"Adam D. Barratt" writes:
> Hi,
>
> As you may already know, we've passed responsibility for Wheezy to the
> Stable Release Managers; in other words, we've released!
>
(snip)
>
> That's it for now; it's time for the celebrations to begin, whether at a
> Release Party[PARTY] or otherwise. :-)
>
>
Le 05/05/2013 03:50, Adam Borowski a écrit :
> On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 12:08:06AM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>> As far as bootstrapping is concerned, the OCaml sources include
>> precompiled (bytecode) executables that are used in a first stage of the
>> build process (i.e. ocaml doesn't build-d
Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > >> We've always treated "FTBFS if built twice in a row" bugs as important:
> > >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian...@lists.debian.org;tag=qa-doublebuild
> > >
> > > The real question is whether or not there is a consen
On 05/05/13 at 03:06 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 10:00:07AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Anyway, given that our infrastructure builds binary packages from a fresh
> > unpacked source package, I would prefer if we keep the compromise that
> > imperfect "clean" targets a
On 04/05/13 at 12:27 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:05:06PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> >> Again, as Thijs argued somewhat eloquently already earlier in this
> >> thread, computational time is not the sca
Dear colleagues,
I'm quite concerned that `desktop-file-validate` utility (provided by
"desktop-file-utils" package) is checking .desktop files against
outdated specification. On some occasions such "validation" recommend
changes conflicting with the current specification (see more in
#690279).
S
On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 12:08:06AM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> As far as bootstrapping is concerned, the OCaml sources include
> precompiled (bytecode) executables that are used in a first stage of the
> build process (i.e. ocaml doesn't build-depend on itself). So no need
> for cross-compilati
On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 10:00:07AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Anyway, given that our infrastructure builds binary packages from a fresh
> unpacked source package, I would prefer if we keep the compromise that
> imperfect "clean" targets are not release-critical problems.
Note that for a big ma
Le Sat, May 04, 2013 at 03:25:34PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>
> Now, I'm not so sure that we should spend developer time to (1) find
> those issues and file bugs; (2) fix those issues. I personally find it
> easier to create a temporary git repository and to use git clean / git
> checkout t
I encountered a similar problem in Gentoo - e2fsck 1.42.5 can't check
read-only mounted FS with an external journal. Ted Ts'o just wrote a
fix: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg38096.html
That fixes the problem for me; it should for you as well.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev
On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 12:18:44AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Julian Taylor [2013-05-04 11:48 +0200]:
> > On 04.05.2013 11:10, Wookey wrote:
> > >
> > > I am huge fan of both building in clean environments _and_ being able
> > > to build twice. I don't think there is any solution to this other tha
+++ Julian Taylor [2013-05-04 11:48 +0200]:
> On 04.05.2013 11:10, Wookey wrote:
> >
> > I am huge fan of both building in clean environments _and_ being able
> > to build twice. I don't think there is any solution to this other than
> > testing it in an automated fashion. An sbuild or pbuilder op
Le 18/04/2013 16:41, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> So what is the status for some runtimes/interpreters (would like to see some
> follow-up/corrections from package maintainers)?
> [...]
> - Lua, Ocaml, Haskell, Guile, ... ?
First, let me explain a few notions that will be useful to grasp the
situat
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Smedegaard
* Package name: libhttp-throwable-perl
Version : 0.016
Upstream Author : Stevan Little ,
Ricardo Signes
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/HTTP-Throwable/
* License : Artistic or GPL
* Ryan Kavanagh , 2013-05-04, 13:48:
If Debian and its users trust developers with that kind of
responsibility, it should also be able to trust developers to follow a
basic guideline of "Please test-build your package and check the
resulting binary before doing a source-only upload."
No, that
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 04:53:59PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I think there's a consensus, the problem is who's going
> to do the work for automating dropping of binaries and
> rebuild.
Not implying that I am the one doing this work, I would like to learn
more about what needs to be touched to
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Smedegaard
* Package name: libtest-tabledriven-perl
Version : 0.02
Upstream Author : Jonathan Rockway
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-TableDriven/
* License : Artistic or GPL-1+
Programming Lang: Perl
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Smedegaard
* Package name: libmoosex-runnable-perl
Version : 0.03
Upstream Author : Jonathan Rockway
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/MooseX-Runnable/
* License : Artistic or GPL-1+
Programming Lang: Perl
De
On 04-05-13 17:53, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> And/or on the technical side, make the buildds always build twice.
Not Going To Happen[tm] on my buildd hosts.
--
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space.
If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and y
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Smedegaard
* Package name: libbread-board-perl
Version : 0.25
Upstream Author : Stevan Little
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Bread-Board/
* License : Artistic or GPL-1+
Programming Lang: Perl
Description
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:18:36AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> While we're at it, can we also have source-only uploads? Uploading
> potentially huge binary packages that just go to /dev/null seems like
> a pointless waste of bandwidth to me, and the only for argument I've
> heard (which I don't
On Sb, 04 mai 13, 00:30:00, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> I assume you're concerned that there may be undeclared build-
> conflicts. But testing in the maintainer's development system is not
> a particularly good way to find those. Testing in a maximal
> environment (everything with priority <= optio
]] Michael Gilbert
> The one thing Debian is comfortable about spending money on is
> hardware, so if we expect to see double build times, then there should
> be an associated doubling-down on buildd hardware.
