Bug#1059251: ITP: node-git-url-parse -- High level git url parser for common git providers

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Israel Galadima X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name    : node-git-url-parse   Version : 13.1.1   Upstream Author : Ionică Bizău (https://ionicabizau.net) * URL : https://github.com/IonicaBizau/git-url-parse * L

Bug#1059248: ITP: python-cirpy -- Python interface for the Chemical Identifier Resolver (CIR)

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Yogeswaran Umasankar X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, kd8...@gmail.com * Package name: python-cirpy Version : 1.0.2 Upstream Contact: Matt Swain * URL : https://github.com/mcs07/CIRpy * License : Expat Prog

Re: Reaction to potential PGP schism

Hi Daniel, Quick backstory: I stayed away from hardware crypto for a long while since there were so many incompatibilities, partial support, or side patches to get basic things to work. Over time, it seems it got to a point where it's mainstream enough that you can buy a Yubikey without much of a

Bug#1059240: ITP: python-chemspipy -- A way to interact with ChemSpider in Python

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Yogeswaran Umasankar X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, kd8...@gmail.com * Package name: python-chemspipy Version : 2.0.0 Upstream Contact: Matt Swain * URL : https://github.com/mcs07/ChemSpiPy * License : Expa

Re: Reaction to potential PGP schism

Hi Gioele-- On Thu 2023-12-21 11:02:06 +0100, Gioele Barabucci wrote: > On 21/12/23 04:16, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > As the Uploader of rust-sequoia-openpgp, what do you think of the > related sequoia-chameleon-gnupg project [1] (drop-in replacement for gpg > that uses sequoia internally)? >

Re: /usr-move: Do we support upgrades without apt?

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 02:42:56PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote: > On 21/12/2023 09:41, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > Is it ok to call upgrade scenarios failures that cannot be reproduced > > using apt unsupported until we no longer deal with aliasing? > > I incline towards "no"; if an upgrade has faile

Re: /usr-move: Do we support upgrades without apt?

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 03:31:55PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 11:19:48AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > > Is it ok to call upgrade scenarios failures that cannot be reproduced > > > using apt unsupported

Re: /usr-move: Do we support upgrades without apt?

Am 21.12.23 um 11:50 schrieb Christoph Berg: Re: Helmut Grohne Is it ok to call upgrade scenarios failures that cannot be reproduced using apt unsupported until we no longer deal with aliasing? If the answer is yes here, we'll close #1058937 (Ben's libnfsidmap1 bug) with no action calling the s

Bug#1059231: ITP: qt6-location -- Qt6 Location

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Patrick Franz X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, delta...@debian.org,debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org * Package name: qt6-location Version : 6.6.1 Upstream Contact: The Qt Company Ltd. * URL : https://www.qt.io/developer

Re: /usr-move: Do we support upgrades without apt?

Hi, On 21.12.23 23:19, Antonio Terceiro wrote: I think so, yes. I don't think it's likely that there are people doing upgrades on running systems not using apt. What about aptitude and the various other frontends, like the DBus based package management tools? I'd expect quite a few people to

Re: /usr-move: Do we support upgrades without apt?

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 at 15:31:55 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > Do those GUI frontends that work via packagekit or other frameworks > count as "using apt"? Managing apt/dpkg packages via packagekit uses libapt-pkg6.0 (via /usr/lib/*/packagekit-backend/libpk_backend_apt.so). I don't know whether that's

Re: /usr-move: Do we support upgrades without apt?

Hi, On 21.12.23 23:31, Marc Haber wrote: Do those GUI frontends that work via packagekit or other frameworks count as "using apt"? I now that WE recommend using apt in a text console outside of X, but even many of our own users do what their Desktop Environment does, and our downstreams like *b

Re: /usr-move: Do we support upgrades without apt?

Hi, On 21/12/2023 09:41, Helmut Grohne wrote: Is it ok to call upgrade scenarios failures that cannot be reproduced using apt unsupported until we no longer deal with aliasing? I incline towards "no"; if an upgrade has failed part-way (as does happen), people may then reasonably use dpkg dir

Re: /usr-move: Do we support upgrades without apt?

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 11:19:48AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > Is it ok to call upgrade scenarios failures that cannot be reproduced > > using apt unsupported until we no longer deal with aliasing? > > I think so, yes. I don't

Re: /usr-move: Do we support upgrades without apt?

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > ## Upgrading using dpkg directly? > > We already have quite a number of packages that use Conflicts to prevent > file loss in upgrades in a very similar way to #1058937 (Ben's > libnfsidmap1 bug) even in released versions of Debian.

Re: Reaction to potential PGP schism

Interesting point in this talk: The APT team is already working on non- PGP signatures. https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Apt/Spec/AptSign I can see the advantages of that for release signatures which use a rarely changing set of keys. However, I do not see any good alternative for PGP for personal s

Re: /usr-move: Do we support upgrades without apt?

Re: Helmut Grohne > Is it ok to call upgrade scenarios failures that cannot be reproduced > using apt unsupported until we no longer deal with aliasing? > > If the answer is yes here, we'll close #1058937 (Ben's libnfsidmap1 bug) > with no action calling the scenario unsupported. I think we shoul

Re: Reaction to potential PGP schism

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 10:16:28PM -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > # Why is GnuPG on Debian's Critical Path? > > In 2023, I believe GnuPG is baked into our infrastructure largely due to > that project's idiosyncratic interface. It is challenging even for a > sophisticated engineer to figure

Re: Reaction to potential PGP schism

On 21/12/23 04:16, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: # What Can Debian Do About This? I've attempted to chart one possible path out of part of this situation by proposing a minimized, simplified interface to some common baseline OpenPGP semantics -- in particular, the "Stateless OpenPGP" interface, or

Bug#1058937: Info received (/usr-move: Do we support upgrades without apt?)

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this Bug report. This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message has been received. Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other interested parties for their attention; they will rep

/usr-move: Do we support upgrades without apt?

Hi, this installment serves a dual purpose. Let me first give an update of the status quo and then pose a consensus question on how we want to deal with a particular problem. I Cc d-release@l.d.o as upgrades are an integral part of releases. I Cc d-ctte@l.d.o for advisory feedback with experience

Re: Reaction to potential PGP schism

Thank you very much  for your explanation  On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 2:13 AM, Christoph Biedl wrote: Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote...(...)Thanks for your exhaustive description. I'd just like to point out onepoint:> In practice, i think it makes the most sense to eng

Re: Reaction to potential PGP schism

Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote... (...) Thanks for your exhaustive description. I'd just like to point out one point: > In practice, i think it makes the most sense to engage with > well-documented, community-reviewed, interoperably-tested standards, and > the implementations that try to follow them.