Nabble - Debian Backports

Re: [Backports-security-announce] Security Update for dovecot

2009-12-07T00:11:52Z

Hi!

* Marco Nenciarini <mnencia@...> [2009-12-02 20:03:17 CET]:
> Marco Nenciarini uploaded new packages for dovecot which fix the
> following security problem:

Thanks for the upload! Could you please sign your mails to
backports-security-announce in the future? :)

So long! :)
Rhonda

Re: Security Update for dovecot

2009-12-07T00:02:57Z

Thank you for your email.

Ralph Jenkin is no longer employed by Empowered Communications. Please
forward any enquiries to Kathryn Grant

(Kathryn.Grant@...) or phone 03 9940 1600.

linux-image-2.6-amd64 depends

2009-12-06T09:18:54Z

hi

is there any reason why linux-image-2.6-amd64 depends on linux-
image-2.6.30-bpo.1-amd64 and not linux-image-2.6.30-bpo.2-amd64?

- Thomas

Re: Ratpoison

2009-12-05T09:31:29Z

* macondo <ironwindow2001@...> [091205 18:18]:
> hi everyone, is it possible to include ratpoison 1.4.5 as a backport?
> The version in Lenny is 1.4.3 and it has a bug when you press the Alt-Gr key, it's a small wm with no deps...

Is a backport really needed? Looking at the dependencies, installing the
sqeeze version in lenny should be possible without recompile.

Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
"Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging tools are available!"
Niklaus Wirth

Ratpoison

2009-12-05T09:11:24Z

hi everyone, is it possible to include ratpoison 1.4.5 as a backport?
The version in Lenny is 1.4.3 and it has a bug when you press the Alt-Gr key, it's a small wm with no deps...

thanks,

Sponsor needed: mktorrent

2009-12-04T04:46:43Z

Hi,

http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mktorrent/mktorrent_1.0-3~bpo50+1.dsc

Description: simple command line utility to create BitTorrent metainfo files
mktorrent is a text-based utility to create BitTorrent metainfo files
used by trackers and torrent clients. It can create metainfo files for single
files or complete directories in a fast way.
.
It also supports:
- multiple trackers
- embed custom comments into the file
- dissalow DHT and Peer Exchange
- support for multi-threaded hashing

regards
Stefan
--
You will not be elected to public office this year.

request for package allowance

2009-12-04T00:35:53Z

To whom it may concern

Is there a request for package allowance / option for Debian Backports.

For example. I was hoping if someone would be able to package glusterfs.

Kind Regards
Brent Clark

Re: OpenLDAP backport for Lenny?

2009-12-04T00:03:26Z

Hi all!

> F> Developers are really recommending not to use Lenny's 2.4.11
> F> OpenLDAP because it's too buggy:

> (But then, the version in Debian Sid seems to be half an year
> old?)

We were involved (or if you want: impacted) in that "2.4.11 is buggy"
discussion. Because it's not that old, I also refused to believe this in
the first place, but a lot of strange behavior, especially around
replication, went away when we upgraded to 2.4.17, which is the version
currently in sid. That one is a lot better that 2.4.11. And it backports
to Lenny quite nicely; took me some 15 minutes or so.

I then tried to upgrade the sources of the backported package to the
latest OpenLDAP 2.4.19. (In the meanwhile, there is a 2.4.20; they take
the "release often" quite serious) That one failed on the very first
test which is part of the build process when I tried to backport it.

So if someone is looking for a short term solution which can be
implemented in 30 minutes, backport the version from sid.

Regards,
Torsten

Ivan Shmakov schrieb:

>>>>>> "F" == Frederik <freggy@...> writes:
>
> F> Are there any plans to make a backport of openldap for Lenny?
> F> Developers are really recommending not to use Lenny's 2.4.11
> F> OpenLDAP because it's too buggy:
>
> F> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.openldap.general/46030
>
> Perhaps I'd be able to take a glance on it. But I'm quite busy
> these days, so if there'd be no news from me on that within the
> next few days, there would probably be no news at all.
>
> (But then, the version in Debian Sid seems to be half an year
> old?)
>

Re: PowerPC builder down (anakreon)

2009-12-03T11:08:07Z

Hi,

On Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 18:19:38 -0500, Tony Nelson wrote:
> The anakreon PowerPC builder for PowerPC, apparently the only PowerPC
> builder for backports, appears to be down, and for many months. Either
> it has gone away, or no one loves it anymore.

by now there should be an working autobuilder for ppc again.

