in testing.
More information about this bug and the reason for filing it can be
found on
https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/RegressionEmailInformation
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/07/msg2.html
https://ci.debian.net/packages/o/opensaml/testing/amd6
m our infrastructure.
Paul
amd64 failure log:
https://ci.debian.net/packages/d/dulwich/testing/amd64/60285564/
127s ==
127s ERROR: test_fetch_pack_depth
(tests.compat.test_client.DulwichTCPClientTest.test_fetch_pack_depth)
packages. Can you please investigate the situation and
reassign the bug to the right package?
More information about this bug and the reason for filing it can be found on
https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/RegressionEmailInformation
Paul
[1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package
against both packages. Can you please investigate the situation and
reassign the bug to the right package?
More information about this bug and the reason for filing it can be found on
https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/RegressionEmailInformation
Paul
[1] https://qa.debian.org
against both packages. Can you please investigate the situation and
reassign the bug to the right package?
More information about this bug and the reason for filing it can be found on
https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/RegressionEmailInformation
Paul
[1] https://qa.debian.org
package is not listed in debian/control it bypassed any
sanity checks.
Can you elaborate? This sounds like a bug in dak as I would expect it to
reject uploads with binaries that are not listed in debian/control.
Is debian/control maybe generated during the build? That is not allowed [1].
Paul
[1
particularly if they are conditional on the hardware.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
rds to the content or the
process, please reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=python-djvulibre
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for python-djvulibre (0.9.0-7 to 0.9.1-1): BLOCKED:
rds to the content or the
process, please reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=python-xiaomi-ble
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for python-xiaomi-ble (0.30.2-3 to 0.36.0-1): BLOCKED:
Dear s390x porters,
This bug has your user tag already, but it wasn't X-Debbugs-CC to you,
you might want to help out. (Start of report below, full report from
https://bugs.debian.org/1103588)
Paul
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 13:40:01 +0200 Chris Hofstaedtler
wrote:
Source: python-xiaom
ss, please reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=python-xarray
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for python-xarray (2025.01.2-1 to 2025.03.1-2):
BLOCKED: Rejected/violates migrat
Hi,
On 24-04-2025 15:35, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 24/04/25 at 14:38 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
Hi,
On 24-04-2025 13:56, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
ruby-shoulda-context was updated and no longer build-depends on
ruby-pry-byebug. So ruby-pry-byebug could be removed (once
ruby-shoulda-context
ocking the migration to testing [1]. Can
you please investigate the situation and fix it?
More information about this bug and the reason for filing it can be found on
https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/RegressionEmailInformation
Paul
[1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=ruby-shoul
Hi,
On 24-04-2025 13:56, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
ruby-shoulda-context was updated and no longer build-depends on
ruby-pry-byebug. So ruby-pry-byebug could be removed (once
ruby-shoulda-context migrates).
ruby-shoulda-context fails its own autopkgtest everywhere.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
8
You can see how that works out in practice:
https://qa.debian.org/dose/debcheck/testing_main
Paul
PS: does everybody know that bug submitters and people that reply don't
automatically get replies to the bug. (Just in case somebody expected me
to see the follow-up).
OpenPGP_signature.
cases (added to CC:).
See https://bugs.debian.org/1103162
This failure mode occasionally happens during regular transitions too
and we don't have an automated way to deal with it (because there's not
a general good solution).
I'll manually run the (hopefully) ri
he progress here? Maybe it's best to revert src:pry to the
version we have in testing? It seems that it was updated too late in the
trixie release cycle.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi,
On 24-04-2025 10:32, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
My perference was to leave 4.3.0. in unstable, but given the valgrind
issue, it looks like an upload 4.3.0_really4.2.1 is needed. Anyone think
differently?
I agree that a 4.3.0_really4.2.1 looks best at this moment.
Paul
in d/control?
You don't need to restrict the archs in d/control, as long as kitty
continues to ftbfs on s390x.
Fully agree. See also [1].
Or do you think I should just go ahead w disabling tests for this arch
for now?
