Re: jessie-security packages missing from ftp-master
On Sun, 2018-06-10 at 19:35 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As we're getting very close to the EOL point release for jessie (at
> least from the main archive perspective), I've been having a look at
> making the delta from the security archive as small as possible
> beforehand.
>
> Packages not synced to ftp-master
> =================================
>
> I've added notes where I'm aware of reasons for the missing sync. I
> think this set will all need ftp-master investigation / resolution.
>
> * enigmail 2:1.9.9-1~deb8u1 (source + all)
> * freerdp 1.1.0~git20140921.1.440916e+dfsg1-4+deb8u1 (source +
> binaries)
> * mat 0.5.2-3+deb8u1 (source + all)
> - This was originally uploaded to ftp-master, rejected, and re-
> uploaded to security "as-is", so failed the replay check on ftp-
> master
> * openjdk-7 7u171-2.6.13-1~deb8u1 (source + binaries)
> - I think this may have been a case where the binary uploads were
> processed before the source. I suspect that on re-processing some
> architectures may have issues with version constraints, but getting
> as many incorporated as possible would be appreciated.
>
As discussed on IRC, the latest version from the security archive
failed to get synced to ftp-master, because there are older openjdk-7
binaries in experimental (due to an apparently expected FTBFS with
newer uploads), and (o)pu have a "must be older than experimental"
version constraint.
Ansgar indicated (again on IRC) that he thought the constraints could
be dropped in this case.
> * openoffice.org-dictionaries 1:3.3.0~rc10-4+deb8u1 (source + all)
> - I think this is due to some of the binaries (e.g. hunspell-fr)
> being produced by other source packages with higher versions
> * procps
> - appears to have had some sort of upload error
> 20180610173424|process-upload|dak|procps_3.3.9-
> 9+deb8u1_armhf.changes|Error while loading changes: No valid
> signature found. (GPG exited with status code 512)
That's still the case.
>
> Packages not available on -security
> ===================================
>
> Is it worth retrying any of these?
There's one new package to add to the list:
* memcached 1.4.21-1.1+deb8u2 (ppc64el)
I tried giving this back a short while ago and it failed again. Could
someone possibly check the log to see if it's likely to be a fatal
issue?
Cheers,
Adam
Reply to: