Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #909155 in apt reported by you has been fixed in the
Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
message below, and you can check the diff of the fix at:
https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/commit/6f1d622c84b3b7f821683bf69b8fcdb6dcf272a2
he longer the grace period the better…
btw: Upstream seems to have retired their remark on compiling googletest
on your own as I can't find it any longer on their website and e.g. in
the RPM/BSD worlds you get a binary only.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 10:06:17PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 01:29:07PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > You should also update your README.Debian and the descriptions with the
> > new paths and the transitional package as [...]
>
self: I haven't looked closely, but apt tries
to not explore solutions caused by M-A:same version screw – aptitude
seems way more willing to suggest such solutions; that is okay I guess
as it is way more interactive, too.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 12:06:53AM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> As the freeze is drawing near I would appreciate a reply in the next
> week so that we can proceed accordingly – I am e.g. happy to sponsor
> uploads if need be. On the other hand, if I get no reply I plan to
&g
ion names,
wording of messages,… …) I would encourage you to comment there and
leave that bugreport for the overarching "this sucks!" and "greatest
thing since sliced bread!" on the whole infrastructure as for this to
work at least release, ftp & publicity team have to accept me imposing
work on them (which arguably they already do anyhow, but still) and
hence quickly derails if we argue about Soon/Upcoming/Next/Future-
in here, too.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
;"Origin:
Debian" Release' for me. It isn't particularity hard to find others with
better usability factors.
So if the proposed solution is over engineered I am all ears for
alternatives which deal with these issues.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
P.S.: Pinning and other a
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 04:52:36PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 03:31:07PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 12:19:36PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > Anyway, that apt is enforcing the metadata isn't ch
k even if I dislike bug-pingpong. Feel free to ask if you
have come up with a specific solution for your problem and want some
feedback from us regarding apt, but be prepared to explain a lot in your
question as apt developers are "only" (FSVO) experts in apt, not in the
dependency
you are building for.
See dpkg-vendor and deb-substvars. In apt we are e.g. using this to
depend on the correct -archive-keyring package for the distribution we
are built for, there are probably easier/better examples though.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
[0] https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/-/merge_requests/117
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
upgrade, so that we might be able to reproduce this.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #984966 in apt reported by you has been fixed in the
Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
message below and you can check the diff of the fix at:
https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/-/commit/0d25ce3d466ecddea02d171981f011f7dbf95e08
inst a binary package not
build for the architecture or sources.list components of the reporters
machine).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
them not even compile.)
Sorry for this breaking change this late in the cycle! If its any
consolation I am also angry that I not only not managed to finish the
fuzzing project in time, but also not managed to salvage the more useful
bit in a more timely fashion either.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ve as hinted
above. Please CC de...@lists.debian.org if there are any questions you
think we could answer.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
¹ The cagefights are a design decision in the current default resolver,
which is impossible^Whard to change and absolutely not going to happen
any time soon y
y, I guess 'domain knowledge' is involved as we wouldn't be
talking if libssl-dev would be a new mail-transport-agent. It would be
perfectly clear that it must conflict with the others even if there is
no technical reason for it given that the other mail-transport-agents
already confli
some details on what to do instead and how to
achieve compatibility with "old" and "new" po4a.
Thanks Martin for picking up po4a development btw even if the timing is
a bit unfortunate for (accidental?) uploads to unstable…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
rading perl) as the dependency on libcrack2 is already
satisfied at the start of the upgrade (as its a version before jessie).
As the dependencies of libcrack2 are very lightweight (just libc6 which
is done at that point) it might already work if you artificially require
a stretch-version here (= guess, not tested at all).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies, who is in a love-hate relationship with triggers
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
feature, too].
> > Remember we're talking about adding extra repositories with custom d-i
> > configuration, so I'm fine with people having broken stuff because they
> > pasted a whole mail…
>
> agreed, we can expect these folks to get the details right.