One thing is the cost to buy the hardware. Other costs (monetary or
otherwise) are ge
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:05:06PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> Again, as Thijs argued somewhat eloquently already earlier in this
>> thread, computational time is not the scarce resource to worry about;
>> human time is.
>>
>> The on
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:05:06PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Again, as Thijs argued somewhat eloquently already earlier in this
> thread, computational time is not the scarce resource to worry about;
> human time is.
>
> The one thing Debian is comfortable about spending money on is
> hardwa
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 11:53:04AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> >> We've always treated "FTBFS if built twice in a row" bugs as important:
>> >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian...@lists.debian.org;tag=qa-doub
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 11:53:04AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> >> We've always treated "FTBFS if built twice in a row" bugs as important:
> >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian...@lists.debian.org;tag=qa-doublebuild
> >
> > The real question is whether or not there is a
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> We've always treated "FTBFS if built twice in a row" bugs as important:
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian...@lists.debian.org;tag=qa-doublebuild
>
> The real que
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> We've always treated "FTBFS if built twice in a row" bugs as important:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian...@lists.debian.org;tag=qa-doublebuild
The real question is whether or not there is a consensus within the
project
Le 04/05/2013 15:37, Xavier Roche a écrit :
> something that you can not detect unless you setup a complete chrooted
> build environment, which is a bit cumbersome to do)
Replying to myself - I should have pointed out that pbuilder was
actually a really straightforward way to do that (sudo pbuilde
On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 13:09:51 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes ("Epoch usage conventions (was Re: R 3.0.0 and required
> rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)"):
> > Well, I strongly disagree that in general using epochs for packaging
> > mistakes is a good practice (and I've tho
On Sat, 2013-05-04 at 06:36:31 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 19.04.2013 00:33, schrieb Guillem Jover:
> I think the full-multiarch support for python in
> > experimental should really be reverted.
>
> No. This is backward, and the wrong way to go forward.
Sorry, but the way to go forward is
Le 02/05/2013 20:12, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Yes, speaking as someone who has, on several occasions, uploaded arch: all
> binary packages with source package problems and not discovered that until
> months later via a FTBFS bug from an archive rebuild, I think we should
> rebuild all arch: all pac
Hi,
On 04/05/13 at 10:10 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> +++ brian m. carlson [2013-05-03 21:39 +]:
> > On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:10:25AM +0300, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> > > "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> > > > Once we drop that and only give people the right to modify the
> > > > software we dist
Some threads/links that I followed:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/04/msg00183.html
http://danielpocock.com/autotools-project-distribution-and-packaging-on-debian
http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/upstream_git_repositories/
http://danielpocock.com/sites/danielpocock.com/files/release-packagi
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Oleg Gashev
* Package name: libarchive-any-create-perl
Version : 0.02
Upstream Author : Tatsuhiko Miyagawa
* URL : https://metacpan.org/release/Archive-Any-Create/
* License : Artistic or GPL-1+
Programming Lang: Perl
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:04:09PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > One thing not clear is whether people thought I was referring to using
> > > upstream repositories or alioth repositories (only containing commits
> > > from the maintainer) as the content of such source packages. Bernhard,
> >
* Wookey , 2013-05-04, 10:10:
I am huge fan of both building in clean environments _and_ being able
to build twice. I don't think there is any solution to this other than
testing it in an automated fashion. An sbuild or pbuilder option for
--build-twice would make testing a very simple matter.
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 06:11:48AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 24.04.2013 11:23, schrieb Ondřej Surý:
>
> do you have some insight how openjpeg enters this game? apparently some
> packages
> already use openjpeg explicitly to support some jpeg2000 features.
Irrelevant to this discussion, a
On 04.05.2013 11:10, Wookey wrote:
>
> I am huge fan of both building in clean environments _and_ being able
> to build twice. I don't think there is any solution to this other than
> testing it in an automated fashion. An sbuild or pbuilder option for
> --build-twice would make testing a very sim
Your message dated Sat, 4 May 2013 11:11:01 +0200
with message-id <20130504.21659.hol...@layer-acht.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#706737: general: Laptop brightness completely on
restart
has caused the Debian Bug report #706737,
regarding general: Laptop brightness completely on restart
to be
+++ brian m. carlson [2013-05-03 21:39 +]:
> On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:10:25AM +0300, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> > "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> > > Once we drop that and only give people the right to modify the
> > > software we distribute but no longer the possiblity to do so
> > > on the
Jakub Wilk writes:
> * Arto Jantunen , 2013-05-03, 11:12:
>> Source only uploads were banned many years ago, mainly due to problems with
>> maintainers not even build testing their packages.
>
> [citation needed]
Indeed. I was fairly certain that a policy decision about this was made
at some poi
On 04/05/13 08:17, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On 04-05-13 05:04, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> In any case, please refrain passive-aggressive statements on other people's
>> projects.
>
> Except that this time the "project" we're talking about was one person
> asking another person "can you clarify wha
44 matches
Mail list logo
