Processing control commands:
> severity -1 serious
Bug #1074181 [src:christianriesen-base32] christianriesen-base32: FTBFS with
pkg-php-tools_1.45+nmu1: PHP Warning:
require_once(/usr/share/php/ChristianRiesen/Base32/autoload.php): Failed to
open stream: No such file or directory in /<>/vendor
Quoting Reinhard Tartler (2024-07-20 08:10:13)
> with the patch above, autopkgtest now passes for me. Find the buildlog
> attached.
>
> If it helps you, I could upload as an NMU maybe later today or tomorrow.
> Either by disabling the tests or applying the patch above. Let me know your
> preferenc
Processing control commands:
> severity -1 serious
Bug #1073564 [src:eluceo-ical] eluceo-ical: FTBFS with pkg-php-tools_1.45+nmu1:
PHP Warning: require_once(/usr/share/php/Eluceo/iCal/autoload.php): Failed to
open stream: No such file or directory in /<>/vendor/autoload.php
on line 4
Severity s
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 1076373 podman-docker
Bug #1076373 [docker-cli,podman-docker] docker-cli and podman-docker have an
undeclared file conflict on /usr/bin/docker
Bug reassigned from package 'docker-cli,podman-docker' to 'podman-docker'.
Ignoring request to
reassign 1076373 podman-docker
affects 1076373 + docker-cli
thanks
"docker-cli" is definitely the appropriate package to "own"
/usr/bin/docker -- it looks like the Conflicts: in podman-docker need
to be updated to include "docker-cli" (and the "docker.io" conflict
could specify an upper bound of v
Hi Jonas,
> I'm currently traveling and cannot focus on this issue as much as I
> would like to at the moment. I also don't see any issue in the actual
> upstream code; rather the issue is with the tests. As such, I honestly
> beleive that for the time being, disabling those tests doesn't loose
>
For anyone planning to address this issue:
https://github.com/mgalgs/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet is the
currently actively maintained fork of the unmaintained
https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet.
The following commit message from the fork should clarify things
Your message dated Sat, 20 Jul 2024 03:04:07 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1043102: fixed in flatbuffers 23.5.26+dfsg-1.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1043102,
regarding libflatbuffers-dev: Try to overwrite flatbuffers.pc already in
package libflatbuffers2
to be marked as done.
Your message dated Fri, 19 Jul 2024 22:35:11 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1076201: fixed in docker-compose 1.29.2-6.2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1076201,
regarding docker-compose: update to 1.29.2-6.1 makes the packages unusuable
to be marked as done.
This means that you clai
Your message dated Fri, 19 Jul 2024 22:08:54 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1074522: fixed in onionshare 2.6.2-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1074522,
regarding onionshare: autopkgtest failure with Python 3.12
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has b
Hi,
On 2024-07-18 01:15, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno writes:
>
> > I have just uploaded a NMU to delayed/2 using the above strategy. Please
> > feel free to ask me to delay or cancel it. You will find the
> > corresponding debdiff attached.
>
> I've looked over the patch, it LGTM.
Your message dated Fri, 19 Jul 2024 19:06:59 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1074638: fixed in python-makefun 1.15.4-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1074638,
regarding python-makefun: FTBFS: tests failed
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been deal
Source: r-cran-metamix
Version: 0.3-2
Severity: serious
Dear Maintainers,
Your package r-cran-metamix is showing an autopkg regression with the updated
rmpi (aka r-cran-rmpi) package I maintain, and is blocking it. Upstream at
CRAN 32 bit operating systems are no longer checked (and one go furt
Hi
On 19-07-2024 10:04 a.m., Craig Small wrote:
Ideally, I'd like to push a pre-release into the Debian CI and see if
it works now. I'm not sure
there is a way of doing that.
You can upload to experimental. The upload will be tested on amd64 and
arm64 automatically (in unstable, like normal
Your message dated Fri, 19 Jul 2024 17:49:10 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1066743: fixed in backblaze-b2 3.19.1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1066743,
regarding backblaze-b2: FTBFS: dh_auto_test: error: pybuild --test --test-nose
-i python{version} -p "3.12 3.11" returned exit
On Fri, 2024-07-19 at 16:13 +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> [ adding debian-release to the list for some troubling observations ]
>
> On Friday, 19 July 2024 15:54:57 CEST Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
[...]