For the same reason I wouldn't worry too much about people using *.asc
files with binary format contents and vice versa to be honest.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
I would presume they managed to pull
it of somehow (or we would be looking at v7 everywhere now).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
[0]
https://lists.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
u said it right in the paragraph I quoted and still I missed it
that both symbols are emitted and thought the symbols patch is a typo
missing a '-' … thanks brain, very good job…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
but really
some syscall not whitelisted which should be).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1008759 in apt reported by you has been fixed in the
Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
message below and you can check the diff of the fix at:
https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/-/commit/889462ec33480940a355589b0ae57987f17a86e
That is for
someone to investigate who has an idea about ruby, hence reassigning
down the chain.
You may want to add which versions of ruby packages and apt-listbugs are
involved.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
nd and the multitude of checks it deploys as many things are
covered by these already which for other more generic internet clients
remain a huge problem.
So far I see only very generic guess and maybe-ifs which are not
actionable and very much not a release critical bug – mostly because
I don&#
e following the MIA track.
Best regards & wishes for the upcoming new year
David Kalnischkies
[0]
$ python3
Python 3.7.2rc1 (default, Dec 12 2018, 06:25:49)
[GCC 8.2.0] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>&
rom
> binary packages, but the way to get them with apt does not work:
https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/-/merge_requests/261
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
at could turn out to be more confusing than
helping… (and as said, dpkg hasn't changed in a while).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
omplete or outdated already)
and the other files tend to be no longer compressed & you can't be sure
that if you compress it again, that you would get the same hash (as e.g.
different versions of a compressor can generate different compatible
files).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
deal sanely with
the constant name-changing of gtests packaging through…
(or well, we probably need to end up with a mix of all that to keep
working everywhere, so… no patch, just a hint for others looking into
it as I was a bit surprised it worked for me locally…).
Best regards
David K
general, so I would say this isn't an apt bug.
(Althrough, if we decide on v2, I guess apt needs to change anyhow as
that same call thing might be just dumb luck in this case. Not even sure
if v1 is in any way "guaranteed" to be perfectly honest…)
Can't stop the feeling that we had issues with python begin called from
prerm before and the general advice was: "don't – stick to essential".
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
so probably not read /etc/dpkg.cfg.d files
from the root system, but that might be an even longer endeavour)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
[0]
https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/-/commit/3fe1419433f195d57b948b100b218cf14a2841d0
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
for a spot).
So, I am currently waiting for either vim or upstream to act first while
dealing with other housekeeping things (clang-17 support) in the
meantime; so much as a status report in case anyone wonders.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
able is known to exhibit the
required setup).
(I will write another mail in another subthread about the finer details
of what interacting with dpkg in an upgrade means and what might be
problematic if you aren't careful – in general, not just with aliasing)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
exist) so that
we have to help them by generating work for many people and potentially
new upgrade problems for everyone – or if we declare them, existing or
not, a non-issue at least for the upgrade to trixie.
And on a sidenote: I would advise to reconsider interacting with dpkg
too casually – but luck is probably on your side in any case.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
is? The code even checks for /sbin, /bin und /lib – but that isn't
all that /usr-merge entails and APT doesn't really want to be checking
for everything. Just for some easy to verify truths to ensure nothing
went south… like it seems to have happened on your system.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
kinda
scary to block the defaults meta package for a programming language
you know nothing about with your leaf package…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
package apt
severity 548858 normal
thx
For your information:
APT tries to be over correct and want to ensure that essential and
important packages can be configured and this as fast as possible.
It does add an immediate flag to all these packages (since a long time)
and to all dependencies of thes
While it is now commited and this message will maybe redirected to /dev/null
i just want to express that i am unhappy with this patch:
First of all: It has no documentation - this is unfortunately also true for
many other apt features, so this is maybe not a real no-go,
but also the manpage for the
Hi Amaya,
>> See #548848 et al.
> I could not find additional helpful information there.
Try apt-get install -f -o APT::Immediate-Configure=0
See my email to apt bug #548858 for some details about
this option and why it is needed. (note the 5 instead of the 4)
But you should definitely check wha
defer this discussion to some point after squeeze…
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
David Kalnischkies
P.S.: I fail to see why /var/lib is a better place for trusted keys than /etc.
APT doesn't modify it while running, it isn't bound to a specific host
(why i should not share m
uld you run the following please?
apt-get install -f -o Debug::pkgOrderList=1 -o Debug::pkgPackageManager=1
It could be also interesting to see what dpkg thinks about the situation
dpkg --audit
These two together should tell us in a bit more detail what is wrong.
