On 2013-07-08 01:34, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 01:10:51AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>
>> Andreas Tille
>>camitk (U)
>
> A fixed version is since two days in
>http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
>
>
> Thanks for your QA effort
>
> Andreas.
>
Tha
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 01:10:51AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> Andreas Tille
>camitk (U)
A fixed version is since two days in
http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
Thanks for your QA effort
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ
I have just activated 77 removal hints - attached is a dd-list of the
packages with a removal hint now. The list was filtered by rechecking
the severity and whether the bug still affected sid by using UDD (with a
hanful of them was manually checked as well).
Should your package still be listed de
Humble suggestion:
Sort the bug list (sort -k2 would be great) to make it easier to read
through the list and to find packages which might interest one.
It is a very useful report; a sort by package name would make it better.
-JimC
--
James Cloos OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
--
To UNSUBS
On 01/07/13 at 15:00 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Lucas Nussbaum (2013-07-01 08:21:30)
> > Currently, the following criterias are used:
> > | Key packages are:
> > | - packages whose popcon is higher than 5% of the max popcon (that's
> > | >7570 insts currently)
> > | OR
> >
Hi,
Quoting Lucas Nussbaum (2013-07-01 08:21:30)
> Currently, the following criterias are used:
> | Key packages are:
> | - packages whose popcon is higher than 5% of the max popcon (that's
> | >7570 insts currently)
> | OR
> | - packages of priority >= standard
> | OR
> | - packages of section
There is a fix for rrep but it is waiting for sponsorship (#702588).
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/C
On 2013-07-01 08:21, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks a lot for this work.
>
> On 30/06/13 at 23:32 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
>> they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
>> found in the attache
On 2013-07-01 09:05, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> #678383 [pixelmed]: pixelmed: FTBFS with Java7 (uses internal Java API)
>
> Would it be possible to filter out (in the future?) any bugs that are
> marked as pending ? I have no control on th
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> #678383 [pixelmed]: pixelmed: FTBFS with Java7 (uses internal Java API)
Would it be possible to filter out (in the future?) any bugs that are
marked as pending ? I have no control on this process.
Thanks,
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deb
Hi,
Thanks a lot for this work.
On 30/06/13 at 23:32 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
> they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
> found in the attached dd-list.
>
> The packages have been selected based on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list.
The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
- The package ha
On 05-06-13 18:30, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
>> I also like it, somewhat, but am also aware of this approach rendering
>> unstable more stable than testing. I would prefer another kind of punishment
>> for neglect / some difficulty than the mere removal.
>
> In what way exactly would this effort e
Le Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:15:14PM +0200, "Steffen Möller" a écrit :
>
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:37:54AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > Le Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
Hi,
On 04-06-13 14:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
> [1] We normally filter out certain type of RC bugs (incl. but not
> limited to license issues), where we consider it unreasonable to demand
> a resolution within the usual deadline (i.e. 14 days of "non-activity" +
> 7 days after a d-d notice).
> # #7
> Hi,
>
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:37:54AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > Le Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
> > > > found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
> >
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013, "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" wrote:
> On 04/06/2013 14:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
> > found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
> >
> > The packages have been selected based on the
Hi,
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:37:54AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit :
> > >
> > > Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
> > > found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
> > >
> > > The p
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:37:54AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit :
> >
> > Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
> > found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
> >
> > The packages have
On Ma, 04 iun 13, 14:06:26, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> [1] We normally filter out certain type of RC bugs (incl. but not
> limited to license issues), where we consider it unreasonable to demand
> a resolution within the usual deadline (i.e. 14 days of "non-activity" +
> 7 days after a d-d notice).
Le Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit :
>
> Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
> found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
>
> The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
> * The package had at least one
On Dienstag, 4. Juni 2013, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Thanks a lot for this initiative! I hope this leads to a shorter freeze
> this cycle.
+1 - keep the removals coming ;-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On 04/06/2013 14:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
> found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
>
> The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
> * The package had at least one RC bug without ac
Seems I confused xgalaga with xgalaga++, which does use dh.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Paul Wise wrote:
> Control: severity -1 grave
> Control: reassign -1 debhelper 9.20130518
> Control: affects -1 + src:xgalaga++
> Control: tags -1 - jessie
>
> The FTBFS bug against xgalaga++ (#707481) is caused by debhelper, it
> builds fine with debhelper 9.20120909 but not with debhelper
> 9.20
On 04/06/13 14:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
> found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
>
> The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
> * The package had at least one RC bug without acti
Control: severity -1 grave
Control: reassign -1 debhelper 9.20130518
Control: affects -1 + src:xgalaga++
Control: tags -1 - jessie
The FTBFS bug against xgalaga++ (#707481) is caused by debhelper, it
builds fine with debhelper 9.20120909 but not with debhelper
9.20130518. It appears that debhelper
Hi,
Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
* The package had at least one RC bug without activity for the past
14 days.
* If a bug is assigned
On 2013-01-24 15:47, Niels Thykier wrote:
> [...]
> # #697402
> remove bzr-gtk/0.103.0+bzr792-3
>
Reassigned to python and downgraded.