Greetings
Martin

--
Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@...> | Debian System Administrator
Debian & GNU/Linux Developer | Debian Listmaster
Public key http://zobel.ftbfs.de/5d64f870.asc - KeyID: 5D64 F870
GPG Fingerprint: 5DB3 1301 375A A50F 07E7 302F 493E FB8E 5D64 F870

Re: OpenLDAP backport for Lenny?

2009-12-03T09:34:15Z

>>>>> "F" == Frederik <freggy@...> writes:

F> Are there any plans to make a backport of openldap for Lenny?
F> Developers are really recommending not to use Lenny's 2.4.11
F> OpenLDAP because it's too buggy:

F> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.openldap.general/46030

Perhaps I'd be able to take a glance on it. But I'm quite busy
these days, so if there'd be no news from me on that within the
next few days, there would probably be no news at all.

(But then, the version in Debian Sid seems to be half an year
old?)

--
FSF associate member #7257

attachment0 (202 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: buildd info page?

2009-12-01T00:38:26Z

Hi,

On Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 02:16:42 -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> FYI, the buildd info page that's linked to from the faq
> (http://experimental.ftbfs.de/new/) has been unavailable for a few
> days. Hopefully someone's looking into this..

yes, we are looking into that. The machine running that service has had
some issues, so we took it offline. It will return soon.

Greetings
Martin
--
Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@...> | Debian System Administrator
Debian & GNU/Linux Developer | Debian Listmaster
Public key http://zobel.ftbfs.de/5d64f870.asc - KeyID: 5D64 F870
GPG Fingerprint: 5DB3 1301 375A A50F 07E7 302F 493E FB8E 5D64 F870

Re: Any plan to accept Dpkg v3 source formats in backports.debian.org? (And pre-upload enquiry).

2009-12-01T00:27:20Z

Marco Nenciarini schrieb am Dienstag, den 01. Dezember 2009:

> Alexander Wirt ha scritto:
> > Charles Plessy schrieb am Monday, den 23. November 2009:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> I just realised that it is not possible to upload backports in the source v3
> >> format. Is there any plan to open this possibility in this release cycle?
> > Not since we also support etch. Also this would need several dak and buildd
> > updates so don't expect that soon.
> >
>
> How should I handle the beckport of a package in source format 3.0?
>
> A changelog entry like:
>
> * Switched back to source format 1.0:
> - added quilt to build-depends
> - enabled quilt in debian/rules

Looks fine for me. I guess thats the preferred way.

Alex

Re: Re: Any plan to accept Dpkg v3 source formats in backports.debian.org? (And pre-upload enquiry).

2009-12-01T00:24:52Z

Alexander Wirt ha scritto:
> Charles Plessy schrieb am Monday, den 23. November 2009:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I just realised that it is not possible to upload backports in the source v3
>> format. Is there any plan to open this possibility in this release cycle?
> Not since we also support etch. Also this would need several dak and buildd
> updates so don't expect that soon.
>

How should I handle the beckport of a package in source format 3.0?

A changelog entry like:

* Switched back to source format 1.0:
- added quilt to build-depends
- enabled quilt in debian/rules

is correct or is considered better to force format 1.0 removing the file
debian/source/format and letting dpkg-source to collapse all applied
patches in a big diff.gz?

Kind regards,
Marco

--
Marco Nenciarini
mnencia@...

buildd info page?

2009-11-26T23:16:42Z

Hi,

FYI, the buildd info page that's linked to from the faq
(http://experimental.ftbfs.de/new/) has been unavailable for a few
days. Hopefully someone's looking into this..

OpenLDAP backport for Lenny?

2009-11-25T06:53:09Z

Are there any plans to make a backport of openldap for Lenny?
Developers are really recommending not to use Lenny's 2.4.11 OpenLDAP
because it's too buggy:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.openldap.general/46030

--
Frederik

Re: Can backports be built with backports ?