Not Paul or RT, but I think it makes sense to keep the tests fai
your package is unable to migrate to testing due to
issues beyond your control, don't hesitate to contact the Release Team.
This bug report has been automatically generated and has only been sent
manually. If you have any comments with regards to the content or the
process, please reach out to
ss, please reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=python-mastodon
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for python-mastodon (2.0.0-2 to 2.0.1-1): BLOCKED:
Rejected/violates migration policy/in
equin
didn't block them. It's only the unstable version of those packages that
depend on harlequin.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
don't make it to testing until
apache arrow is in Debian).
I'll add a removal hint already.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
this bug by those bugs such that you (and bystanders like me)
can keep track of progress.
Documenting your findings so far might also be nice, e.g. some
autopkgtest failures seem flaky (have bugs been filed?), but not all.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
the soft freeze, it's better to fix things
sooner rather than later.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi Daniel,
On 21-04-2025 10:09, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 10:22:02 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote:
> Do you mean it depends on it, but it doesn't Depends on it?
yes - harlequin depends on the python parts of apache arrow which is not
packaged for Debian yet.
I didn
ample...
I suggest asking debian-ment...@lists.debian.org for help then.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
e release?
Nothing, wait for the bug to be fixed. Or do you think there's something
else we could do? You wouldn't want me to change code in grub.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2023/01/msg00346.html
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
in testing. So the right package from src:orthanc should have
a *versioned* Depends on the right package from src:dcmtk.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ease reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=orthanc-wsi
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for orthanc-wsi (3.0+dfsg-1 to 3.2+dfsg-1): BLOCKED:
Rejected/violates migration policy/in
out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=rsplib
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for rsplib (3.4.4-1.1 to 3.5.1-1.1): BLOCKED:
Rejected/violates migration policy/introduces a regression
Issues
Hi Martin-Eric,
On 18-04-2025 18:10, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
I would really hope the release team to step in on this one.
And what do you expect from the Release Team?
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
7;).
For those looking at the BTS for RC bugs, let's make the title a bit
clearer.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
f has unsatisfiable dependency
Which should mean that the version of sch-rnd-core in testing is
installable on those architectures while the version in unstable
wouldn't be installable.
On armel, the package depends on librnd4 but that doesn't exist.
Paul
[1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?
you can see from my response, I'm
inclined to do that.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi,
On 17-04-2025 12:49, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
On 4/17/25 12:16 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
To avoid having to do this on the package side, I (ci.d.n maintainer
hat on) could add your package to the ci.d.n reject_list
That doesn't sound like a good idea because then two people need
/RegressionEmailInformation
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/07/msg2.html
https://ci.debian.net/packages/p/pymatgen/testing/arm64/59950546/
2398s autopkgtest [12:46:34]: test test-pymatgen-net:
[---
2398s running network tests with NET_TEST_LIST
rrently can only
switch needs-internet per architecture and I consider that a too big
hammer for arm64 (release team member hat on).
Paul
[1] https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/debci/-/issues/166
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ly. If you have any comments with regards to the content or the
process, please reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=kitty
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for kitty (0.39.1-1 t
e
process, please reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=git
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for git (1:2.47.2-0.1 to 1:2.49.0-1): BLOCKED:
Rejected/violates migration policy/in
user debian-s...@lists.debian.org
usertag 1102106 s390x
thanks
Dear s390x porters,
Can you please have a look at bug 1102106? (Copied in full below for
your convenience)
Paul
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 07:20:13 +0200 Matthias Klose wrote:
Package: src:git
Version: 1:2.49.0-1
Severity: serious
ach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=libfabric
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for libfabric (1.17.0-3.1 to 2.1.0-1): BLOCKED:
Rejected/violates migration policy/introduces a regressi
your package is unable to migrate to testing due to
issues beyond your control, don't hesitate to contact the Release Team.
