Package: freebsd-libs
Version: 8.3~svn229725-3
Severity: serious
Hi,
Log from the buildd[1]:
"""
Warning: Object directory not changed from original
/build/buildd-freebsd-libs_8.3~svn229725-3-kfreebsd-i386-AkvhUR/freebsd-libs-8.3~svn229725/lib/libcam
cc -Wall -g -pipe -fPIC -I.
-I/build/build
Package: libbatik-java
Version: 1.7+dfsg-2
Severity: serious
On Jun 22, 2012 22:50 "Steven Chamberlain" wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi,
> libbatik-java's dependencies were changed recently like so:
>
> > Package: libbatik-java
> > Architecture: all
> > -Depends: openjdk-6-jre-headless | java2-runtime-h
; test, which causes build
+failures due to false positives.
+
+ -- Niels Thykier Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:11:25 +0200
+
libsysactivity (0.5.4-4) unstable; urgency=low
* Applied patch from upstream to fix an issue with calculating memory
diff --git a/debian/patches/disable-cpu-idle-test.pa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
As we announced in [LAST-BITS], we would like to get a better idea of
that status of the ports, to make an informed decision about which
port can be released with jessie. One of the steps is to get an
overview of which of the porters are (still
On 2013-09-01 09:33, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As we announced in [LAST-BITS], we would like to get a better idea of
> that status of the ports, to make an informed decision about which
> port can be released with jessie. One of the steps is to get an
> overview of which
Hi,
The final results are in:
Summary table:
Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total
---++-++-++---++--
armel || 3 || 0 || 1 ||4
armhf || 3 || 1 || 2 ||6
hurd-i386 || 5 || 0 || 3 ||8
On 2013-10-19 16:38, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 05:01:31PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> [snip freeze policy]
>
Hi,
I s/-arm/-ports/'ed the CC, since I figured the rest of the porters
would find the answer equally interesting.
&g
On 2013-10-29 16:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Niels Thykier writes ("Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)"):
>> Results of porter roll-call
>> ===
> ...
>> Summary table:
>> Arch
On 2013-10-29 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)"):
>> [...]
>> As mentioned we are debating whether the "5 DDs" requirement still makes
>> sense. Would you say that we should abolish the
On 2013-11-03 15:49, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Niels Thykier dixit:
>
>> [...]
>> Until we have a clear definition of "actively maintained ports", I would
>> recommend porters to err on the side of being verbose over being silent.
>
> I’ve held off on the
On 2013-11-03 16:54, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2013-11-03 15:49, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> > Niels Thykier dixit:
>> >
>>> >> [...]
>>> >> Until we have a clear definition of "actively maintained ports", I would
>>> >
On 2013-11-03 16:03, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 03/11/13 10:54, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Come to think of it; maybe we should have a BTS page for each of the
>> ports (e.g. a pseudo package in the BTS).
>
> We've had this on kfreebsd, due it to having been
On 2013-11-03 23:04, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 11:54:34AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> [...]
>
>> I suppose a "sponsor-only" DD could be sufficient, provided that the
>> sponsor knows the porters well enough to be willing to sign off on
On 2013-11-30 11:46, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 28/11/2013 21:49, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>> On 28/11/13 20:04, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>> kFreeBSD was a technology preview, and has not generated enough
>>> user interest to bring in sufficient install base to continue
>
On 2013-12-16 23:32, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 15/12/2013 13:34, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> It would probably be good if you (i.e. the BSD porters) could start a
>> dialogue with the GNOME maintainers and figure out exactly where GNOME
>> is on kFreeBSD (vs. where it is supposed
On 2014-01-05 12:22, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 05/01/2014 10:30, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> On 2013-12-16 23:32, Robert Millan wrote:
>>> On 15/12/2013 13:34, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>>> It would probably be good if you (i.e. the BSD porters) could start a
>>>&g
On 2014-01-11 23:10, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 11/01/2014 21:32, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>> As for #712848, the latest comment sent by Petr suggested that the test
>>> might be
>>> incorrect when applied to kqueue.
>>>
>>
>> I
On 2014-01-12 00:01, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 11/01/2014 22:54, Robert Millan wrote:
>>> Do you have an idea of the consequences of making it linux-only? If it
>>> is just using (e.g.) xdm instead of and kFreeBSD losing a couple of
>>> packages, it will probably not be much of an issue. But then
On 2014-01-29 23:24, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 29/01/14 22:11, Robert Millan wrote:
>> On 29/01/2014 19:41, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>> * kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386
>>>- On one hand, we are unconvinced that kFreeBSD will be able
>>> to be on
On 2014-01-30 16:23, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 30/01/2014 00:03, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> @Robert: Re your "Could you elaborate?". I haven't forgotten it, but I
>> out of time - so I will get back to you on that.
