reassign -1 procps 3.3.15-2
Bug #991151 [corekeeper] corekeeper: postrm: invoke-rc.d: initscript procps,
action "reload" failed.
Bug reassigned from package 'corekeeper' to 'procps'.
No longer marked as found in versions corekeeper/1.7.
Ignoring request to alter fix
Control: reassign -1 procps 3.3.15-2
Control: retitle -1 procps: dropped the reload option from the init script,
breaking corekeeper
Control: affects -1 corekeeper
On Fri, 2021-07-16 at 01:15 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Yes, the procps init script does not have the action reload.
Looks like
Paul Wise dixit:
>On Thu, 2021-07-15 at 21:34 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
>> invoke-rc.d: initscript procps, action "reload" failed.
>
>I don't have this problem on amd64 with systemd,
>can you reproduce it on amd64 with sysvinit?
Yes, the procps init script does not have the action reload.
On Thu, 2021-07-15 at 21:34 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> invoke-rc.d: initscript procps, action "reload" failed.
I don't have this problem on amd64 with systemd,
can you reproduce it on amd64 with sysvinit?
I'm thinking of switching to systemd-coredump,
are you interested in adopting corekeep
Control: tag -1 patch
The attached patch should fix this by loading a more permissive policy.
Regards,
Dennis Filder.
Description: Override overly strict ImageMagick coder policy (#987504)
This creates a more permissive version of
/etc/ImageMagick-6/policy.xml and ensures it gets loaded after t
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 patch
Bug #991067 [src:x4d-icons] x4d-icons FTBFS with imagemagick with the #987504
change
Added tag(s) patch.
--
991067: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=991067
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #987486 in intake reported by you has been fixed in the
Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
message below and you can check the diff of the fix at:
https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/intake/-/commit/a9d65fc397983ca3a888d7759c6e8c60fe
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #987486 [src:intake] intake FTBFS on 32bit: test failure
Added tag(s) pending.
--
987486: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=987486
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tags -1 patch
Hi,
this was fixed upstream in:
https://opendev.org/openstack/nose-html-output/commit/71d12999b06908bbb019f69c89361bd44bec316c
Which is basically the only change in version 0.7. I would propose to
upload that and ask for an unblock. @Thomas: can you take care or should
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 patch
Bug #990816 [python3-nosehtmloutput] python3-nosehtmloutput: nosetests3
--with-html fails with RuntimeWarning
Added tag(s) patch.
--
990816: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=990816
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian
Your message dated Thu, 15 Jul 2021 20:33:34 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#990303: fixed in trafficserver 8.1.1+ds-1.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #990303,
regarding trafficserver: Apache Traffic Server is vulnerable to various
HTTP/1.x and HTTP/2 attacks
to be marked as done.
Control: tags 990303 + patch
Hi Jean Baptiste,
I've prepared an NMU for trafficserver (versioned as 8.1.1+ds-1.1). The diff
is attached to this message. Given the timeframe for the full freeze I
went ahead with no delay, as Moritz would like to see as well a
buster-security update. I hope this wa
Processing control commands:
> tags 990303 + patch
Bug #990303 [trafficserver] trafficserver: Apache Traffic Server is vulnerable
to various HTTP/1.x and HTTP/2 attacks
Added tag(s) patch.
--
990303: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=990303
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow.
Package: corekeeper
Version: 1.7
Severity: serious
Justification: does not uninstall
X-Debbugs-Cc: t...@mirbsd.de
Removing corekeeper:x32 (1.7) ...
Usage: /etc/init.d/procps {start|stop|status|restart|try-restart|force-reload}
invoke-rc.d: initscript procps, action "reload" failed.
dpkg: error pro
Is there anything a random outside user (like myself) can do to further
this merge request along? I rely on KRB5 auth for CIFS mounts and
having this still be broken is a bit frustrating. It looks like the
merge request is still open and sitting there. I'm willing to help
however I can.
--
Sam Z
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 991146 dh-python
Bug #991146 [python3-libxml2] python3-libxml2: ambiguous package name
'python3-libxml2' with more than one installed instance
Bug reassigned from package 'python3-libxml2' to 'dh-python'.
No longer marked as found in ver
reassign 991146 dh-python
thanks
Thorsten Glaser dixit:
>Setting up python3-libxml2:amd64 (2.9.10+dfsg-6.7) ...
>dpkg-query: error: --listfiles needs a valid package name but
>'python3-libxml2' is not: ambiguous package name 'python3-libxml2' with more
>than one installed instance
>
>Use --help
Package: python3-libxml2
Version: 2.9.10+dfsg-6.7
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to install
X-Debbugs-Cc: t...@mirbsd.de
During crossgrading or when installing multiple versions of python3-libxml2
they fail to configure because of a bug in the postinst script:
Setting up python3-libxml2:a
Your message dated Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:20:48 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#991078: fixed in libaperture-0 0.1.0+git20200908-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #991078,
regarding gir1.2-aperture-0 has empty Depends
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has b
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> user debian...@lists.debian.org
Setting user to debian...@lists.debian.org (was a...@debian.org).
> usertags 990671 piuparts
There were no usertags set.
Usertags are now: piuparts.
> affects 990671 + libjdom2-java-doc
Bug #990671 [src:libjdom2-jav
Your message dated Thu, 15 Jul 2021 10:48:27 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#987816: fixed in dask.distributed 2021.01.0+ds.1-2.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #987816,
regarding dask.distributed: FTBFS due to a build-time test failure
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
On 15 Jul 2021 at 8:40, Marc Haber wrote:
> This has nothing to do with exim. If you intended to file a new
> bug for the backintime package, please use the reportbug tool.
Yes.
It was a typo.
I immediately sent notice to ow...@bugs.debian.org.
---
Good afternoon:
Please delete/disregard the la
29 matches
Mail list logo
