Re: How should Debian CI handle autopkgtests that require more than three hours

On Thursday, May 8, 2025 11:31:41 PM Mountain Standard Time Paul Gevers wrote: > An alternative that can be done now: the timeout of 2:47h is per test > stanza in d/t/control (see autopkgtest(1). For some test suites it's not > hard to split the test suite over multiple stanza. The overal timeout

Re: FTBFS when /bin is before /usr/bin in PATH?

On 2025-05-09 at 13:15, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2025-05-08 03:08:17 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> I challenge that may be pre-mature optimization: >> >> jas@kaka:~$ ls /usr/bin/|wc -l >> 4675 >> jas@kaka:~$ ls /usr/games/|wc -l >> 21 >> jas@kaka:~$ > > Indeed. I thought that there were

/usr/games usage (Re: FTBFS when /bin is before /usr/bin in PATH?)

On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 07:15:03PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > jas@kaka:~$ ls /usr/games/|wc -l > > 21 > Indeed. I thought that there were a lot more in /usr/games. $ apt-file search /usr/games|wc -l 1184 -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|lay

Re: Intend To Orphan (ITO) procedure?

On 2025-05-08 Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi, > Am Thu, May 08, 2025 at 06:48:33PM +0200 schrieb Andreas Metzler: > > It > > just hides the fact that they are unmaintained and makes it therefore > > harder to find stuff that should be orphaned and/or removed. > Just a short comment: In the Bug of the

Re: FTBFS when /bin is before /usr/bin in PATH?

On 2025-05-08 03:08:17 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > I challenge that may be pre-mature optimization: > > jas@kaka:~$ ls /usr/bin/|wc -l > 4675 > jas@kaka:~$ ls /usr/games/|wc -l > 21 > jas@kaka:~$ Indeed. I thought that there were a lot more in /usr/games. -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web:

Re: Trouble posting to debian-devel

Hi Antonio, On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 08:31:22AM -0600, Antonio Russo wrote: > I'd also like to confirm there is a policy (or at least agreement) > that running code as root unnecessarily is a problem. Quoting https://release.debian.org/trixie/rc_policy.txt : In addition to the issues listed in t

Re: Trouble posting to debian-devel

On 2025-05-09 08:20, Boyuan Yang wrote: Just a reminder: if you are trying to report a sensitive security issue: DO NOT post on debian-devel or other public mailing lists to avoid disclosing it to the public in an unwanted way. Please contact Debian Security Team via secur...@debian.org . If it

Re: ITN procedure?

Quoting Lucas Nussbaum (2025-05-09 09:40:38) > On 09/05/25 at 06:10 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > Am Thu, May 08, 2025 at 09:56:47PM +0200 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum: > > > > The point of this sentence is to define what is non-consensual in the > > > > first place. Changing the packaging style means

Re: Trouble posting to debian-devel

Hi, 在 5/9/2025 9:17 AM, Antonio Russo 写道: Hello all, I tried to post to this list two times yesterday morning. Roughly, the content was about a security issue.  Neither post was rejected, nor did I receive a bounce, but it did not show up on the list. I'm not repeating the content of that ema

Trouble posting to debian-devel

Hello all, I tried to post to this list two times yesterday morning. Roughly, the content was about a security issue. Neither post was rejected, nor did I receive a bounce, but it did not show up on the list. I'm not repeating the content of that email, since I'm not sure if the content is the

RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?)

Hi Lucas, Am Fri, May 09, 2025 at 09:40:38AM +0200 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum: > > > If a NMU involves changing the packaging style _and_ making other changes, > > > it's also possible to publish the changes somewhere as a serie of patches > > > rather than as a single patch. > > > > Fixing item 4 pr

Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?)

On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 12:43:54PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 09/05/25 at 10:27 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > However, I have doubts about (4), since there's still so many different > > > workflows to use Git+Salsa. same here. > > Which brings us back to DEP-14 as a baseline recommenda

Re: RFC for changes regarding NMU in developers reference (Was: ITN procedure?)

On 09/05/25 at 10:27 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > However, I have doubts about (4), since there's still so many different > > workflows to use Git+Salsa. > > Which brings us back to DEP-14 as a baseline recommendation that can > help reduce friction. While individual workflows vary, having some

Re: ITN procedure?

Am Fri, May 09, 2025 at 10:22:02AM +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > I find it smelly when a team-maintained package lacks individuals within > that team being responsible for the package, and worry if pushing smelly > lone-hero-maintained packages to be team-maintained just shifts the > flavor of

Re: ITN procedure?

On 09/05/25 at 06:10 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Am Thu, May 08, 2025 at 09:56:47PM +0200 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum: > > > The point of this sentence is to define what is non-consensual in the > > > first place. Changing the packaging style means the NMU diff will be > > > difficult to review. > >