>
> It's ok.
>
> I wanted more deta
On 2014-02-14 00:23, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 12/02/14 20:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> kFreeBSD is just shy of 90%, whereas most other release architectures
>> are at 96%[1]. Here kFreeBSD has increased in the past quarter from
>> ~89.5% to "almost, but not qui
On 2014-02-14 00:32, brunomaxi...@openmailbox.org wrote:
>>> Secondly, there are cases like GDM, where a single unsupported package
>>> have rather "long reaching" consequences. In the concrete example,
>>> GNOME (via gnome-core) strictly depends on gdm3, meaning that if gdm3
>>> goes, (more or le
On 2014-02-19 17:32, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 29/01/2014 23:03, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> I believe this is a first for us (as well) - at the very least, I won't
>> claim to have all the answers. Anyhow, as I see it, we want you to
>> choose a set of supported packages,
Dear BSD porters,
Do you have any news on this bug? It is severely affecting *all* GCC
versions and prevents new versions of them from migrating to testing.
~Niels
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists
Control: tags -1 d-i
On 2015-02-14 04:22, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: unblock
> Severity: normal
> x-debbugs-cc: debian-b...@lists.debian.org
>
> Please consider unblocking kfreebsd-10. It fixes 2 security issues
Source: kfreebsd-defaults
Version: 10+1
Severity: serious
Hi,
The kfreebsd-10 package stopped building its binaries on linux
architectures. However, kfreebsd-defaults still builds its binaries
for linux and they depend on (now missing) linux version of the
kfreebsd-10 binaries.
The end result i
Hi members of DSA, Security, RT and all porters.
While the freeze still seem far away, I think it is time to start with
the architecture qualifications.
For starters, here are the architectures we are aware of:
* amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el,
s390x
- *N
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
> Hi Niels!
>
> On 06/05/2016 12:01 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Beyond mips64el, we are not aware of any new architectures for Stretch.
>>
>> I kindly ask you to:
>>
>> * Porters, please assert if your architecture is targeting St
Steven Chamberlain:
> Hi,
>
Hi,
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> I have invested lots of time and effort to get sparc64 into a usable state
>> in Debian.
>> We are close to 11.000 installed packages. Missing packages include Firefox,
>> Thunderbird/Icedove, golang and LibreOffice to name t
Philipp Kern:
> On 2016-06-05 12:01, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> * amd64, i386, armel, armhf, arm64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el,
>>s390x
>>- *No* blockers at this time from RT, DSA nor security.
>>- s390, ppc64el and all arm ports have DSA concerns.
&
Martin Michlmayr:
> * ni...@thykier.net [2016-08-17 22:05]:
>> 2020), please respond with a signed email containing the following
>> before Friday, the 9th of September:
>
> Can you please specify where to respond to? I don't think dozens of
> emails to -ports and -devel make any sense.
>
Ah,
Kurt Roeckx:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:05:06PM +0200, ni...@thykier.net wrote:
>> * If we were to enable -fPIE/-pie by default in GCC-6, should that change
>>also apply to this port? [0]
>
> If -fPIE is the default will -fPIC override it?
>
> It will also default to tell the linker to use
ni...@thykier.net:
> Hi,
>
> Like last release, we are doing a roll call for porters of all release
> architectures. If you are an active porter behind one of the [release
> architectures] for the entire lifetime of Debian Stretch (est. end of
> 2020), please respond with a signed email containin
Mathieu Malaterre:
> Hi all,
>
> [...]
>
> [Let's assume that we can't find a powerpc porter in time for Stretch.]
>
> 1. Will `powperpc` automatically be downgraded to simple port ? Or is
> this also not automated and the port may simply be removed (eg. sparc)
> ?
> 2. Apart from loosing the au
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
> On 09/30/2016 06:08 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> I strongly /suspect/ that "no porters" for powerpc will imply the
>> removal of powerpc for Stretch. It may or may not be moved to ports
>> (assuming someone is willing to support it there)
Niels Thykier:
> [...]
>
> As for "porter qualification"
> =
>
> We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the
> roll call for sparc and we kept sparc as a release architecture for
> Jessie. However, we end
Adrian Bunk:
> [ fullquote adding -ports, for people not following -release or -devel ]
>
> [...]
>
> Is https://release.debian.org/stretch/arch_qualify.html the up-to-date
> information available to you, and the "candidate" line how a decision
> would look like based on the current information?
Niels Thykier:
> Hi,
>
> As brought up on the meeting last night, I think we should try to go for
> PIE by default in Stretch on all release architectures!
> * It is a substantial hardening feature
> * Upstream has vastly reduced the performance penalty for x86
> * The ma
in
time for inclusion in buster.
On behalf of the release team,
Niels Thykier
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
39 matches
Mail list logo