2009-11-24T12:15:36Z

Charles Plessy schrieb am Tuesday, den 24. November 2009:

Hi,

*snip*
> If I package ExtUtils::Manifest, let it go in testing, and if you then accept a
> backport of it, will it be possible to build a bioperl backport using it? Said
> differently, do the backports buildds use backports.org to satisfy dependancies
> not in Lenny? (Sorry I did not manage to find the information).
Of course they can. The same rules as for experimental apply (if there is a
version in stable and bpo add a versioned build-dep to your package).

Alex

Re: Can backports be built with backports ?

2009-11-24T07:26:28Z

On 24 Nov 2009, at 2:20 pm, Charles Plessy wrote:

> I would like to backport the bioperl package as well (a bigger
> beast), and it
> needs ExtUtils::Manifest >= 1.52 to build (but not to run). However
> Lenny's
> perl-modules package does not provide such a high version.

Hehe, hi Charles. Now you know why, when I discussed this with you a
couple of years ago at Debconf, that I said I didn't use Debian
packaged sequencing packages. All the dependencies are a nightmare,
the scientists always want the very latest of this, and simultaneously
some ancient version of that, and they want multiple versions of
everything installed simultaneously. It's a nightmare.

That's not to say that I don't think you and the Debian Med team are
doing a fabulous job. I'm just saying I really don't envy you. Me, I
just install all this crap on an NFS server and be done with it. Our /
software central NFS server now contains more than 600GB of various
versions of software the scientists want. Actually, I don't install
most of it. Fortunately, they're allowed to build their own stuff,
which makes my life a bit simpler (and accounts for a lot of the size
- multiple installs for different groups of different versions of
apache, tomcat, bioperl, ssaha, blast, you name it)

Still 600GB is nothing in the world of next-gen sequencing, n'est-ce
pas? We've got a 0.5 petabyte Lustre filesystem just as a staging
area for the sequencers... 600GB is less than one disk spindle.

Tim

--
The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute is operated by Genome Research
Limited, a charity registered in England with number 1021457 and a
company registered in England with number 2742969, whose registered
office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE.

Re: Can backports be built with backports ?

2009-11-24T06:26:00Z

Le 24 nov. 09 à 15:20, Charles Plessy a écrit :

> Said differently, do the backports buildds use backports.org to
> satisfy dependancies
> not in Lenny? (Sorry I did not manage to find the information).

AFAICT, they do. It's not so uncommon to package build-dependencies,
for instance debhelper.

T.

Can backports be built with backports ?

2009-11-24T06:20:17Z

Hi Alexander, thank you for the fast answer!

Le Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 06:55:55AM +0100, Alexander Wirt a écrit :

> Charles Plessy schrieb am Monday, den 23. November 2009:
>
> > I have another question… The package I tried to upload is ‘bwa’, which has a
> > popcon score of less than ten, but of course a bright future :) It seems to
> > contradict directly your rule ‘Please only upload package with a noteable
> > userbase’. My purpose in this upload is to offer backports from a highly
> > trustable environment, in order to help the creation of ‘cloud’ images based
> > on Lenny but with the latest software in my speciality. Would such packages
> > be accepted ? (I am their maintainer in Debian).
> Even after reading the description I don't have a clue what to do with that
> application :). But go ahead.

I just uploaded bwa to bp.o's NEW queue. bwa is part of a bunch of packages
related to ‘next-generation sequencing’, that is about sequencing (our)
genomes. Not to mention that it is useful for my work, I also hope that by
supporting free software in this area it will help to build a good world, in
opposition to a ‘Brave New World’ !

I would like to backport the bioperl package as well (a bigger beast), and it
needs ExtUtils::Manifest >= 1.52 to build (but not to run). However Lenny's
perl-modules package does not provide such a high version.

If I package ExtUtils::Manifest, let it go in testing, and if you then accept a
backport of it, will it be possible to build a bioperl backport using it? Said
differently, do the backports buildds use backports.org to satisfy dependancies
not in Lenny? (Sorry I did not manage to find the information).

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Any plan to accept Dpkg v3 source formats in backports.debian.org? (And pre-upload enquiry).

