On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:10 AM, David Kalnischkies
wrote:
> We might end up fixing this in libapt-pkg-dev, but as transitive includes
> are a bad thing it should be fixed in qapt either way.
For the record: I did this now and tried to recompile qapt without my
patch against
such a
,
not applying Conflicts will just be ignored (we keep them around e.g. for
derivatives with different release cycles which might have still the
affected version in use).
If you still have this issue, please open a new bugreport against aptitude.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSU
ut the upload was unfortunately broken. Really misfortune that
pbuilder has network access while the buildds haven't…
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
er.
I already dreamed about mirrors not sending Release-files because
they claim the mimetype is 'debian/rfc822'…
(beside the dream that Release.gpg is content-negotiation for Release)
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
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:00, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le 06.03.2012 11:33, David Kalnischkies a écrit :
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 15:35, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> The problem is here that some (yes, neither all nor many) mirrors try
>> c
t; security relvant and as it modifies
> data from another package.
I have changed to 'normal' for now as i can't reproduce it and
as an RC bug it would prevent the migration of a security bugfix to
testing…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
7;fragmented'
keyring by having each key in a separated file), but maybe you have
more luck:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2011/10/msg00373.html
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
ersion, please?
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
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 08:51, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:15:38PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> No, i am saying that apt asks for Translation-en and the
>> server response with Translation-en.bz2. APT knows that
>> it can't request t
es in these specific situations a different way.
But this can change anytime as conflict resolution is hard to predict if
you don't know exactly how the underlying system looks like.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that these are desired solutions btw -
looking at some of the removes more a pic
g assigned to dolfin as this is just a guess)
Thanks in advance and best regards
David Kalnischkies
P.S.: I am not subscribed to this bug, so please CC me.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
NG_URI=""
If you have the same output you are save.
(I leave it as an exercise for the reader to come up with more complicated
regexes to check for the value - for debian this one is already overkill…)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
[0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubun
not.
So it would be interesting to know about which versions we are talking here.
The original bugreport e.g. is against an early post-squeeze APT version,
so are other instances now against apt/squeeze or against apt/wheezy or
some version in-between?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
mpletion: Enhances are not handled)
It's just that a user shouldn't really be required to know what those are.
(if you digg deaper [usually in non-user facing texts] you will come across
"hard", "important", "soft", "negative" and "positive" dependencies to
complete the confusion. I will leave it as an exercise for now which subsets
are meant with those adjectives)
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
lf as essential), so the solution we arrive at is more or
less the same - good to know that at least sometimes theory isn't disproved by
the implementation. :)
Scheduled for 0.9.7.5
ETA: After we know what will happen with 0.9.7.4 (#685155)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNS
e we need to clone this to aptitude (as it does some direct dpkg
calling on its own as far as I know) and whatever other dpkg front-end assumed
that it could arch-qualify everything in a multi-arch universe.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 13:53:47 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> > So it would seem to me the arch-qualifying logic in apt is not right,
>> > it rea
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> On 13 September 2012 23:17, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> On 2012-09-11 15:36:15 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>>>[ David Kalnischkies ]
>>>* handle packages without a mandatory architecture (debi
the naming of zlib1g … ;) ).
The most interesting part will be writing a testcase for that…
(the rest of the commit doesn't look completely bulletproof either, mmh)
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
isn't configured (aka that
it behaves like an essential application), but I am not in the mood for
bug-ping-pong so just CC'ed python maintainers for now, so they can have a
look and comment on it while we will see whats up with APT to decide on
this route (did I mention that a dpkg/status
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 19.05.2013 17:15, schrieb David Kalnischkies:
>> The dpkg/status file before the upgrade could be helpful for reproducing.
>> You can (hopefully) find it in /var/backup/
>>
>> Helpful config options (I case
l keep working for a while. :)
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
time now
to check, just wanted to remove the RC-bug indicator so nobody is scared.)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu
wrote:
> Package: apt
> Version: 0.9.7.9
> Severity: grave
> Tags: security
>
> Source packages are s
re really okay to be removed,
as its a guess, no a definite knowledge. The stuff deleted by the clean
commands on the other hand is really not needed anymore and/or is
redownloaded by APT automatically if it needs it.
So, I wouldn't run them together as they don't belong together.
