Re: lintian preventing uploads

On Monday, 21 October 2024 17:12:24 AEDT Ansgar 🙀 wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 2024-10-21 at 15:05 +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > > $ cat debian/source/lintian-overrides > > # We aren't building with Discord support and therefore everything under > > # 3rdparty/discord-rpc is not relevant. If in futur

Re: lintian preventing uploads

Hi, On Mon, 2024-10-21 at 15:05 +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > $ cat debian/source/lintian-overrides > # We aren't building with Discord support and therefore everything under > # 3rdparty/discord-rpc is not relevant.  If in future we add Discord support > we > # should Build-Depend on rapidjson-

Re: Limited security support for one or more packages

Hi Russel, Quoting Russell Coker (2024-10-21 05:59:53) > Periodically when I update Debian systems I get a notification like the > following. Then it goes away and I don't know how to retrieve such data > again. How can I get data about these things from a running system when not > in the pro

lintian preventing uploads

warzone2100 source: lintian output: 'license-problem-json-evil 3rdparty/ discord-rpc/thirdparty/rapidjson/license.txt', automatically rejected package. warzone2100 source: If you have a good reason, you may override this lintian tag. I'm getting new uploads of warzone2100 rejected and it sends me

Limited security support for one or more packages

Periodically when I update Debian systems I get a notification like the following. Then it goes away and I don't know how to retrieve such data again. How can I get data about these things from a running system when not in the process of upgrading it? I'm working on a tool to give advice abou

Re: Epoch for src:fuse-ext2 to replace src:fuse-umfuse-ext2's fuseext2 binary

On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 11:39:36PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2024-10-20 at 20:03 +0200, наб wrote: > > I'd like to use an epoch so I'm asking for consensus per policy 5.6.12. > > > > As part of the Salvage Team's trixie view-os removal plan ‒ > > RM: umview -- RoQA; obsolete, low pop

Re: Local users in autopkgtest hosts

On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 at 19:56:42 +, Daniel Markstedt wrote: > In the end, I went with the "needs-sudo" restriction instead, to be > able to run the actual test suite as non-root. That's often a good choice if only a minority of your test needs to do privileged things. gvfs is one of the canonic

Re: Epoch for src:fuse-ext2 to replace src:fuse-umfuse-ext2's fuseext2 binary

On Sun, 2024-10-20 at 20:03 +0200, наб wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to use an epoch so I'm asking for consensus per policy 5.6.12. > > As part of the Salvage Team's trixie view-os removal plan ‒ > RM: umview -- RoQA; obsolete, low popcon > #1085454 > RM: fuse-umfuse-

Re: Local users in autopkgtest hosts

On Thursday, October 17th, 2024 at 11:27 PM, Colin Watson wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 07:42:18PM +, Daniel Markstedt wrote: > > > I would like to ask your advice concerning autopkgtest. > > At the moment, I'm preparing to set up an automated test suite for the > > "netatalk"

Bug#1085590: ITP: fuse-ext2 -- File System in User Space - Module for ext2

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: наб X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Control: block -1 by 1085457 * Package name: fuse-ext2 Version : 0.0.11 Upstream Contact: Alper Akcan * URL : https://github.com/alperakcan/fuse-ext2 * License : GPL-2+ P

Re: Private code: to forge, or not to forge?

On 2024-10-19 15:47:21, Thomas Hochstein wrote: > Iustin Pop wrote: > > > Gitea/Forgejo are common > > recommended solutions for "home hosting", but neither is packaged. > > Forgejo has unofficial Debian packages that work fine with bookworm, at > least. > >

Re: Private code: to forge, or not to forge?

Hi, On 20-10-2024 20:24, Iustin Pop wrote: I'm also glad to hear! Although, having read more, even the LTS version (of Forgejo) has a very short lifetime, not sure how this will play with Debian releases. Likely keeping sid up with LTS or most recent versions, and relying heavily on backports fo

Re: Private code: to forge, or not to forge?

On 2024-10-16 21:20:48, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > On Wed, 2024-10-16 19:24:32 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote: > > On 10/16/24 18:18, Iustin Pop wrote: > > > Gitea/Forgejo are common recommended solutions for "home hosting", but > > > neither is packaged. > > > > (jftr) I'm currently working with F

Epoch for src:fuse-ext2 to replace src:fuse-umfuse-ext2's fuseext2 binary

Hi! I'd like to use an epoch so I'm asking for consensus per policy 5.6.12. As part of the Salvage Team's trixie view-os removal plan ‒ RM: umview -- RoQA; obsolete, low popcon #1085454 RM: fuse-umfuse-ext2 -- RoQA; dead upstream, low popcon #1085457