> > Note that
> > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/apcs01.en.html
> > does not re
Package: libcamljava-ocaml-dev
Version: 0.3-3
Severity: serious
Package: libcamljava-ocaml-dev
Version: 0.3-2+b1
Provides: libcamljava-ocaml-dev-o0rt3
Depends: ocaml-nox-4.05.0, default-jdk
These are now gone (except for the default-jdk).
Source: slepc
Followup-For: Bug #1076130
Control: block 1076130 by 1076579
As far as I can tell this test failure simply got caught in the mpi
transition (mpich on 32-bit).
Nothing seems to be blocking mpi migration to testing apart from ucx
being removed from ppc64el (see Bug#1076579).
I thin
Processing control commands:
> block 1076130 by 1076579
Bug #1076130 [src:slepc] slepc's autopkg tests fail on armhf and i386,
triggered by gcc-13
1076130 was not blocked by any bugs.
1076130 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 1076130: 1076579
--
1076130: https://bugs.debian.or
Your message dated Fri, 19 Jul 2024 16:49:17 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1076509: fixed in libavif 1.1.0-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #1076509,
regarding libavif: missing deps?
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is no
Your message dated Fri, 19 Jul 2024 16:35:56 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1061842: fixed in sdkmanager 0.6.8-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1061842,
regarding sdkmanager fails its autopkg tests with Python 3.12
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem ha
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1061842 in sdkmanager 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/python-team/packages/sdkmanager/-/commit/c193e579f7cf7
Package: libquadmath0
Version: 14-20240330-1
Severity: serious
Tags: upstream fixed-upstream
Control: affects -1 evolver libc6
Control: fixed -1 libquadmath0/14-20240429-1
Control: block 1075938 by -1
Hi,
evolver autopkgtest fails with glibc 2.39:
https://ci.debian.net/packages/e/evolver/testing
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #1061842 {Done: Hans-Christoph Steiner } [src:sdkmanager]
sdkmanager fails its autopkg tests with Python 3.12
Added tag(s) pending.
--
1061842: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1061842
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bu
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 evolver libc6
Bug #1076612 [libquadmath0] libquadmath0: wrongly assumes that the storage for
__float128 arguments is aligned
Added indication that 1076612 affects evolver and libc6
> fixed -1 libquadmath0/14-20240429-1
Bug #1076612 [libquadmath0] libquadm
On 2024-07-19 16:43:47 +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> [ not including debian-release for this ]
>
> On Friday, 19 July 2024 15:54:57 CEST Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2024-07-19 14:32:28 +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > > On Friday, 19 July 2024 13:08:50 CEST Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > Wh
Control: affects -1 firmware-nvidia-graphics
On Friday, 19 July 2024 17:56:30 CEST Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> Control: retitle -1 initramfs-tools: duplicates nvidia firmware files
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 04:43:47PM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > > In any case, the upgrade should work for
Processing control commands:
> affects -1 firmware-nvidia-graphics
Bug #1076582 [initramfs-tools-core] initramfs-tools: duplicates nvidia firmware
files
Added indication that 1076582 affects firmware-nvidia-graphics
--
1076582: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076582
Debian Bu
I see the problem now: looseversion is defined in setup.py, but somehow
debhelper didn't figure that out. Perhaps it is because of the more complicated
declaration:
install_requires=[
"argcomplete",
"requests > 2.12.2, != 2.18.0",
"urllib3<2",
'loosevers
Processing control commands:
> retitle -1 initramfs-tools: duplicates nvidia firmware files
Bug #1076582 [initramfs-tools-core] initramfs-tools-core: mkinitramfs failure
zstd -q -9 -T0 70 (No space left on device)
Changed Bug title to 'initramfs-tools: duplicates nvidia firmware files' from
'ini
Control: retitle -1 initramfs-tools: duplicates nvidia firmware files
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 04:43:47PM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > In any case, the upgrade should work for any user, including when
> > all these packages are needed.
>
> The real problem seems to be the size of /boot/ ...
[ not including debian-release for this ]
On Friday, 19 July 2024 15:54:57 CEST Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2024-07-19 14:32:28 +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > On Friday, 19 July 2024 13:08:50 CEST Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > When upgrading the firmware:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > Setting up fir
[ adding debian-release to the list for some troubling observations ]
On Friday, 19 July 2024 15:54:57 CEST Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2024-07-19 14:32:28 +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > On Friday, 19 July 2024 13:08:50 CEST Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > When upgrading the firmware:
> > >
> >
On 2024-07-19 14:32:28 +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> On Friday, 19 July 2024 13:08:50 CEST Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > When upgrading the firmware:
> >
> > [...]