Be
"suddenly" smells like our front ends are going
to hate us… (at least if they parse what they hand to them with this).
[The code parsing dpkg status lines is a bloody mess, but I hope I will
find some time in-between vintage this weekend to have a closer look]
Best regards
David Kal
this (in SmartUnpack).
I seriously wonder why this hasn't exploded earlier…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
apt-669060-uninitialized-loop-count.diff
Description: Binary data
last?
Could you maybe try intermediate versions (poor-mans bisect)?
I have no access to sparc - just having i386, amd64 and armel here on
which it seems to work so any (correctly aligned) pointers are welcome.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-
tory…)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
qapt-669098-ftbfs-md5summation-undeclared.diff
Description: Binary data
imilar issue as it crashes, too]
SHA512 is very similar, so i presume it has the very same problem.
As i run out of time for today i am leaving these dangling pointers as
they are for now and hope someone can connect the dots. CC'ing sparc
mailinglist as they have properly a good chance t
that will work as intended?)
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
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 18:07, David Kalnischkies
wrote:
> It seems to be indeed the way the sha256 and sha512 checksums are
> calculated. To make it a bit obscure: we have a testcase checking them
> and they run successfully producing the correct output.
> (for reference:
nterface… /nitpick ]
> resolvers like dose3 or aspcud will happily find a solution.
I hope so! Otherwise I would seriously question what researchers have
done in the last decade (we are actually getting close to two now)… ;)
Of course, they aren't perfect either or someone surely had put in the
effort of making them the default…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ak symbol magic, which
I initially intended anyhow, but part forgot and part found useful while
working on this change.
¹ if "-private" wasn't enough of a hint, headers aren't available, no
symbols/shlibs file and exactly nobody cares about ABI/API in there.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
privilege dropping for the moment.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
diff --git a/apt-pkg/contrib/fileutl.cc b/apt-pkg/contrib/fileutl.cc
index 46de634..f754b31 100644
--- a/apt-pkg/contrib/fileutl.cc
+++ b/apt-pkg/contrib/fileutl.cc
@@ -2322,12 +2322,17 @@ bool DropPrivileges() /*{{{*/
> In which case, going back to apt.git and "sudo debi -u" to reinstall all
> packages I've built seems to fix the issue.
As mentioned briefly schroot copies users & groups from your host
system, so if your host system has no _apt user, the _apt user in your
schroot will "disappear" next time it is copied over.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
based on the git commit message)
---
commit ebca2f254ca96ad7ad855dca6e76c9d1c792c4a0
Author: David Kalnischkies
Date: Sat Nov 28 13:17:57 2015 +0100
disable privilege-drop verification by default as fakeroot trips over it
Dropping privileges is an involved process for code and
enote: In public_html/ there are also some *.new files for me,
namely for robots.txt and default.css – I doubt I had changed them
either, so at least default.css would have been nice if it was upgraded
automatically (I see why robots.txt wasn't) [even better if it would be
handled like
might be wrong on your system
and how to fix it (I presume it isn't a bug in the end, but they will know)
Downgraded the severity though as a warning itself isn't destroying anything
and your transcript shows that indeed the dpkg/APT run was successful.
Best regards
David Kalni
et even more.
> So I'm also inclined to add the Breaks.
Usually I would suggest a transitional package in addition, but in this
case I am going a bit further:
The error message suggests to me (who has absolutely no idea what he is
talking about through) that hal configures udev to send messages to hal.
Why not just drop this configuration if it doesn't work anyway… ?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the filename around anyway and it will
silence cppcheck (and I don't have to remember to ignore the remark).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 02:21:40PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> David Kalnischkies, le Tue 11 Feb 2014 19:36:59 +0100, a écrit :
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:35:37PM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> > > The apt 0.9.15.1 started to use futimens instead of previous utime.
> &
l.
Downgrades are not supported and usually not a good idea.
Trying to downgrade really important stuff like libc6 will not just not
work, but explode bigtime.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
moreinfo tag without any additional info, so "first warning".
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
x27;ident' is "a debugging tool". You will
hopefully understand that even if I had anticipated that the commit
would cause trouble I would have assumed nobody would use it.
