On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 10:04 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2016-11-08 22:30 -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > It seems that sbuild indeed re-uses the timestamp from the last
> > debian/changelog entry in the binNMU changelog entry.
>
> This has been done in an early attempt to make binNMUs co-in
On 10/11/16 00:53, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 10:41:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Is this a recommended recipe ? AIUI a buildd doing a binnmu will not
>> modify the debian/changelog file.
>
> Are you sure? When last I checked, this was not true (it may have
> changed sin
On 10/11/16 10:00, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 10:04 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> On 2016-11-08 22:30 -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
>>> It seems that sbuild indeed re-uses the timestamp from the last
>>> debian/changelog entry in the binNMU changelog entry.
>>
>> This has been
On 2016-11-10 10:00 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> The date from the last sourceful upload should probably still be used
> for any date/time information included in generated files to ensure
> they are identical on all architectures (or at least to try to do so).
>
> If you change the date in th
On 10/11/16 08:26, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Ian Jackson wrote...
>
>> I think what is really worrying people is the fear that they might
>> miss something, for good reasons, and then find that their work that
>> they care about is thrown out of stretch.
>>
>> It is difficult to address this fear w
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:01:55AM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> These days, a changelog entry is added to a changelog.$arch. This is to avoid
> problems when co-installing ma:same packages, as the changelog entries
> will/may
> differ between different architectures.
I see. And this cha
On 10/11/16 10:33, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:01:55AM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> These days, a changelog entry is added to a changelog.$arch. This is to avoid
>> problems when co-installing ma:same packages, as the changelog entries
>> will/may
>> differ between
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > I see. And this changelog.$arch is neither part of the source package,
> > the .changes file nor the .buildinfo file, it's just included in the
> > binary packages? Or is it also part of the .changes file?
> It's in .change
Hi,
Quoiting Holger Levsen (2016-11-10 07:48:33)
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > > I see. And this changelog.$arch is neither part of the source package,
> > > the .changes file nor the .buildinfo file, it's just included in the
> > > binary packages?
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:24:38AM -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > I certainly hope it's part of the .buildinfo file as well, else, for
> > reproducing binNMUs we would also need to store the .changes files in an
> > easily accessable manner… (which we plan to do for .buildinfo files, but
> > no
Hi,
Quoting Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (2016-11-10 07:04:55)
> On 10/11/16 10:00, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > The date from the last sourceful upload should probably still be used
> > for any date/time information included in generated files to ensure
> > they are identical on all architectures (or at
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 10:34 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I'm still confused, thinking that this Binary-Only-Changes field needs
> to be assembled into a file, called changelog.$arch, which is then put
> into the debian directory of the unpacked source package. (And which is
> then not included in
Cyril Brulebois writes ("Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus"):
> Ian Jackson (2016-11-09):
> > What version of sbuild do buildds run ? Ie, supposing that this is
> > fixed in sbuild in stretch, will this be fixed on the buildds ? Or do
> > we need to update jessie, or what ?
>
> sbuild on bui
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
--- Please fill out the fields below. ---
Package name: python-ramlfications
Version: 0.1.9
Upstream Author: Lynn Root, Spotify AB
URL: https://github.com/spotify/ramlfications
License: Apa
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:34:33AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:24:38AM -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > > I certainly hope it's part of the .buildinfo file as well, else, for
> > > reproducing binNMUs we would also need to store the .changes files in an
> > > easily a
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:59:48AM -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> One solution would be to increase SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH by 1 second for every
> binNMU to a package.
>
> Any other ideas?
set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH to the creation time of that changelog.$arch
entry?
--
cheers,
Holger
signat
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 11:33 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois writes ("Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus"):
> > Ian Jackson (2016-11-09):
> > > What version of sbuild do buildds run ? Ie, supposing that this
> > > is
> > > fixed in sbuild in stretch, will this be fixed on the buildds
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Scott Kitterman
* Package name: django-maintenancemode
Version : 0.11.2
Upstream Author : Remco Wendt
* URL : http://github.com/shanx/django-maintenancemode
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Python
Description :
Package: general
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
the mySQL update killed the akonadi configuration and leaves Kmail and
KOrganizer and Adressbook unusable.
i report this to general, for the simple fact, that someone should have checked
in general that this update does not kill importat work
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 843891 akonadi
Bug #843891 [general] general: mySQL update killed akonadi configuration and
leaves Kmail and KOrganizer and Adressbook unusable
Bug reassigned from package 'general' to 'akonadi'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: DEP14 policy for two dots"):
> > Ok, can you prepare a patch for DEP-14 then? I'll apply it as it looks like
> > a reasonable extension.
>
> Attached. FYI I intend to implement this in dgit.
Thanks, committed to the dep svn r
Hi,
Quoting Niko Tyni (2016-11-10 10:01:38)
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:34:33AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > can someone please point at a real life/archive example of such a file?
> > (a binNMU .changes file with Binary-Only-Changes field…)
>
> That's in the .buildinfo file (not .changes), a
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016, at 00:28, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The value of HTTPS lies in its protection against passive snooping.
There are some relevant issues, here.
1. It does protect against passive snooping *from non-skilled
attackers*. And this is not being made anywhere clear enough.
2. It is u
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Scott Kitterman
* Package name: django-organizations
Version : 0.8.2
Upstream Author : Ben Lopatin
* URL : https://github.com/bennylope/django-organizations/
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Python
Description :
(resending again to the correct addresses; I could never get used to debbugs CC
behaviour.)
Ximin Luo:
> Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> The date from the last sourceful upload should probably still be used
>> for any date/time information included in generated files to ensure
>> they are identical on
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Scott Kitterman
* Package name: django-wkhtmltopdf
Version : 3.1.0
Upstream Author : Incuna Ltd
* URL : https://github.com/incuna/django-wkhtmltopdf
* License : MIT/Expat
Programming Lang: Python
Description : Dj
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:39:40PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> I'd prefer if we enhanced apt transports to run a lot more protected
> (preferably under seccomp strict) before any such push for enabling
> https transports in apt. It would reduce the security impact a great
> deal.
Hello,
I tried to build the experimental linux package on an armhf machine
using sbuild. It failed (after 7 hours, sigh) with:
dpkg-shlibdeps: error: no dependency information found for
/usr/lib/ld-linux-armhf.so.3 (used by
debian/linux-kbuild-4.9/usr/lib/linux-kbuild-4.9/scripts/pnmtol
On Nov 10, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> I tried to build the experimental linux package on an armhf machine
> using sbuild. It failed (after 7 hours, sigh) with:
This looks like #843073.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Scott Kitterman
* Package name: django-redis-sessions
Version : 0.5.6
Upstream Author : Martin Rusev
* URL : http://github.com/martinrusev/django-redis-sessions
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Python
Description
On 2016-11-10 11:33, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois writes ("Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus"):
> > Ian Jackson (2016-11-09):
> > > What version of sbuild do buildds run ? Ie, supposing that this is
> > > fixed in sbuild in stretch, will this be fixed on the buildds ? Or do
> > > we n
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 1002 (new: 20)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 154 (new: 1)
Total number of packages reque
Hello,
it is the nature of an arch:all binary package it can be installed on
any architecture regardless on which architecture it has been build.
Given this I deduced I'm at liberty on which architecture I'd want to
rebuild such a package, but I saw disagreement. So I'm asking for
clarification:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Other suggestions?
Include information about which packages/issues you are talking about.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
On Nov 11 2016, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> b) This is a serious issue as John D. Rebuilder should be free to choose
>on which architecture to build "src:foo".
>
> Personally, I tend to b) since
>
> * there is no sane way for the maintainer to tell the world which
> architecture should be used
[adding debian-ruby]
On Sunday 23 October 2016 04:23 AM, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> jQuery 3.0 was release back in June, so in principle affected upstreams
> had at least a few months to deal with any fallout. If that's not the
> case, you can refer upstream to this upgrade guide, which documents t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sruthi Chandran
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: node-grunt-legacy-util
Version : 1.0.0
Upstream Author : "Cowboy" Ben Alman (http://benalman.com/)
* URL : http://gruntjs.com/
* License : Expat
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote...
> There are some relevant issues, here.
>
> 1. It does protect against passive snooping *from non-skilled
> attackers*.
Well, yes, no. The tools become better so thinking a few years into
the future sophisticated programs for that purpose might be available t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sruthi Chandran
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: node-grunt-legacy-log
Version : 1.0.0
Upstream Author : "Cowboy" Ben Alman (http://benalman.com/)
* URL : http://gruntjs.com/
* License : Expat
39 matches
Mail list logo
