Re: On init in *Debian*

On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 03:23:21PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > And the third advantage of it, is that upstream people is starting to > > > > ship > > > > systemd unit files. > > > It is not advantage. it is crap. I believe no one can write and support > > > init/systemd/whatsoever script

Re: Debian should move away from MD5 (and at best also from SHA1) (in secure APT and friends)

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:18:55PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > There are also the md5sums files that are stored in the .deb file. > I'm not really sure what the real use case for them is and > wouldn't have a problem with them going away. debsums(1) aka "what packages on my system are corrupt by a

Re: Debian should move away from MD5 (and at best also from SHA1) (in secure APT and friends)

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 01:14:19PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > > part at all) will only weaken security. So I think what you say is an > > > argument for keeping md5sum, so that noone think they can use that > > > information for security. > > > > This argument is based on the incorrect assu

Re: Debian should move away from MD5 (and at best also from SHA1) (in secure APT and friends)

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:58:15AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > > """ > > debsums is intended primarily as a way of determining what installed files > > have been locally modified by the administrator or damaged by media errors > > and is of limited use as a security tool. > > > > If y

Re: Discarding uploaded binary packages

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:10:02AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > I also think allowing source-only uploads makes for easier contributions, > and thus hopefully more contributions. > >>> Why would it be easier? Surely we still want people to build packages > >>> first to > >>> ensure th

Re: Discarding uploaded binary packages

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:16:24AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > > There are two main arguments: "why should we upload binaries if they will > > be discarded anyway" and "if we allow source-only uploads people will > > upload packages that weren't tested to be buildable". > > Please don't repeat t

Re: Mandatory -dbg packages

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:25:31PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > Libraries with `-dbg` package are a pain to deal with when debugging > some problem. You probably mean "without". -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: major linux problems summary 2012

On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 08:36:51PM +0100, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: > > Distros' repositories do not contain all available open source software > well given that on github there are several toy projects, or projects made > for > courses that are completely useless for the users and abandoned in a fe

Re: major linux problems summary 2012

On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 07:30:00PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Don't feed the troll. It's not trolling. It's a honest list of problems which a lot of developers don't view as problems. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: major linux problems summary 2012

On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 12:05:23AM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote: > These are not *linux* problems. If you mean just the kernel, a large part of the list is comprised of kernel problems. > 2012/11/3 Andrey Rahmatullin > > > On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 07:30:00PM +, Ben Hutchings wro

Re: major linux problems summary 2012

On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:53:53PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > > Don't feed the troll. > > It's not trolling. > > It's a honest list of problems which a lot of developers don't view as > > problems. > > It's not. If he was serious, he wouldn't be citing articles from 2007. Do that

Re: major linux problems summary 2012

On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 08:53:24PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > Don't feed the troll. > > It's not trolling. > > It's a honest list of problems which a lot of developers don't view as > > problems. > He should use the BTS like everyone else. A lot of things can't be expressed in a form of a bu

Re: major linux problems summary 2012

On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 02:37:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > At least with open source software, a third path (besides working around > the bug or switching to some other software) also exists: you can help. > That's not always practical, but at least it's *possible*. Not all problems are things

Re: major linux problems summary 2012

On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 10:29:50PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > If there are specific issues which cannot be expressed by bug reports > (e.g. because they affect more than one package), by all means raise > them here one by one. "You can't publish a (dynamically linked) binary that can be used on

Re: major linux problems summary 2012

On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 12:41:13PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 04:01:03PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > "You can't publish a (dynamically linked) binary that can be used on most > > user systems" > > "You cannot make all

Re: RFC on MBF (non-freeness of "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil")

On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:25:51PM +0100, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote: > Should we maybe try again? As Ansgar > mentioned in one bugreport, the license is considered non-free not only > by us, but by Fedora as well[1] (and it's also notOSI-recognized) FWIW, by FSF too: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/

Re: major linux problems summary 2012

On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 02:36:24PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote: > Android didn't grab 75% of the market by providing android installation > instructions for iphones - it took the market with android preinstalled > on phones[3]. > [3] and lots of other reasons too but let us not spoil a great analogue

Re: Where could I upload x32 port bootstrap?

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 10:47:43AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On the other hand, widespread dumb-ass assumptions about i386/amd64 may > cause quite a bit of issues: basically any Makefile that talks about "x86" > is somewhat suspicious. This is the main reason one may want to oppose > the inclu

Re: Bug#693040: libav: Strange build failure on several archs

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:09:57PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > Package: libav > Version: 6:9~beta2-2 > Severity: important > Tags: help > > I require assistance from a toolchain savy expert. I have uploaded a new > upstream version of libav to experimental. Unfortunately, it fails to > build

Source-only uploads (was: procenv_0.9-1_source.changes REJECTED)

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:10:37AM +, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > "Source-only uploads are not allowed." > Why not? May I request a binNMU for the architecture (amd64) I upload? > > I currently do not have facilities to build the package in question > with the host running Debian's kernel. > For

Re: Source-only uploads (was: procenv_0.9-1_source.changes REJECTED)

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:08:13PM +, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > If it's a policy enforcement, I am ok with it. Otherwise, I'd would > like to see dak accept those. I have a vague recollection of a UDD > presentations which did list count of DDs doing source-only uploads. source+all uploads prob

Re: release goal for jessie! (Re: Source-only uploads (was: procenv_0.9-1_source.changes REJECTED)

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 09:21:19PM +0100, Didier Raboud wrote: > What is yet unclear is if we want to build all (as in arch:any+all) or all > (as > in arch:any) packages on buildds. Are there any reasons to not built arch:all on buildds aside from technical problems? -- WBR, wRAR signature.as

Re: release goal for jessie! (Re: Source-only uploads (was: procenv_0.9-1_source.changes REJECTED)

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 03:06:22PM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: > you always need to build for one arch and test, then why not upload it? How is that related to my question? Also, please don't top-post and dont send me copies. > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote

Re: Gentoo guys starting a fork of udev

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 03:05:50AM +, Darren Salt wrote: > [snip] > > Even the claims of the Gentoo people about the separate /usr partition > > are unjustified [4]. > > > [4] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken > > From that page: > > “There is no way to reli

Automated rebuilding

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:30:02AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > I would probably add a "rebuild when entering testing" where this to > be a perfect world, to ensure continued buildability. The proper solution to this is regular test rebuilds of testing or unstable (to make sure packages are still b

Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 06:06:02PM +, brian m. carlson wrote: > > > some of us prefer a separated /usr partition. > > "I want to have a separate /usr, because I can" > > enabling a separate /usr means extra work. > using a separate /usr was controversial > partitioned their systems with a separ

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 03:34:32PM +, Darren Salt wrote: > (Oops. Failed first time.) > > Having just viewed the raw text of my message (as sent), there's one other > little wrinkle which I already knew but had failed to consider and which > makes testing of this useless: gpg handles any 'From

Re: Maildir vs. mbox in Debian

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:16:25PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > *cough* btrfs -ocompress=lzo. Small files are packed inline in metadata > blocks, and you get compression you wanted. It's nice to see more features from '93 Windows NT implemented for Linux at last. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc

Re: Canonical pushes upstart into user session - systemd developer complains

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:23:03PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > The default .subversion/config file is a piece of documentation, not a > > configuration file. I agree that there's far too much noise in there. > > However, that's not a flaw of the format, it's a flaw of the subversion > > defau

Re: Ubuntu have done it again,

On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 12:09:10AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > this time installing surveillance code. > > http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/12/07/1527225/rms-speaks-out-against-ubuntu > http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/ubuntu-spyware-what-to-do "Again"? Looks like old news. -- WBR, wRAR signa

Re: how to add my project?

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 11:23:42AM +0100, Eduard wrote: > Hello! > How can i add my project into debian-devel repository? For example, > my program is the based on httrack library tool, the GUI for it, > it's the clone from WinHTTrack tool, classical for windows systems. > This project was programm

Re: Feedback

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:55:13AM -0500, Stephen Powell wrote: > (1) Official Debian version numbers are not normally assigned until the > release becomes the stable release. Not true (anymore). -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Feedback

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 01:17:40PM +, ja...@jatos.co.uk wrote: > Merry Christmas to you also. > > Incidently, I haven't written any the documentation. Good to know. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Feedback

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 04:55:53PM +, ja...@jatos.co.uk wrote: > I didn't thought the use of codenames was hardly unique to Debian, remember > Windows Longhorn? Codenames for unlreased products are a different story. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: ITA: jabberd2 -- Jabber instant messenger server

On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 04:15:36AM -0800, Shawn wrote: > I > init.d-script-missing-lsb-description > With dependency-based booting (also systemd) we now really need this. It's just a description. -- WBR, wRAR signature.