This bug report has been automatically generated and has only been sent
manually. If you have any comments with regards to the content or the
process, please reach out to
out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=sch-rnd
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for sch-rnd (1.0.7-1 to 1.0.8-2): BLOCKED:
Rejected/violates migration policy/introduces a regression
Issues
;s browserify that fails, but as I don't know
the ecosystem well, it could be something below that. Reassigning for
further inspection.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
packages
relationships (maybe we should generalize something like Depends:
unsupported-architecture [i386]).
Or Build-Depends? For if the package works, but the build doesn't.
So, unless you ask me to stop doing so, I will continue to file such
bugs; I will file them as severity
failing without changes to the list of installed packages,
are causing people unrelated to your package to spend time on these
tests.
Don't hesitate to reach out if you need help and some more information
from our infrastructure.
Paul
https://ci.debian.net/packages/o/ogdi-dfsg/t
Control: tag 1084069 sid trixie-ignore
Hi
I have marked bug 1084089 as trixie-ignore [1], so this bug can be
ignored for trixie too. If it can be done within the freeze policy
constraints, fixing this is still on the table and doesn't need to wait.
Paul
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cg
failed, waiting for other jobs to finish...
AIUI, there isn't anything that a source package that only builds
arch:all binaries can do about this. I'm very sure this is related to
bug #1095862.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
tice to satisfy the Recommends as
most people don't have that enabled. In my view this bug is about the
question if not having the debug symbols readily available (installed)
with valgrind is an RC problem. I would expect not, otherwise it feels
like it should be a Depends. I read that Michael
rated.
(I believe the RC policy includes unavailable packages in
Recommends: ...)
But that's the other RC bug against valgrind. I was explicitly
interested if the lack of *a* debug symbols package in Recommends is to
be considered RC in itself.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Descriptio
soon?
I think the ship to update the rocm stack for trixie has sailed. As
llvm-toolchain-17 remains a key package because of several rocm
packages, I have marked the llvm-toolchain-17 "don't ship in stable" as
trixie-ignore. That means it also applies here.
Paul
OpenPGP_signa
() to emit a
warning on stderr, thereby causing your autopkgtest to fail. The
tests should be unaffected otherwise.
I have uploaded an NMU to DELAYED/5 with dgit adding the allow-stderr
restriction to the autopkgtest, to work around the regression. The NMU
changes are attached.
Paul
From
Hi,
On 11-04-2025 15:19, Jeremy Bícha wrote:
We have now uploaded bustle to Unstable. I didn't notice that bustle
wasn't in Testing so I did another upload today. Please consider
hinting bustle in faster since I'm not sure whether there are 5 days
left before the Soft Freeze.
Note that bustle i
debian-installer/-/blob/master/debian/control?ref_type=heads#L155
and
https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/blob/master/build/config/x86.cfg?ref_type=heads#L124
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi,
On 12-04-2025 12:54, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Paul Gevers (2025-04-12):
Do you speak on behalf of all maintainers here? Do you want me to find
out what needs to be done to remove win32-loader from trixie?
I'm not aware of anyone wanting to keep win32-loader around, so yeah,
looking
Hi,
On 27-03-2025 19:57, Holger Wansing wrote:
Am 27. März 2025 15:25:09 MEZ schrieb Paul Gevers :
I've seen multiple times that win32-loader was mentioned during a stable point release
IRC discussion and I am under the impression that "we" want to remove it at
some point. I
dency not in testing.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ease reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=harlequin-odbc
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for harlequin-odbc (0.3.0-1 to 0.3.1-1): BLOCKED:
Cannot migrate due to another item, which
ease reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=sundials
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for sundials (7.1.1+dfsg1-8 to 7.1.1+dfsg1-10):
BLOCKED: Cannot migrate due to another item, which
out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=petsc4py
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for petsc4py (3.22.3-1 to 3.22.4-1): BLOCKED: Cannot
migrate due to another item, which is blocked (please c
e
process, please reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=harlequin-postgres
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for harlequin-postgres (1.2.0-1 to 1.2.0-2): BLOCKED:
Cannot migrate due to an
nually. If you have any comments with regards to the content or the
process, please reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=frr
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for frr (10.2.1-6 to 10.3-1
reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=petsc
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for petsc (3.22.3+dfsg1-1 to 3.22.5+dfsg1-1): BLOCKED:
Rejected/violates migration policy/introduces a
Hello Adrian,
On Fri, 2025-04-11 at 02:09 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Control: tags -1 patch
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 02:48:21PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Fri, 2024-11-29 at 14:28 +0100, Michael Prokop wrote:
> > > I
Hi,
On 10-04-2025 10:46, Paul Gevers wrote:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 20:14:34 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru
Do you want me to bump them?