(I see now that apt-setup is using it and why, and while the information
is in the add output as well it is probably a bit harder to get it from
there, point taken, but that this is easy to say after the fact)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
r invent another (better) solution.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
P.S.: Full-disclosure bla bla: At the moment a third solution would be
for apt to temporary install sysvinit-core, to be able to install the
new version of sysvinit, so that it in turn can remove sysvinit-core
again and replace i
e-Depends loop. This is
| often bad, but if you really want to do it, activate the
| APT::Force-LoopBreak option.
Not really a lot better from a user point as you still can't really
upgrade, it is just slightly less scary than a segfault, but that bug
has really to be resolved on the systemd/sysvi
would therefore not
require a new string and should be simple(r) to backport if needed.
As this will surely find at least a few complainers for stable I will
repeat it though: This breaks (obviously) compatibility with unsigned
archives. Workaround for those buggers would be the flag from above.
Haven't written patch/testcase yet though, as I should be in dreamland
for a while now, so I could be horribly wrong about all this of course.
Not a lot of time tomorrow^Wtoday (and I can't upload anyway), so,
Michael, could you please have a look and talk to the security teams?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
' talks about install, so we would need a new
string
- 'apt-get download' isn't interactive either
(- it is more in line with your own commit summary)
Counter arguments?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
about it.
Well, for starters it would be nice if you could tell us the actual
commands you executed and error messages you are seeing, otherwise
we have no idea what you are talking about.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
s welcome to confirm), it also removes the dependency on binary
math and endian flip grokking – and even reduces codesize. ;)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
commit 05eab8afb692823f86c53c4c2ced783a7c185cf9
Author: Adam Conrad
Date: Sat Apr 26 10:24:40 2014 +0200
fix FileFd::Size bitswap
world peace first though. Might be easier…
But I am a naive kid. 5 years ago I wondered why a small bug – which
even I could provide a patch for – wasn't fixed. Now I wonder how the
"team" manages to keep up with reading bugs at all; but its the same for
many other "Debian: native
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:04:51PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > For your attack to be (always) successful, you need a full-sources
> > mirror on which you modify all tarballs, so that you can build a valid
> > Sources file.
qFindTagWrite("Section");
Ver->Section = tempvalue;
Seems trivial, right? It is also the reason why regardless of how hard
you try to find all these instances, one or two are always slipping
through (but after 4 years, there can't be that many left, right? ;) )
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 18:17:46 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>
>> Pictures^Wdpkg-status files or it didn't happen, as I said multiple times
>> now.
>>
> You'll find the (compressed) status file
ms of ordering?
(aka: Am I crazy yet or what the hell is going on)
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
l of them having their own set of downsizes and depending on who the user
is (and how the machine looks like) I would suggest a different order for
trying them out.
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
es) while having << and >= breaks on the real styles.
The unpack of tango should have caused dpkg to auto-deconfigure commons
though if I see that right (but I haven't the time to look too closely now).
As said, it would be really helpful if you could find the status file.
Best
that just hits confirm after the REMOVE section is done (in
old order – now we know why it was given first 😉), so they have to wait
now for the prompt, but… oh well, --no-remove --assume-yes could work
for this straw man user instead I guess (https://xkcd.com/1172/).
MR on salsa: htt
but in a more
source-orientated (AUR stuff is built on user-systems, right?) this
might be more of a factor, maybe?
At least I assume that both "failures" are a red herring and the actual
problem causing them is deeper and more related to how Arch is setup.
Hence my interest in chr
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1092090 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/eb1adc417b0f3c626c545d195e900d1369c751f
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1093254 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/4454fd246b3b7f605dcd272b2107313ba53688c
Depends" – note the missing dash.
I didn't notice until now…
Patch with test incoming, so the bot will hopefully comment soon
and I save myself from attaching the patch ~ I am just mailing ahead
to fix the versions in the BTS.
Days since I last broke Debian: 0
Best regards
David Kal
eaningful
details based on severity.
For all we know, as we know nothing, apt/oldstable has that problem, too,
(assuming of course its an apt problem to begin with) making that even
more ironic.
But it makes you feel better and I don't really care, so its fine.
I was indeed just giving you a hint for next time on another package
to include a justification rather than treat it as "obviously so".
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
you adding another architecture since the last update
but before the next mirror change).
> severity 1078608 serious
Not that it makes any practical difference in the apt team if you tag
it wishlist or critical, but I am curious: Which section in the Debian
policy is apt violating here? Or
101 - 164 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