Re: ITA: jabberd2 -- Jabber instant messenger server

On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 04:22:10AM -0800, Shawn wrote: > > > I init.d-script-missing-lsb-description< > > http://lintian.debian.org/tags/init.d-script-missing-lsb-description.html> > > > With dependency-based booting (also systemd) we now really need this. > > It's just a description. > oh my bad,

Re: Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64

On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:26:46AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > >>> Debian clearly says: "File does not exist", while in fact it DOES EXIST. > >>> This is a 100% proof of Debian bug. > > > I guess it is bash telling you that. > > >> That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader fo

Re: Time to merge back ubuntu improvements!

On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:45:45PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > > * Pin packages with RC bugs on upgrade. This is: > > - Non trivial: it makes you understand how bad the bug is and know how > > the pinning system works > > No and yes. > > No, because apt-listbugs exists and provides a nic

Re: Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 12:43:56AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > The problem to be solved is that ISVs provide binaries for Linux i386 > and our users want to run them on amd64. LSB, x32 and ARM are > completely irrelevant - the important thing is to make it easy to > install whatever libraries th

Re: Question about update-initramfs

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 07:34:15PM +0100, "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" wrote: > ---8<-- > uswsusp (0.7-1) unstable; urgency=low > > NOTE, by default update-initramfs -u only updates the initramfs of the > latest kernel. This can lead to incompatibilities between s2disk and > re

Re: Linux Future

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:06:16PM +0100, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: > Hello, > > This blogpost is months old but it makes some interesting reflections: > > http://www.pappp.net/?p=969 https://plus.google.com/u/0/115547683951727699051/posts/74r518xVUNH -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description:

Re: Suggestion about minor improvements to default bashrc

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 06:19:02PM +0100, Simon Johnsson wrote: > Hello, this is my first minor contribution to Debian, but as it's my > Linux distribution of choise and the only one I chose to work with I > have found minor improvements that perhaps can be of use. > > The first one I will mail ab

Re: socket-based activation has unmaintainable security?

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:35:13AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >>> socket-activation in systemd _helps_ security in that you can give an > >>> unprivlidged process a listening port under 1024. (using a privileged > >>> configuration file) > >> Privileged vs. unprivileged port is not really a sec

Re: socket-based activation has unmaintainable security?

On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:30:28PM -0600, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > > Do we finally have mechanisms to start processes without root but with > > > elevated capabilities? > > We also need fallback for non Capability-capable supported kernels > > (wow that's an awkward sentence) > Not to mention non-xa

Re: socket-based activation has unmaintainable security?

On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 03:20:09PM -0600, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > > > > Do we finally have mechanisms to start processes without root but with > > > > > elevated capabilities? > > > > We also need fallback for non Capability-capable supported kernels > > > > (wow that's an awkward sentence) > > > N

Re: Bug#700031: ITP: libjreen -- A powerful Jabber/XMPP library implemented in Qt/C++

Jabber/XMPP library implemented in Qt/C++ Hi, The library has been added to upstream tracker for monitoring future API changes: http://upstream-tracker.org/versions/jreen.html -- Andrey Ponomarenko, ROSA Lab. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of

Re: Package install location for 0700 Directories

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:46:12AM -0500, Istimsak Abdulbasir wrote: > So "0700" is used to make a folder visible to the public like on file > server? Huh? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: NDEBUG when building packages?

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 02:09:39AM -0800, Vincent Cheng wrote: > We should also suggest that packages use > -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo instead (-g -O2). In fact, I think > that this would be a sensible default for packages using debhelper's > cmake integration. Sounds like another wishlist b

Re: git dangerous operations on alioth

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:45:35AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > Has anybody had experience controlling access to git repositories, for > > example, to give users access but prevent some of the following > > dangerous operations? > > > > - prevent users pushing with the `--force' option > > (fr

Re: Unable to find RC bug targets to squash

On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 10:29:49AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > However, I failed in keeping this 1 RC bug per week up > and running just because I realised that a there exist a lot of bugs > with at least one of the following features: > > 1) technically hard to address without doing heavy res

Re: Unable to find RC bug targets to squash

On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 06:10:18PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > If we ignore those, we get 60 bugs. 46 currently. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Bug#702607: make source code of all Debian projects visible (on gitweb)

On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 09:51:47PM +, adrelanos wrote: > Package: general > Severity: wishlist > > Debian.org hosts a lot source code. It's difficult to search through it, > because it doesn't get indexed by search engines. You are probably looking for http://codesearch.debian.net/ -- WBR,

Re: Doing an anonymous git clone from bitbucket: is it possible?