Hmm, we should have done that at least 3 months ago. I consider it a bit
too late now as there are both key and non-key package involved.
This reply had been
reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=lsp-plugins
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for lsp-plugins (1.2.16-1 to 1.2.21-1): BLOCKED:
Rejected/violates migration policy/introduces a
reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=r-cran-fansi
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for r-cran-fansi (1.0.5-1 to 1.0.6-1): BLOCKED:
Rejected/violates migration policy/introduces a
ss, please reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=r-cran-units
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for r-cran-units (0.8-5+dfsg-1 to 0.8-7+dfsg-1):
BLOCKED: Rejected/violates migrat
f you have any comments with regards to the content or the
process, please reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2]
https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=golang-github-apptainer-container-library-client
Current text from [2]:
Migrat
e
process, please reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=r-cran-broom.helpers
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for r-cran-broom.helpers (1.14.0-3 to 1.20.0-1):
BLOCKED: Cannot migr
ease reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=gitlabracadabra
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for gitlabracadabra (2.5.1 to 2.7.0): BLOCKED:
Rejected/violates migration policy/introduces a
ent or the
process, please reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=fonts-jetbrains-mono
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for fonts-jetbrains-mono (2.304+ds-4 to 2.304+ds-5):
Waiting for anoth
4
I'm aware of this bug. But despite it's popular support, no one in the riscv64
community seems to be interested in actually adding kexec support there.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' Physicist
`-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
e
process, please reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=r-cran-survminer
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for r-cran-survminer (0.4.9+dfsg-1 to 0.5.0+dfsg-1):
BLOCKED: Rejected/violates
the Debian infrastructure
doesn't allow arch:all packages to be properly binNMU'ed. Hence, I will
shortly do a no-changes source-only upload to DELAYED/5, closing this
bug. Please let me know if I should delay or cancel that upload.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023
bit exaggerated. Hope to hear your opinion.
Without an exception for the freeze policy, fixing this bug by
reintroducing the valgrind-dbg package is going to be extremely tight,
given that it has to pass NEW and that the window for new binary
packages closes on 2025-04-15.
Paul
OpenPG
Hi,
On 10-04-2025 16:19, Paul Gevers wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:46:10 +0100 Paul Gevers wrote:
Your package has an autopkgtest, great. However, it fails in testing,
because on of the test dependencies is no longer available. The
maintainer of bustle wants to remove the package, see bug
Control: tags -1 patch pending
Hi,
On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:46:10 +0100 Paul Gevers wrote:
Your package has an autopkgtest, great. However, it fails in testing,
because on of the test dependencies is no longer available. The
maintainer of bustle wants to remove the package, see bug #1084512
43.
Maybe this bug should be closed?
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Control: found -1 4:6.3.4-2
Hi,
On 15-03-2025 08:53, Paul Gevers wrote:
PS on IRC coucouf already pointed out https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?
id=501073 which may or may not be related.
I have subscribed to that bug a while ago, and lots of people confirmed
that restarting plasma
e soft freeze is around the corner, it would
leave very little time for those packages to adapt while it doesn't
solve our issue with llvm-toolchain-17 (unless all the related key
package(s) are fixed).