> > Setting up firmware-intel-graphics (20240610-1) ...
> > Setting up firmware-iwlwifi (20240610-1) ...
> > Setting up firmware-misc-
Your message dated Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:34:20 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1038631: fixed in cinnamon-control-center 6.2.0-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1038631,
regarding cinnamon-control-center: depends on obsolete policykit-1-gnome
to be marked as done.
This means that you c
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 moreinfo
Bug #1076582 [initramfs-tools-core] initramfs-tools-core: mkinitramfs failure
zstd -q -9 -T0 70 (No space left on device)
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
1076582: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076582
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contac
Control: tag -1 moreinfo
On Friday, 19 July 2024 13:08:50 CEST Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> When upgrading the firmware:
>
> [...]
> Setting up firmware-intel-graphics (20240610-1) ...
> Setting up firmware-iwlwifi (20240610-1) ...
> Setting up firmware-misc-nonfree (20240610-1) ...
> Setting up firm
Package: python3-azure
Version: 20240709+git-1
Severity: serious
X-Debbugs-Cc: wa...@debian.org
Several parts of az fail with:
| File
"/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/azure/core/pipeline/policies/_redirect.py",
line 197, in send
| response = self.next.send(request)
|^^^
On 2024-07-19 13:08:50 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-6.9.9-amd64
> zstd: error 70 : Write error : cannot write block : No space left on device
> E: mkinitramfs failure zstd -q -9 -T0 70
> update-initramfs: failed for /boot/initrd.img-6.9.9-amd64 with
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1038631 in cinnamon-control-center 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/cinnamon-team/cinnamon-control-center/-/c
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #1038631 [cinnamon-control-center] cinnamon-control-center: depends on
obsolete policykit-1-gnome
Added tag(s) pending.
--
1038631: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1038631
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.or
Package: initramfs-tools-core
Version: 0.142
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
When upgrading the firmware:
[...]
Setting up firmware-intel-graphics (20240610-1) ...
Setting up firmware-iwlwifi (20240610-1) ...
Setting up firmware-misc-nonfree (20240610-1) ...
Setting up fir
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 1070446 by 1076578
Bug #1070446 [src:rocm-hipamd] rocm-hipamd: arm64 FTBFS with glibc 2.38
1070446 was not blocked by any bugs.
1070446 was blocking: 1070668
Added blocking bug(s) of 1070446: 1076578
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Pleas
Hi,
On 2024-07-18 11:45, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> With glibc 2.39, the revert is not possible anymore, therefore I
> rocm-hipamd FTBFS again. I have therefore upgraded the severity to
> serious.
>
> Emanuele Rocca is working on a solution on the upstream LLVM side. In
> the meantime we might have
> This is something somewhat similar to https://bugs.debian.org/922075#20
Jérémy, thank you for the link!
I'll try to read that thread later. It will take some time.
And now just for info I want to share detailed backtrace with pointers
to sources at all frames of backtrace (not only in nodejs bu
Your message dated Fri, 19 Jul 2024 09:17:40 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1071293: fixed in ddcci-driver-linux 0.4.4-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1071293,
regarding linux-image-6.8.9-amd64: Fails to build some module(s) during install
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Your message dated Fri, 19 Jul 2024 09:17:40 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1071293: fixed in ddcci-driver-linux 0.4.4-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1071293,
regarding ddcci-dkms: Fails to build on linux-image-6.8.9-amd64
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 11:17:06 +0500, Ar Worf wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2024 23:08:30 +0200 Stephen Kitt wrote:
>
> > They’ve committed changes that allow the module to build, but it doesn’t
> work
> > — see the discussion in
> >
> https://gitlab.com/ddcci-driver-linux/ddcci-driver-linux/-/merg
On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 at 05:13:31 +0100, Sid T wrote:
> Note. The gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor (which is from [1]https://
> github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/issues/767) is kind
> of abandoned.
>
> The original author (paradoxxxzero) was not responding much for a lon
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 at 05:57, Paul Gevers wrote:
> I looked at the results of the autopkgtest of your package, because it
> showed up in the glibc regressions. I noticed that it regularly fails on
> amd64, ppc64el and s390x. For your info, as it seems to correlate, those
> are the architectures whe
50 matches
Mail list logo