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 06:27:33PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Is it possible to do an *anonymous* clone of a bitbucket repository > using git? Of course, just remove the user from the HTTPS link (or log out from the bitbucket site to get the anonymous link displayed in the clone button). > BT

Re: Doing an anonymous git clone from bitbucket: is it possible?

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 07:32:32PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > Furthermore, you already asked that question in [0] and didn't get an > > answer, > > so let me try that for you, I took a random repository on BitBucket: > > > > https://bitbucket.org/thomaswaldmann/moin-2.0 > > > > There's

Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R

On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 01:18:49AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > > There are release-critical problems which need to be fixed first. Hint: > > > You > > > could help there as well which is a much better idea rather than ranting > > > and > > > trolling around. > > Note that according to the d

Re: Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R

On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 12:33:15AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > Thanks for trading the R release cycle with Debian's and for > > delaying the release. The harm has already been done, so somebody > > should probably go and create a transition tracker for it? > > Rather than accept the harm, s

Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R

On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 09:55:09PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > And not, we do not have epochs to temporarily downgrade a package > > after a botched upload. > > c.f. imagemagick > > I'm pretty sure we do. It seems "we" usually upload a 2really1 package to fix that particular mistake without in

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 04:11:31PM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > Yesterday, however, I just had the case of a project with no > tarballs (as the library I wanted to package is part of a larger > project, it's not released independently). I stumbled (too long) on > having a good workflow fo

Re: Bug#684128: down the memory hole

On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:05:16AM -0700, ian_br...@fastmail.net wrote: > >> I disagree: that mail starts with a chat between "Humpty Dumpty" and > >> "Alice", which both have nothing to do with the bug at hand. There > >> was nothing in the subject or the first paragraphs of the text that > >> ind

Re: Epoch usage conventions (was Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)

On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:09:27PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Also as it can be seen on the archive, once > a version has been tainted (!?), uploaders tend to lower their > resistance to increase the epoch even further. But once an epoch has been added, there is (arguably?) no problems with incr

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:07:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Since the Debian archive needs the tarballs *anyway*, the small amount > of additional work required to use the upstream release tarballs so that > we're obviously consistent seems worth it. FSVO small. It's easy when the tarball is fi

Re: Git packaging workflow discussion on planet.d.o

On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:21:44PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > otherwise the workflow becomes clumsier > Just to be clear, did you read Russ' blog - are you referring to the merge > trick he uses in his workflow for this purpose? I've even owned the bug report that led to the Russ's approac

Re: failure to communicate

On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 07:37:19PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > Nothing proves that the patches you proposed will be ignored *after* > > the release of wheezy. > Christian, > > Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can lead > to having partitions not aligned to a 4K boundary

Re: failure to communicate

On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 02:50:19AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >>> Nothing proves that the patches you proposed will be ignored *after* > >>> the release of wheezy. > >> Christian, > >> > >> Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can lead > >> to having partitions not aligned t

Re: libc-bin

On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 06:45:15PM -0500, carlos wrote: > I've trying to use Chromiun latest trunk but its requires libc-bin > > 2.15, even I use Debian Testing I do not have this package. > Is thought to have libc 2.17 on Debian testing soon? As experimental already has 2.17 for some time, I suppo

Re: alternative debian/rules

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 09:38:14AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Well yes, but if you do even small things such as generate the > package manually instead of using debhelper, prepare to be shouted > at by the British Cabal with threats of using superpowers to remove > such packages from Debian. [

Re: jpeg8 vs jpeg-turbo

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:23:04AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > A. Add libjpeg-turbo to Debian archive (that's easy) Not really (especially if you want it to ship libjpeg.so.* too). -- WBR, wRAR -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr

Re: jpeg8 vs jpeg-turbo

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:11:53PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> We have a plenty of libraries (and other packages) who do conflict > >> between themselves, so we know the drill. > >> > >> Also Debian no longer ships libjpeg62, so there's not conflict there > >> at least for baseline implementati