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Control: found -1 endless-sky/0.10.10-1
Control: reopen -1
As much as I'd like to see a new release of endless-sky get into Debian
stable, the debian/copyright file in the 0.10.10-1 version of the
package remains incomplete. The debian/copyright file needs to be
modified by reconciling its content
Hi,
On Tue, 08 Apr 2025 10:34:43 +0200 =?utf-8?q?Timo_R=C3=B6hling?=
wrote:
the autopkgtest on riscv64 sometimes segfaults [1]. Currently, this
prevents cmake from migrating to testing.
Please also check bugs #1008802 and #1017710. They might be duplicates,
so it's not only riscv64.
ach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=cl-asdf
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for cl-asdf (2:3.3.7.2-1 to 2:3.3.7.3-1): BLOCKED:
Rejected/violates migration policy/introduces a regressi
the Debian infrastructure
doesn't allow arch:all packages to be properly binNMU'ed. Hence, I will
shortly do a no-changes source-only upload to DELAYED/5, closing this
bug. Please let me know if I should delay or cancel that upload.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023
astructure
doesn't allow arch:all packages to be properly binNMU'ed. Hence, I will
shortly do a no-changes source-only upload to DELAYED/5, closing this
bug. Please let me know if I should delay or cancel that upload.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg
Hi h01ger,
On 29-01-2025 19:19, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 10:38:54AM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
I did that for both the armel and armhf architectures (see the
arm32-defaults.diff patch), but this is unchecked for any other release
architectures, and obviously wrong for some
packages
depend on it anymore.
php-doctrine-cache is a key package, so, php-cache-tag-interop is too.
Paul
elbrus@respighi:~$ dak rm -nR -s testing php-cache-tag-interop
Will remove the following packages from testing:
php-cache-tag-interop |1.1.0-3 | source, all
Maintainer: Debian PHP PEAR
m our infrastructure.
Paul
[1]
https://ci.debian.net/user/britney/jobs?package=matomo&trigger=migration-reference%2F0&suite%5B%5D=testing&arch%5B%5D=amd64&arch%5B%5D=arm64&arch%5B%5D=armhf&arch%5B%5D=i386&arch%5B%5D=ppc64el
https://ci.debian.net/packages/m/matomo/testing/
ss, please reach out to me.
Paul
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2023/06/msg1.html
[2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=r-cran-argparser
Current text from [2]:
Migration status for r-cran-argparser (0.7.1-1 to 0.7.2-1): BLOCKED:
Rejected/violates migration policy/in
Hi,
On 06-04-2025 08:28, Paul Gevers wrote:
With my Release Team hat on: I might be dropping
wine from the key package list manually after checking the situation.
Hmm, that's a bit harsh.
Currently there are two RC bugs against wine in testing. The first one
(#1100695) could be "
ease Team hat on: I might be dropping
wine from the key package list manually after checking the situation.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/RegressionEmailInformation
Paul
[1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=ruby-vips
https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/armel/r/ruby-vips/59602888/log.gz
109s 109s
┌──┐
109s
packages. Can you please investigate the situation and
reassign the bug to the right package?
More information about this bug and the reason for filing it can be found on
https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/RegressionEmailInformation
Paul
[1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package
passed on amd64 on ci.d.n
2025-02-15 was the first time ruby-vips FTBFS on amd64 on r-b
I aligned that with the build history of vips [2], but that didn't match:
2024-12-28: 8.16.0-2+b1
2025-03-15: 8.16.1-1
So I suspect something lower in the stack is broken, but only on amd64.
Paul
PS
https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/RegressionEmailInformation
Paul
[1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=sqlalchemy
https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/amd64/f/flask-sqlalchemy/59452516/log.gz
=== FAI
on anymore (except now
closing this bug). Do you care to elaborate?
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
e *gzf;
> + gzFile **gzf;
>dsk_data_t *data;
>
>f = NULL;
this has been fixed upstream and an updated Debian package is already
in the works. I have already fixed virtualjaguar, so kcemu is next.
I will also take the opportunity to clean up the package and move
if I'm right), but I never had the tuits to start on it.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
1 - 100 of 1822 matches
Mail list logo
