Re: Bug#581622: [qa.debian.org] Please provide a code.google.com redirector
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 12:26:29PM +0200, Ricardo Mones wrote: > On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 11:22:10AM +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 08:56:08 +0200, Ricardo Mones wrote: > [...] > > > It's trying to retrieve http://p.googlecode.com/files/ but > > > files are now at http://.googlecode.com/files/. > > > > No, it's not. How can you tell what my code is trying to do? :-) > > > > (no, you didn't read the source [0], otherwise you would've known ;-)) > > Just looked at the address shown when you use the page to lookup a project > and made a quick bet :) > > [...] > > I just pushed it [2], and it works again: > > http://googlecode.debian.net/p/clive > > > > I understand that, being a non-official service, hosted on a non-Debian > > machine, > > pinging me each time it breaks could be annoying (also given the frequency > > Google changes its code9 -- but I don't see any other way :/ > > Yep, I guess we have to live with that for now. Thanks for the quick fix ;) I'm sorry, I sent an email to debian-devel a week or so ago telling that Google fixed their links, and we don't need a redirector *at all*. Don't the original links for for you (as before this whole change)? Argh, checking now I see that my mail was dropped due to spam. I have just resent it, sorry. Please check my email and let me know if the redirector is still needed. regards, iustin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Package priority issues on qa.debian.org/debcheck.php
Hi, Not sure if this is the right place, but the page footer says so. I'm looking at https://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=unstable&package=protobuf, and both issues I see listed seem false positives: - "Package has a Depends on python:any (>= 2.7.5-5~) which cannot be satisfied on $all_arches"; this is wrong, as python:any is basically just python, no? - "Binary Package: libprotobuf-lite9v5: Package is optional and has a Conflicts on libprotobuf-lite9 which is optional"; the problem is that it libprotobuf-lite9v5 not only conflicts, but also _replaces_ libprotobuf-lite9, as such the conflicts relation is correct Let me know if I should be reporting these as bugs against some package, or if they are not problems. thanks, iustin signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Package priority issues on qa.debian.org/debcheck.php
On 2016-05-11 12:47:58, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Iustin Pop , 2016-05-09, 22:29: > > I'm looking at > > https://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=unstable&package=protobuf, and > > both issues I see listed seem false positives: > > > > - "Package has a Depends on python:any (>= 2.7.5-5~) which cannot be > > satisfied on $all_arches"; this is wrong, as python:any is basically > > just python, no? > > debcheck doesn't grok :any for the time being. Ack. > But for this particular package, the :any qualifier is useless, so just get > rid of it. It's added automatically by dh_python*, so can't do. thanks! iustin
Re: Package priority issues on qa.debian.org/debcheck.php
On 2016-05-11 11:18:53, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:47:58PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > > - "Binary Package: libprotobuf-lite9v5: Package is optional and has a > > > Conflicts on libprotobuf-lite9 which is optional"; the problem is that > > > it libprotobuf-lite9v5 not only conflicts, but also _replaces_ > > > libprotobuf-lite9, as such the conflicts relation is correct > > > > libprotobuf-lite9 is no longer built from source, so it should have been > > removed semi-automatically by ftp-masters (and then debcheck woudn't have a > > reason to complain). Dunno why it didn't happen... > > Because there are rdeps. > > * source package protobuf version 2.6.1-2 no longer builds > binary package(s): libprotobuf-lite9 libprotobuf9 libprotoc9 > on > amd64,arm64,armel,armhf,hurd-i386,i386,kfreebsd-amd64,kfreebsd-i386,mips,mipsel,powerpc,ppc64el,s390x > - suggested command: > dak rm -m "[auto-cruft] NBS (no longer built by protobuf)" -s unstable -a > amd64,arm64,armel,armhf,hurd-i386,i386,kfreebsd-amd64,kfreebsd-i386,mips,mipsel,powerpc,ppc64el,s390x > -p -R -b libprotobuf-lite9 libprotobuf9 libprotoc9 > - broken Depends: > node-mapnik: node-mapnik [armel armhf i386 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 > mipsel] Ah, interesting. I didn't do the upload which introduced this migration, so I didn't know what's the status of rdeps. I'll ping the maintainers of node-mapnik, thanks for the info. iustin signature.asc Description: PGP signature