Best regards / Mit freundli
uck, thanks so far and
Best regards,
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Hi Jörgen Tegnér, Francesco Poli & Michael Prokop,
First of all: Thanks for the reports!
2010/1/14 Michael Prokop :
> * Francesco Poli [20100114 16:37]:
> It's not just about .disabled files, it also affects any manually
> modified configuration files (resulting in e.g. *.dpkg-dist) - files
> th
tags 565213 + patch
thanks
Patch should include:
+ * apt-pkg/contrib/fileutl.cc:
+- Fix the newly introduced method GetListOfFilesInDir to not
+ accept every file if no extension is enforced
+ (= restore old behavior). (Closes: #565213)
+ * apt-pkg/policy.cc:
+- accept also par
blems in the future.
Thanks for your help so far and a happy new year!
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
package apt aptitude
reassign 542767 aptitude
thanks
Hi Fabrizio Furnari,
> I've tried with
> aptitude unmarkauto kde-standard
> but when I try to remove akonadi-server, for example:
> aptitude remove akonadi-server
[...]
First of all: Thanks for your report, but i guess it is reported
against th
gpg is only used to import keyrings into the trusted keyring by the
keyrings - if we switch to fragment files the gpg is no longer needed…)
Best regards,
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
de that gpgv doesn't
support ascii-amored files it wouldn't change much anyway:
I (and many others too) can't read ascii-armored keys…
And if it really boils down to a "file exists or not" it is the same.
/etc also as it is a user decision which keyrings he might want to
s above in reverse.
In my reduced testcase is python-migrate btw scheduled for upgrade,
but python-central python-codespeak-lib python2.5 python2.5-minimal
are removed…
btw Lucas, is your script available somewhere?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-req
SHA1
> GET /apt-cacher/ftp.us.debian.org/debian/dists/squeeze/Release.gpg HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: Debian APT-CURL/1.0 (0.7.26~exp6)
Host: apt-test.aviatis.com
Accept: */*
Cache-Control: max-age=0
* SSL connection timeout
* Closing connection #0
[… same output for the next requested file … ]
Best re
safely place bets on the possibility that it will break…)
We can consider this after squeeze then we have ~2 years of
testing before shipping it…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscri
2010/8/27 Reinhard Tartler :
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 17:29:43 (CEST), David Kalnischkies wrote:
>
>> 2010/8/26 Reinhard Tartler :
>>> I'm still waiting for an answer on this question. Is this issue solved
>>> with the latest upload, or do you prefer me t
"Dir::Bin::methods","/usr/lib/apt/methods");
Cnf.Set("Dir::Media::MountPath","/media/apt");
=== modified file 'debian/changelog'
--- debian/changelog 2010-09-03 17:34:36 +
+++ debian/changelog 2010-09-04 08:10:02 +
@@ -7,8 +7,10 @@
this now, with the hope that in wheezy apt-key will be
obsolete (i can't mention that to often :) ).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
2010/9/4 Joey Hess :
> David Kalnischkies wrote:
> I assume getting apt 0.8.0 into testing is not currently in the cards.
> It should at least not get in before the next d-i upload. Up to you
> whether you leave this bug RC or not.
0.8.0 is already in testing since yesterday aft
ty is a bit high as it is not an official archive and the faulty code
is at least from the year 2006 (never triggered until now) but okay, it
is a (unlikely but) serious problem if an official archive would ship broken
files now…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deb
t i haven't looked at the code so far.
(will check that later after recovering from post-uds jet-lag)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
recommend in oldstable, stable and
testing [1] will also take care of it…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies (with his APT hat)
[0]
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#aptupgrade1st
[1]
http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/i386/release-notes/c
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 09:24, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Dienstag, 16. November 2010, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> First of all: I can't reproduce this E:-message,
>
> thats from piuparts...
the message I meant was:
> > E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve gen
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:34, Bill Allombert
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:35:55PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
[… snip …]
>> apt-squeeze recently (see #591882) got a third option:
>> c) try installing another or-group member
>>
>> Note that while c) seems
-dependency can be used - in case the or-group is
free | non-free, of course. Your turn.