2009-11-23T21:55:55Z

Charles Plessy schrieb am Monday, den 23. November 2009:

Hi,

> I just realised that it is not possible to upload backports in the source v3
> format. Is there any plan to open this possibility in this release cycle?
Not since we also support etch. Also this would need several dak and buildd
updates so don't expect that soon.

> I have another question… The package I tried to upload is ‘bwa’, which has a
> popcon score of less than ten, but of course a bright future :) It seems to
> contradict directly your rule ‘Please only upload package with a noteable
> userbase’. My purpose in this upload is to offer backports from a highly
> trustable environment, in order to help the creation of ‘cloud’ images based
> on Lenny but with the latest software in my speciality. Would such packages
> be accepted ? (I am their maintainer in Debian).
Even after reading the description I don't have a clue what to do with that
application :). But go ahead.

Alex

Any plan to accept Dpkg v3 source formats in backports.debian.org? (And pre-upload enquiry).

2009-11-23T04:45:50Z

Dear b.p.o admins,

I just realised that it is not possible to upload backports in the source v3
format. Is there any plan to open this possibility in this release cycle?

I have another question… The package I tried to upload is ‘bwa’, which has a
popcon score of less than ten, but of course a bright future :) It seems to
contradict directly your rule ‘Please only upload package with a noteable
userbase’. My purpose in this upload is to offer backports from a highly
trustable environment, in order to help the creation of ‘cloud’ images based
on Lenny but with the latest software in my speciality. Would such packages
be accepted ? (I am their maintainer in Debian).

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: lenny-backports: aqbanking-tools is uninstallable

2009-11-21T05:23:41Z

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 02:16:55PM +0100, Micha Lenk wrote:
> Alexander Wirt schrieb:
> > Please fix immediatly even with the version from unstable.
>
> Done.

thank you guys, particularly for the quick reaction!

Florian

Re: lenny-backports: aqbanking-tools is uninstallable

2009-11-20T05:19:02Z

Micha Lenk schrieb am Freitag, den 20. November 2009:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Alexander, hi Florian,
>
> Alexander Wirt schrieb:
> > Please fix immediatly even with the version from unstable.
Thanks!

Alex

Re: lenny-backports: aqbanking-tools is uninstallable

2009-11-20T05:16:55Z

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Alexander, hi Florian,

Alexander Wirt schrieb:
> Please fix immediatly even with the version from unstable.

Done.

Regards
Micha
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAksGlrkACgkQWN0/4pnhQbQ3bwCcCT9nBvNHxCOOVsKyztFClqLe
To4AoLqtihEQi19WQTH0hElZ/9nwIS2f
=xLG+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: lenny-backports: aqbanking-tools is uninstallable

2009-11-20T02:45:19Z

Micha Lenk schrieb am Freitag, den 20. November 2009:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Florian,
>
> Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > * Florian Schlichting <fschlich@...> [2009-11-19 19:54:50 CET]:
> >> backported aqbanking-tools depends on libaqbanking29-plugins depends on
> >> libktoblzcheck1c2a (>= 1.19), but lenny only contains 1.18-2 and there
> >> isn't a newer one in backports either...
> >
> > It seems like this is only the case on i386:
> > <http://packages.debian.org/lenny-backports/libaqbanking29-plugins>
> >
> > According to [1] that's the architecture that Micha initially uploaded
> > the package for, maybe he can shine a light upon this issue.
> > [1] <http://lists.backports.org/lurker-bpo/message/20091027.202913.da6bf7c1.en.html>
>
> I would'nt expect this to be an i386 exception, but after having checked
> my local buildlog I can confirm that I've built the package in a not
> entirely clean build environment. I'm sorry for that.
>
> However, the dependency on libktoblzcheck1c2a (>= 1.19) doesn't really
> hurt: Simply install the version from Debian Squeeze directly (it just
> works and does not need to be backported) and additionally take
> advantage of the more current bank data... :)

Please fix immediatly even with the version from unstable.

And please test your uploads on a clean lenny (not your buildsystem) next
time.