> # #694642
> remove glpi/0.83.31-1
>
Fixed in sid and downgraded.
> # #696816
> remove jenkins/1.447.2+dfsg-2
>
Fixed in sid.
> # #694589
> remove lastfmp
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 18:56 -0500, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > Debian QA Group
> >bzr-gtk
>
> > --8<8<-- removals --8<8<--
> > # #697402
> > remove bzr-gtk/0.103.0+bzr792-3
>
> As jwilk has already mentioned in the bug
Hi there,
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:47:08 +0100 (CET)
ni...@thykier.net (Niels Thykier) wrote:
> # #696816
> remove jenkins/1.447.2+dfsg-2
Just for the information of anybody reading this thread, I have just
submitted a fix for this bug. It was a trivial backport; the bug was
already fixed in upstr
n Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> So all in all it is ugly (as in most PHP webapps), but it doesn’t seem
> release-critical to me.
The SWF files do not appear appear to have source code in glpi.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 07:15:43AM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Niels Thykier (ni...@thykier.net):
>
> > Pierre Chifflier
> >glpi
>
> I looked briefly at the RC bug for glpi (#694642). It seems that an
> embedded Flash file provided with the package has a security issue.
>
> I
Le vendredi 25 janvier 2013 à 07:15 +0100, Christian PERRIER a écrit :
> Quoting Niels Thykier (ni...@thykier.net):
>
> > Pierre Chifflier
> >glpi
>
> I looked briefly at the RC bug for glpi (#694642). It seems that an
> embedded Flash file provided with the package has a security issue.
I
Quoting Niels Thykier (ni...@thykier.net):
> Pierre Chifflier
>glpi
I looked briefly at the RC bug for glpi (#694642). It seems that an
embedded Flash file provided with the package has a security issue.
I have no clue at all if this .swf file is of critical use for GLPI
(from the directory
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Debian QA Group
>bzr-gtk
> --8<8<-- removals --8<8<--
> # #697402
> remove bzr-gtk/0.103.0+bzr792-3
As jwilk has already mentioned in the bug report, [1] this should be
assigned elsewhere. Though, it is not exactly clear wher
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 03:47:08PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
> they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them.
[...]
> Wouter Verhelst
>pmw
I had overlooked the fact that "serious" means "release critical",
otherwise I'd hav
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list
can be found in the removals file (also atta
On 2012-11-30 12:55, Niels Thykier wrote:
> [...]
>
While slightly overdue; the results were 0 removals! \o/
>
> --8<-- removals.txt --8<--
> # #668740/#668740
> remove dsc-statistics/201203250530-1
>
Downgraded.
> # #692623
> remove fossil/1:1.22.1-1
>
Fixed in sid and wheezy (via t-p-u)
On 03/12/12 11:19, José Luis Segura Lucas wrote:
> Are all the packages affected by this issue going to be removed
> from testing?
No, unless you prevent them from being fixed by making uploads that
are not suitable for wheezy. (You quoted the full text of the email to
which you replied, so presum
I just see that propose of removal gnome-dvb-daemon just after I made a
RFA to it... Nice! :-D
I agree that the problem of gnome-dvb-daemon its related to #674156 as
Simon stated.
Are all the packages affected by this issue going to be removed from
testing?
In addition, I will package the newer
The "patch" for both of these bugs is to just replace
src/cson_amalgamation.{c,h}
by empty files in a +dfsg recombobulated upstream tarball.
I'll go ahead and do the machinations. Unless someone else does an NMU
first. A 0-day NMU. Which I totally wouldn't mind. Hint Hint.
Good idea. Will add this info to the bug report.
Technically there are two bugs. 692623 is for the CSON "not evil" files
being derived files rather than truly original source, while 692624 is
for the "not evil" license itself. The latter is already tagged
wheezy-ignore, while the former is caus
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Candidates for removal from testing
(2012-11-30)"):
> Good idea. Will add this info to the bug report.
>
> Technically there are two bugs. 692623 is for the CSON "not evil" files
> being derived files rather than truly origin
Thanks for the update!
--
I pledge not to post to any systemd-related thread on -devel until
(at least) 2013.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2012113
On 30.11.2012 13:03, Simon McVittie wrote:
Suggested options include:
A) Consider the new ABI to be "right". Recompile every package that
mentions the affected structs (including everything that
subclasses GstElement), unless it has already been compiled
against GLib 2.32 on every archi
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Candidates for removal from testing
(2012-11-30)"):
> CSON is not used in the Debian build: the relevant source files can be
> replaced by empty files and the fossil package will build fine. (They
> cannot just be removed because make exp
On 30/11/12 11:55, Niels Thykier wrote:
> The packages have been selected based on the following criteria: *
> The package had at least one RC bug without activity for the past
> 14 days.
...
> Debian GNOME Maintainers
> gnome-dvb-daemon
> (U)
I have no particular interest in gnome-dvb-daemon, b
> > # #692623
> > remove fossil/1:1.22.1-1
> This is worrying because fossil is the vcs used by sqlite upstream.