And remember, in a stable environment A can't be not installable
(at least if the user hasn't actively choosen to not install it: hold,
-1 pin, …) so whatever you might come up with seems to be
ate as in the dist-upgrade…
(Nobody said partial upgrades would be easy…)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
=== modified file 'apt-pkg/algorithms.cc'
--- apt-pkg/algorithms.cc 2010-11-10 11:24:48 +
+++ apt-pkg/algorithms.cc 2010-11-29 20:43:07 +
@@ -374,6 +374,13 @@
{
pkgDe
l free to send
it directly to me.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
work access to get packages from somewhere else…
Same case if s/he prefers to disable installation of recommends.
And with this back to the initial topic: Adding a recommends, okay?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
1 expected me to have done. Given that my crystal ball is still
broken, it might be worthwhile to request the features expected to be
present in wheezy+1 NOW instead of then they are needed and serious
bugs in your eyes in 2012/3…
Thanks for consideration and best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
king directly with libbz2, liblzma etc. which we may not
> want due to extra library dependencies.
dpkg does or properly will soon depend on all of them given that
data.tar-members could be compressed with those algorithms,
so it should be save to depend on them, m…
Best regards
David Kalnisch
ing multiarch style on
package:{any,native} - which isn't official allowed by now.
Best regards,
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
2010/8/12 Julian Andres Klode :
> On Do, 2010-08-12 at 11:10 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> 0,1% is reserved for packages depending multiarch style on
>> package:{any,native} - which isn't official allowed by now.
>
> IIRC, :native is not part of the spec at a
nd co. made me think
it doesn't worth the pain of releasing a fixed stable version, but
if Stable Release Team or alike beg to differ…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
P.S.: I still think that the fix helps in other complicated cases too
we needed to come up with a "workaround&qu
or if that it is the kernel the user will use for the
next boot…
Best regards,
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
a diff against +lenny1 which should fix it (i haven't even
compile-tested it by now), we will see if i can trick Michael into finding
the time for test&upload - it is just that time is highly limited currently.
Best regards,
David Kalnischkies
stable-fix-999-chars.diff
Description: Binary data
2010/5/12 Marco d'Itri :
> On May 12, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>
>> It would be really cool if udev could depend on the new kernel - or
> Developers are supposed to know that other packages cannot depend on
> kernel packages.
Good that i am not a developer so i can say
2010/5/13 Raphael Hertzog :
> On Wed, 12 May 2010, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> On May 12, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>>
>> > Good that i am not a developer so i can say crap and ask afterwards
>> > for pointers to a documentation which tells me why udev can
Sorry for the inconvenience, a fixed version will be released soon…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
build and i have just a few minutes currently…).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
attached and Michael already bugged. :)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
apt-bug-600852-empty-gzipped-files
Description: Binary data
e.debian.org squeeze-updates main contrib
#~~ cut end ~~
I hope this fixes the issue as we have no other report of such a failure.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
intainers are discussing how the
commandline interface will be for specifying which architecture of the
package is meant and as i don't know what the outcome of this discussion is
i hope its relatively reasonable that i haven't implemented it so far. ;)
Best regards
David Kalnischki
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:14:24PM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> David Kalnischkies wrote (28 Oct 2014 14:00:40 GMT) :
> > Upgrading irssi from 0.8.16-1+b1 to 0.8.17-1 seems to break the OTR
> > plugin for me.
>
> I'm wondering if this could be a side-effect of #767230
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:15:22AM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> David Kalnischkies wrote (06 Nov 2014 21:52:10 GMT) :
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:14:24PM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> >> David Kalnischkies wrote (28 Oct 2014 14:00:40 GMT) :
> >> > Upgrading irssi from 0.
ases rather than
making it fail spectacularly…
(Remove an essential pkg? Seriously, bro?)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Control: found -1 0.9.16
Control: tags -1 patch
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 04:00:10PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> In the meantime, I hopefully figure out what is the meaningful
> difference between wheezy and jessie score keeping here. I remember
> a few changes, but they should actu
anyway).
