[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#951572: marked as done (buster-pu: package uml-utilities/20070815.2-1)

Your message dated Sat, 10 Sep 2022 19:27:39 +0100
with message-id <a5a56e8e121b86a36cac2861d6e98fafba5855f8.camel@adam-barratt.org.uk>
and subject line Re: Bug#951572: buster-pu: package uml-utilities/20070815.2-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #951572,
regarding buster-pu: package uml-utilities/20070815.2-1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
951572: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=951572
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: buster
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu

The port-helper binary shipped with the uml-utilities package was
installed to a non-standard path creating problems for the uml tool to
find the helper binary. Details are mentioned in DBUG: 928924

This change simply picks up the latest package version from Unstable.

Note: the uml-utilities package is upstream maintained in the Debian
salsa repository itself. Because there's no effective upstream for
uml-utilities and all distributions that care of this pacakge maintain
their respective forks.

Some time ago, there was intent from Mattia Dongli, the previous
co-maintainer for UML, to take upstream maintenance for uml-utilities.
But since he retired from the Debian project, he's also been dormant on
the UML side. So far, I've been taking care of uml-utilities
(upstream) maintenance.


Please let me know if the diff is okay and I'll then push it to
proposed-updates


-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (900, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 5.4.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_USER
Locale: LANG=en_IN.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_IN.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 12:24 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On 2020-02-29 15:29, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> > Dear Adam,
> > 
> > On Tue, 2020-02-25 at 21:10 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2020-02-24 at 15:37 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> > > > So my changelog was incorrect as it set to 20070815.3-
> > > > 1+deb10u4,
> > > > which actually should be 20070815.3-1+deb10u1, as this is uml-
> > > > utilities package's first stable update proposed.
> > > 
> > > No. stable currently has 20070815.2-1, so this should either be
> > > .2-
> > > 1+deb10u1 (adding the patch on top of the stable package) or
> > > -3.1~deb10u1 (backporting the newer upload).
> > > 
> > 
> > Do you mean the latter (i.e. a new upstream release) can go into
> > Debian
> > Stable as a update package ?
> 
> If the new upstream release only contains bug fixes that are
> appropriate 
> for a stable update, then it's possible. As above, that package
> would 
> still need a version number that was lower than the corresponding
> upload 
> to unstable, in the same way as if you were preparing the package
> for 
> stable-backports.
> 

Apparently this never got any further, and the final point release for
buster has now happened, so I'm going to close this request.

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---
Reply to: