Hi,
On 2024-06-29 22:21, Christian Kastner wrote:
At the moment, rootless Podman would seem like the obvious choice. As
far
as I'm aware, it has the same user namespaces requirements as the
unshare
backends in mmdebstrap, autopkgtest and schroot (user namespaces
enabled,
setuid newuidmap, 6553
Quoting Daniel Markstedt (2024-06-23 07:58:54)
> On Sunday, June 23rd, 2024 at 6:35 AM, Bernd Zeimetz
> wrote:
> > > A few days ago, we released Netatalk 3.2.0 which comes bundled
> > > with a customized subset of WolfSSL as SSL provider.
> > > However, when I spoke to a Debian developer last year
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Xiyue Deng
* Package name: emacs-dape
Version : 0.13.0
Upstream Author : Daniel Pettersson
* URL or Web page : https://github.com/svaante/dape
* License : GPL-3+
Programming lang: Emacs Lisp
Description : Debug Adapter Proto
On Monday, July 1st, 2024 at 5:38 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>
> Quoting Daniel Markstedt (2024-06-23 07:58:54)
>
> > On Sunday, June 23rd, 2024 at 6:35 AM, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > A few days ago, we released Netatalk 3.2.0 which comes bundled
> > > > with a cu
Quoting Daniel Markstedt (2024-07-01 12:04:03)
> On the licensing situation, so my understanding now is that *some*
> permissive licenses can coexist with GPLv2 licensed code, such as
> BSD-*, MIT, LGPL* etc.
> However, SSLeay explicitly forbids redistribution under GPL, while GPL
> explicitly says
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Francesco Paolo Lovergine
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-p...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libtie-aliashash-perl
Version : 1.02
Upstream Contact: Aldo Calpini
* URL : https://metacpan.org/release/Tie-Ali
On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 at 09:18:19 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Specifically I'm concerned about what [advocating use of podman]
> means for tests and if they
> should be able to use unprivileged containers themselves to test things.
tl;dr: There's no regression here, because you already can't run th
Dear list,
Still working with the opencpn package. Now trying to normalize the
Ubuntu PPA builds so they can are based on the same debian/ directory
and tools as the existing Debian opencpn package.
opencpn is currently in a beta phase targeting a 5.10.1 release. The
beta versions are like "
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 11:59 AM Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 at 09:18:19 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> One use-case that I'm familiar with is bwrap (bubblewrap, as used by
> flatpak) nested inside podman. bwrap is a relatively limited container
> technology with relatively "light" r
On 01/07/2024 20:48, Alec Leamas wrote:
Dear list,
Still working with the opencpn package. Now trying to normalize the
Ubuntu PPA builds so they can are based on the same debian/ directory
and tools as the existing Debian opencpn package.
opencpn is currently in a beta phase targeting a 5.10
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 09:46:11PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 01/07/2024 20:48, Alec Leamas wrote:
> > Dear list,
> >
> > Still working with the opencpn package. Now trying to normalize the
> > Ubuntu PPA builds so they can are based on the same debian/ directory
> > and tools as the existing
On 01/07/2024 21:51, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
Hi Andrey.
Thanks for input.
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 09:46:11PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
After some thought, I tend to think that adding an epoch is the right thing
here.
The Policy [1] says:
---
Epochs can help when the upstream version num
On Monday, July 1, 2024 5:59:00 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 01/07/2024 21:51, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
>
> Hi Andrey.
>
> Thanks for input.
>
> > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 09:46:11PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> >> After some thought, I tend to think that adding an epoch is the right
> >> thin
On 02/07/2024 00:10, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Hi Scott,
Upstream can change the versioning however they want. They are upstream. If
they don't care to fix it, then I think we assume they are fine with it and
leave it as is.
But here the situation is that upstream do care and wants to fix it.
On July 1, 2024 10:18:07 PM UTC, Alec Leamas wrote:
>On 02/07/2024 00:10, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>Hi Scott,
>
>> Upstream can change the versioning however they want. They are upstream. If
>> they don't care to fix it, then I think we assume they are fine with it and
>> leave it as is.
>
>
On 02/07/2024 00:31, Scott Kitterman wrote:
HI again
On July 1, 2024 10:18:07 PM UTC, Alec Leamas wrote:
But here the situation is that upstream do care and wants to fix it. But they
need our help (an epoch) to accomplish this to handle the legacy.
We could be helpful, or not. Why not giv
On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 02/07/2024 00:31, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> HI again
>
> > On July 1, 2024 10:18:07 PM UTC, Alec Leamas
wrote:
> >> But here the situation is that upstream do care and wants to fix it. But
> >> they need our help (an epoch) to acco
On 02/07/2024 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
If you switch hats for a moment: have you any advice for upstream in
this situation?
8763.5.10
Yes, I have had a similar idea using 1 instead of 8763 to make it
stand out less. In m
On Monday, July 1, 2024 7:07:16 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 02/07/2024 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
> >> If you switch hats for a moment: have you any advice for upstream in
> >> this situation?
> >
> > 8763.5.10
>
> Yes, I have ha
Hi again
On 02/07/2024 01:13, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2024 7:07:16 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
On 02/07/2024 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
If you switch hats for a moment: have you any advice for upstream in
this situat
On 02/07/2024 01:19, Alec Leamas wrote:
Let's drop this subthread, keeping eyes on the ball: what is a sane
version?
Looking at this from another point of view: is there any situation where
an epoch is appropriate?
--alec
Alec,
On Monday, July 1, 2024 4:19:22 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote:
> Hi again
>
> On 02/07/2024 01:13, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Monday, July 1, 2024 7:07:16 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
> >> On 02/07/2024 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
On July 1, 2024 11:25:59 PM UTC, Alec Leamas wrote:
>On 02/07/2024 01:19, Alec Leamas wrote:
>
>> Let's drop this subthread, keeping eyes on the ball: what is a sane version?
>
>Looking at this from another point of view: is there any situation where an
>epoch is appropriate?
Yes. I don't th
Alec,
On Monday, July 1, 2024 4:25:59 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 02/07/2024 01:19, Alec Leamas wrote:
> > Let's drop this subthread, keeping eyes on the ball: what is a sane
> > version?
>
> Looking at this from another point of view: is there any situation where
> an epoch is appropriate?
>
On 2024-07-01 23:59 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> But this is not about third parties, it's about upstream which publishes PPA
> packages. So far these are by far the most used Linux packages.
>
> I also hesitate to add an epoch, after all they are basically considered
> evil. But if we should not
Soren et. al.,
On 02/07/2024 01:31, Soren Stoutner wrote:
Alec,
If upstream wants to fix this problem, they could just make their next release
version 9000, with the one after that either being 9001 or 9000.1.
Or, possibly, they could encourage everyone to uninstall the PPA package
before ins
Soren,
On 02/07/2024 01:41, Soren Stoutner wrote:
Alec,
On Monday, July 1, 2024 4:25:59 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote:
On 02/07/2024 01:19, Alec Leamas wrote:
Let's drop this subthread, keeping eyes on the ball: what is a sane
version?
Looking at this from another point of view: is there any sit
Alec,
On Monday, July 1, 2024 4:59:26 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote:
> 1. Persuade users to uninstall PPA packages before installing official
> packages and also generation 2 PPA packages with sane versions like 5.10.x
[...]
> Of these I would say that 1. is a **very** hard sell upstream. Users are
>
Alec,
Is upstream planning to maintain their PPA after the packages are released into
Debian?
Or, will it be more like Gentoo, OpenSUSE, or Mageia, where the OpenCPN website
simply links to the official packages?
https://opencpn.org/OpenCPN/info/downloadopencpn.html[1]
On Monday, July 1, 202
Alec Leamas writes:
> So, at least three possible paths:
> 1. Persuade users to uninstall PPA packages before installing official
> packages and also generation 2 PPA packages with sane versions like
> 5.10.x
> 2. Use versions like 9000.5.10, 9000.5.12. etc.
> 3. Use an epoch.
> Of these I wo
HI again,
This becomes somewhat more complicated than it perhaps is.
On 02/07/2024 02:08, Soren Stoutner wrote:
Although I generally agree with your conclusions, using a PPA is the type of
end user task that involved them making modifications to the repositories on
their systems. I would assu
Alec,
On Monday, July 1, 2024 5:19:37 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote:
> For Debian users we backport opencpn which works well. However, the
> Ubuntu backport process is, well, interesting (been there, done that).
>
> The PPA represents a much better way to publish backports to current
> Ubuntu branches
On July 2, 2024 12:26:49 AM UTC, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>Alec,
>
>On Monday, July 1, 2024 5:19:37 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote:
>> For Debian users we backport opencpn which works well. However, the
>> Ubuntu backport process is, well, interesting (been there, done that).
>>
>> The PPA represents a
Hi!
On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 00:54:13 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> On 2024-07-01 23:59 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> > But this is not about third parties, it's about upstream which publishes PPA
> > packages. So far these are by far the most used Linux packages.
> >
> > I also hesitate to add an epoch, aft
Hi!
On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 15:40:07 +0200, Alexandre Detiste wrote:
> Maybe a compromise would be to at least mandate some UTF-8 locale.
Ah, good thinking! That would actually seem acceptable. I've prepared
the attached preliminary patch (missing better commit message, etc),
as a PoC for how this
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 11:59:00PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> > > After some thought, I tend to think that adding an epoch is the right
> > > thing
> > > here.
> > >
> > > The Policy [1] says:
> > > ---
> > > Epochs can help when the upstream version numbering scheme changes, but
> > > they
> >
(sorry, I replied thinking I've read the entire thread, I didn't notice
that there is a second thread broken off of this one)
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Am 2. Juli 2024 01:59:26 MESZ schrieb Alec Leamas :
>Soren et. al.,
>
>On 02/07/2024 01:31, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>> Alec,
>>
>>
>> If upstream wants to fix this problem, they could just make their next
>> release
>> version 9000, with the one after that either being 9001 or 9000.1.
>>
>> Or, p
38 matches
Mail list logo