Thanks

Alex
--
Alexander Wirt, formorer@...
CC99 2DDD D39E 75B0 B0AA B25C D35B BC99 BC7D 020A

Re: lenny-backports: aqbanking-tools is uninstallable

2009-11-20T02:26:09Z

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Florian,

Gerfried Fuchs wrote:

> * Florian Schlichting <fschlich@...> [2009-11-19 19:54:50 CET]:
>> backported aqbanking-tools depends on libaqbanking29-plugins depends on
>> libktoblzcheck1c2a (>= 1.19), but lenny only contains 1.18-2 and there
>> isn't a newer one in backports either...
>
> It seems like this is only the case on i386:
> <http://packages.debian.org/lenny-backports/libaqbanking29-plugins>
>
> According to [1] that's the architecture that Micha initially uploaded
> the package for, maybe he can shine a light upon this issue.
> [1] <http://lists.backports.org/lurker-bpo/message/20091027.202913.da6bf7c1.en.html>

I would'nt expect this to be an i386 exception, but after having checked
my local buildlog I can confirm that I've built the package in a not
entirely clean build environment. I'm sorry for that.

However, the dependency on libktoblzcheck1c2a (>= 1.19) doesn't really
hurt: Simply install the version from Debian Squeeze directly (it just
works and does not need to be backported) and additionally take
advantage of the more current bank data... :)

Once libaqbanking 4.2.0-1 enters testing (expected to happen in the next
few days) I will upload an updated backport without the accidental
dependency on libktoblzcheck from Squeeze.

Regards
Micha
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAksGbrcACgkQWN0/4pnhQbRjlQCgzYKMFRG0VKc64niQbgtPC9cN
f1gAnjB6vZCh53Zhdu4WHZgC6A7ZUYj4
=sQ8C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: lenny-backports: aqbanking-tools is uninstallable

2009-11-19T23:50:50Z

Hi!

* Florian Schlichting <fschlich@...> [2009-11-19 19:54:50 CET]:
> backported aqbanking-tools depends on libaqbanking29-plugins depends on
> libktoblzcheck1c2a (>= 1.19), but lenny only contains 1.18-2 and there
> isn't a newer one in backports either...

It seems like this is only the case on i386:
<http://packages.debian.org/lenny-backports/libaqbanking29-plugins>

According to [1] that's the architecture that Micha initially uploaded
the package for, maybe he can shine a light upon this issue.
[1] <http://lists.backports.org/lurker-bpo/message/20091027.202913.da6bf7c1.en.html>

So long, and thanks for the notice!
Rhonda

Re: src:squid3 backport

2009-11-19T12:28:46Z

>>>>> "AW" == Alexander Wirt <formorer@...> writes:
>>>>> "IS" == Ivan Shmakov schrieb am Freitag, den 20. November 2009:

IS> For my continued ``clean home of IPv4'' effort, I've needed an
IS> Squid 3.1 package (the one that closes Bug#432351 and which is
IS> currently in Debian Experimental) backported for Debian Lenny.

IS> I wonder whether this backport could be considered for
IS> backports.org? TIA.

AW> If it hits testing.

ACK.

--
FSF associate member #7257

Re: src:squid3 backport

2009-11-19T12:02:38Z

Ivan Shmakov schrieb am Freitag, den 20. November 2009:

> For my continued ``clean home of IPv4'' effort, I've needed an
> Squid 3.1 package (the one that closes Bug#432351 and which is
> currently in Debian Experimental) backported for Debian Lenny.
>
> I wonder whether this backport could be considered for
> backports.org? TIA.
If it hits testing.

Alex

src:squid3 backport

2009-11-19T11:23:41Z

lenny-backports: aqbanking-tools is uninstallable

2009-11-19T10:54:50Z

Hi,

backported aqbanking-tools depends on libaqbanking29-plugins depends on
libktoblzcheck1c2a (>= 1.19), but lenny only contains 1.18-2 and there
isn't a newer one in backports either...