> It looks like fixing this would involve Packaging "cson" too. The
> alternative of dumping cson into the fossil source tree is probably
> not ideal.
> Barak, have you looked at thi
Niels Thykier writes ("Candidates for removal from testing (2012-11-30)"):
> We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
> they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
> found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list
can be found in the removals file (also atta
On 2012-11-14 22:02, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
> they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. [...]
>
ferm, apt-2p2 and mediawiki-math has been fixed in sid and by the looks
of it all of them are already unblocked.
> Should
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:42:54AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
[...]
> Certainly, do you have a rough idea of how long you will need?
Before the end of the month, probably earlier but I will be glad to not
have to work under time pressure.
Regards,
M.
--
Emmanuel Bouthenot
mail: kolter@{ope
On 2012-11-15 00:15, Emmanuel Bouthenot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:02:10PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Should you need a bit more time than given, please do not hesitate to
>> contact us. It is also easier for us if we can avoid having to
>> reintroduce a removed pa
On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 11:20 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> > We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
> > they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
> > found in the attached dd-list.
> ...
> > Al
On 15/11/12 04:20, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list.
...
Alexander Wirt
ferm
Um, DSA
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
> they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
> found in the attached dd-list.
...
> Alexander Wirt
>ferm
Um, DSA might not be happy about that sin
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:02:10PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
[...]
> Should you need a bit more time than given, please do not hesitate to
> contact us. It is also easier for us if we can avoid having to
> reintroduce a removed package.
[...]
> Debian Sympa team
>sympa
>
> Emmanuel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list
can be found in the removals file (also atta
On 2012-10-30 14:32, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [...]
>
> If the relevant RC bugs in the affected packages are not dealt with
> /before/ Wednesday the 7th of Nov.[1], the packages will be removed
> from testing. Note that "dealt with" may also include downgrading a
> severity-inflated bug or
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>> Is this not something best managed on a case-by-case basis?
>
> my experience as potential sponsoree for such a package answers me no
> because
> it is hard to get a sponsor.
If it fixes *only* rc bugs, then send a bug to sponsorship-reques
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:47:53 +0100
Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> On 30/10/12 17:36, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:53:24PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> >> does it make sense to establish a list of candidates for reintroduction to
> >> testing ?
> >
> > Is this not something best man
On 30/10/12 17:36, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:53:24PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
does it make sense to establish a list of candidates for reintroduction to
testing ?
Is this not something best managed on a case-by-case basis?
my experience as potential sponsoree for s
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:53:24PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> does it make sense to establish a list of candidates for reintroduction to
> testing ?
Is this not something best managed on a case-by-case basis?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject o
Hello List,
does it make sense to establish a list of candidates for reintroduction to
testing ?
I have in mind packages that were discarded too quickly because
an easy to fix a RC appeared a some point while it was unofficially orphaned.
Jerome
On 30/10/12 14:32, Niels Thykier wrote:
-B
On 2012-10-28 18:47, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:37:38PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> ax25-apps, fabric, firmware-crystalhd, icewm-themes, ilisp, inguma,
>> lustre, mingw-ocaml, noflushd, openvas-plugins-dfsg, php-crypt-gpg,
>> phpgacl, python-django-piston, smbind, sor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list
can be found in the removals file (also atta
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:37:38PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> ax25-apps, fabric, firmware-crystalhd, icewm-themes, ilisp, inguma,
> lustre, mingw-ocaml, noflushd, openvas-plugins-dfsg, php-crypt-gpg,
> phpgacl, python-django-piston, smbind, sorl-thumbnail, spatialite-gui,
> sugar-chat-activity-0
Great stuff, thanks!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121026160652.GC20294@debian
On 2012-10-18 10:32, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> [...]
>
> If the relevant RC bugs in the affected packages are not dealt with
> /before/ Friday the 26th of Oct., the packages will be removed from
> testing. Note that "dealt with" may also include downgrading a
> severity-inflated bug or f
On 2012-10-19 17:43, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:32:39AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
>> they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
>> found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that pu
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:32:39AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
> they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
> found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list
> can be found in the removal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list
can be found in the removals file (also at
I can get #651620 (rocksndiamonds)
I fixed this some time ago for Slackware.
2012/5/13 Niels Thykier
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi,
>
> We are considering removing the following packages from testing as they
> have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as they
have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be found in
the attached dd-list. The bugs that put them on this list can be found
in the removals.txt file (also
On 01/27/2012 12:54 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2012-01-26 02:45, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Luk Claes wrote:
>>> On 01/25/2012 01:24 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs file
On 2012-01-26 02:45, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Luk Claes wrote:
>> On 01/25/2012 01:24 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>>
>>> We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
>>> they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
>>> found in th
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Luk Claes wrote:
> On 01/25/2012 01:24 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>
>> We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
>> they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
>> found in the attached dd-list (or at [0]).
>
> For anyon
On 01/25/2012 01:24 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
> they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
> found in the attached dd-list (or at [0]).
For anyone who is not online the list of 10 packages is:
David A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be
found in the attached dd-list (or at [0]).
The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
- The
80 matches
Mail list logo