Thanks for testing & hinting and until next time in apt-cdrom bugland ;)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
either; irssi is connected via ZNC).
Downgrading irssi to the previous version solves this issue.
I have CC'ed irssi maintainers in case they have an idea what is wrong
and/or as this if unsolved effects jessie might warrant a Breaks.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
t
and be done. It is at the very least not release critical.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the previous mail was that the last
command here would fail as a pending trigger can't be run. It doesn't,
so my biggest concern with dpkg::TriggersPending isn't really existing,
but I still think that running it all the time isn't needed if we can
just do the more general ConfigurePending once.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
P.S.: I will respond to other parts of the mail/thread in other
threads/bugs to keep all reasonably ordered… if that is possible.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
otherwise
this sheduled call would be run at 100%. Included is a testcase for
this, but this obviously requires a "broken" dpkg version to see that it
actually works.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
commit 1a46b9499017105f0d6a8c6319521088eadff6b2
Author: David Kalnischkies
Date:
ve justed resolved
the problem in the setsid testcase.
Thanks in any case for the report and the testcase, especially the
later helped tremendously in reproducing the problem!
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
commit c6bc9735cf1486d40d85bba90cfc3aaa6537a9c0
Author: David Kalnischkies
Date:
ceptable, I think it might be better than the
alternatives like ripping this out of dpkg again or busy-waiting for me
to figure something out (especially as I doubt that it will be pretty or
even simple if at all solveable for wheezy-upgrades given we only have
apt/wheezy for it…).
Best regard
nt story of what happened and why. I know its
tempting to "add" evidence as a witness, but that can spoil the whole
process.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
P.S.: The 'newcomer' tag is for maintainers to indicate "bitsized" bugs
which a newcomer to the project/packa
in the release I guess everyone will be happy about a one-line fix.
(Michael is uploading it any minute now)
Attached is my fullblown 'proper' patch with a testcase I am going to
apply to our /experimental branch for comparison in the meantime.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
diff --gi
is is a problem in practice, but it is technically allowed (as
long as debconf has no python dependency). This probably get slight more
real if python-minimal ever decides to link to (e.g.) python5 instead.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
7;t a new issue (= always possible in
all versions of apt), apt isn't made unusuable by it, we are not loosing
any data (well, with a fulldisk we potentially are, but that is the bug
of other tools not handling this case) and its not opening a security
hole. So neither of the reasons for &#
the date of an upgrade.
Thanks, but the status is indeed 'too late'. Its your system already
fully upgraded to jessie. Good would have been your wheezy status, or
the one in between, but well, that can be attributed to me being such
a slowpoke in replying, sorry. :/
I am inclined to close this as "not an issue anymore" instead of merging
it with the other trigger loop bugs as we have enough of them already
with very similar information (to be fair, I am inclined to close them
as well, but I guess it will be a jessie-ignore by Nils [or another
release teamer] instead to scare me).
Or is there anything left unanswered/open?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ilar such. Its used only for display proposes anyway
and if a user sees a "bzip2 21kB/42kB" or a "decomp 21/kB/42kB"² should
not matter much (trivial diff attached).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
² 'decomp' mostly because apt has a tendency to use incomprehens
akeroot --keyring rootdir/etc/apt/trusted.gpg
> del DBAC8DAE
Shouldn't (at least) this testcase fail if you fail on not acting?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
are started and/or always
working as root, so just 'locking' is not an option if you don't happen
to forbid every use of libapt as non-root in the process and only allow
libapt to be loaded by only one root application at the time. That would
immensly cripple the useability for next to no gain…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I have extended a bit
to cover a bit more ground, too. Nothing near proper testing though, so
someone giving it a proper testspin would be nice, but if that is too
hard I guess Michael could just upload it and let the world test it for
us (now that he doesn't have to fear another security upload).
based on the git commit message)
---
commit fb51ce3295929947555f4883054f210a53d9fbdf
Author: David Kalnischkies
Date: Mon Aug 22 21:33:38 2016 +0200
do dpkg --configure before --remove/--purge --pending
Commit 7ec343309b7bc6001b465c870609b3c570026149 got us most of the way,
but
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