fs:~# aptitude install -t lenny-backports aqbanking-tools
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
Reading task descriptions... Done
The following packages are BROKEN:
libaqbanking29-plugins
The following NEW packages will be installed:
aqbanking-tools libaqbanking-data{a}
libaqbanking-plugins-libgwenhywfar47{a} libaqbanking29{a}
libaqbanking29-plugins-qt{a} libaqhbci17{a} libaqofxconnect5{a}
libaudio2{a} libglu1-mesa{a} libgwenhywfar47{a} liblcms1{a} libmng1{a}
libqbanking8{a} libqt3-mt{a} libxmu6{a} libxt6{a}
0 packages upgraded, 17 newly installed, 0 to remove and 16 not upgraded.
Need to get 9396kB of archives. After unpacking 32.3MB will be used.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libaqbanking29-plugins: Depends: libktoblzcheck1c2a (>= 1.19) but it is not installable

any hopes this might get fixed?

Thanks for your efforts,
Florian

Re: Required package for libgupnp-1.0-2 is missing from lenny-backports

2009-11-19T09:17:51Z

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:38:56 +0100
Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@...> wrote:
[...]
>
> So it never appeared in the NEW queue and never was able to get
> processed anyway - the upload seems to had been b0rked somehow. So
> Andres, I think you need to upload glib2.0 proper, I guess. :)
>
> Hope that helps!
> Rhonda

D'oh! I thought it had been uploaded successfully, thanks for
pointing that out. I will re-upload..

Re: Required package for libgupnp-1.0-2 is missing from lenny-backports

2009-11-19T06:48:09Z

Thanks for the quick reply (and the work of the community on
bpo :)

Victor

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 02:38:56PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:

> Hi!
>
> * Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@...> [2009-11-19 14:09:10 CET]:
> > Well, partly yes, but I am a bit puzzled, I don't find glib listed in
> > [1] but [2] says it needs to still get approved:
> >
> > [1] <http://www.backports.org/debian/new.html>
> > [2] <http://lists.backports.org/lurker-bpo/message/20091118.162413.e3bc1b92.en.html>
> >
> > Sorry, I would expect either Andres or Alexander are able to shine a
> > light on the issue.
>
> Alexander told me that:
>
> Oct 17 22:02:58 glib2.0_2.22.0-1~bpo50+1_i386.changes couldn't be processed for 48 hours and is now deleted
>
> So it never appeared in the NEW queue and never was able to get
> processed anyway - the upload seems to had been b0rked somehow. So
> Andres, I think you need to upload glib2.0 proper, I guess. :)
>
> Hope that helps!
> Rhonda

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Required package for libgupnp-1.0-2 is missing from lenny-backports

2009-11-19T05:38:56Z

Hi!

* Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@...> [2009-11-19 14:09:10 CET]:
> Well, partly yes, but I am a bit puzzled, I don't find glib listed in
> [1] but [2] says it needs to still get approved:
>
> [1] <http://www.backports.org/debian/new.html>
> [2] <http://lists.backports.org/lurker-bpo/message/20091118.162413.e3bc1b92.en.html>
>
> Sorry, I would expect either Andres or Alexander are able to shine a
> light on the issue.

Alexander told me that:

Oct 17 22:02:58 glib2.0_2.22.0-1~bpo50+1_i386.changes couldn't be processed for 48 hours and is now deleted

So it never appeared in the NEW queue and never was able to get
processed anyway - the upload seems to had been b0rked somehow. So
Andres, I think you need to upload glib2.0 proper, I guess. :)

Hope that helps!
Rhonda

Re: Required package for libgupnp-1.0-2 is missing from lenny-backports

2009-11-19T05:09:10Z

Hi!

* Victor NOEL <victor.noel@...> [2009-11-19 11:30:43 CET]:
> I am trying to install libgupnp-1.0-2 (0.12.8-1~bpo50+1) from
> lenny-backports but it depends on libglib2.0-0 (>= 2.18.0) that is
> neither in lenny or lenny-backports.
>
> Shouldn't it be the case ?

Well, partly yes, but I am a bit puzzled, I don't find glib listed in
[1] but [2] says it needs to still get approved:

[1] <http://www.backports.org/debian/new.html>
[2] <http://lists.backports.org/lurker-bpo/message/20091118.162413.e3bc1b92.en.html>

Sorry, I would expect either Andres or Alexander are able to shine a
light on the issue.

So long,
Rhonda