Re: Bug#602034: jpeg8 vs jpeg-turbo

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 02:27:47PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > It boils down to "jpeg6-2 is the only important thing. Forget about > > > jpeg8 and jpeg9, which bring incompatible changes". > > There are other features in newer libjpeg that packages do need, even > > when not using exotic JPEG

Re: jpeg8 vs jpeg-turbo

On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 07:18:31PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > Why has this taken so long? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=602034#62 And no one raised this to tech-ctte. > I mean, every other major distro is using -turbo. It can't be that bad. They are not Debian. -- WBR, w

Re: 2013 sometimes still feels like 2003 or 1993 (Re: NEW processing during freezes

On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 11:00:09AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >>> People do this all the time: upload packages built against local > >>> packages, experimental or even on Ubuntu to Debian sid. > > >> /me shivers. This hurts. There is no reason not to rebuild in sane > >> environments. Can we ple

Re: 2013 sometimes still feels like 2003 or 1993 (Re: NEW processing during freezes

On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:01:51AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >> After Wheezy is released, we can talk about throwing away all binary > >> uploads again... if we can't prevent people doing the wrong thing, we > >> might have to send bits of what gets uploaded to /dev/null. > > > > Whil

Re: git as a source package format?

On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 07:43:17PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: > One thing not clear is whether people thought I was referring to using > upstream repositories or alioth repositories (only containing commits > from the maintainer) as the content of such source packages. Bernhard, > could you comme

Re: git as a source package format?

On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:04:09PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > One thing not clear is whether people thought I was referring to using > > > upstream repositories or alioth repositories (only containing commits > > > from the maintainer) as the content of such source packages. Bernhard, > >

Re: 2013 sometimes still feels like 2003 or 1993 (Re: NEW processing during freezes

On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 11:53:04AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > >> We've always treated "FTBFS if built twice in a row" bugs as important: > >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian...@lists.debian.org;tag=qa-doublebuild > > > > The real question is whether or not there is a

Re: 2013 sometimes still feels like 2003 or 1993 (Re: NEW processing during freezes

On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:05:06PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > Again, as Thijs argued somewhat eloquently already earlier in this > thread, computational time is not the scarce resource to worry about; > human time is. > > The one thing Debian is comfortable about spending money on is > hardwa

Re: Question about multiarch

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 12:03:15PM +0100, Walter Valenti wrote: > a Intel x64 (T5500) with "Wheezy i386" installed. > It's possible use the multiarch support of dpkg > to migrate to "Wheezy amd64" ? > > (after installation of linux-image-amd64, libc6-amd64) Migrating a live system between architec

Re: jessie release goals

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 04:08:07PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > 1) IMHO, services/daemons (e.g. apache, ejabberd, etc.) that listen per > default on the network (unless loopback only) shouldn't be started per > default, after being installed. > The usually come only with a default confi

Re: 2013 sometimes still feels like 2003 or 1993 (Re: NEW processing during freezes

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 11:40:50PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > what needs to be touched to achieve aspects of the following > > features: (Again not implying that they are all desired.) > > * Permitting source-only uploads. > While there is a consensus about dropping binaries, there is > none

Re: [debian-mysql] Will we see MariaDB in Jessie?

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 07:18:35PM +0100, Steven Ayre wrote: > On 6 May 2013 18:54, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > > Meh. +1 to kill MySQL for MariaDB. It's got a much better future. I see > > it more like a libc changeover. Who cares, it's got the same interface. > > We only have things to gain (bette

Re: /export (was Re: jessie release goals)

On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 03:51:33PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > How about moving /etc into /home? How about moving /home > into /usr? Note that / was moved to /usr and /usr to /home just for HDD size reasons [1]. [1]: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html -- WBR

Re: Merging / and /usr (was: jessie release goals)

On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:12:12AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > The question, expressed in a number of different ways to provide a type > of "clarity by triangulation", is: Why does /usr exist in the first > place? Why was it created, way back in the day? What is its purpose, > what is it for? Hist

Re: Merging / and /usr (was: jessie release goals)

On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 05:32:13PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > So really what does it take to e.g. move /bin and stuff to /usr? Did > anyone try that? Where is that documented? What problems did occur? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove -- WBR, wRAR -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deb

Kernel ABI Tracker

intended for Linux maintainers and developers of device drivers/kernel modules who are interested in ensuring backward compatibility of the Linux kernel interfaces. More info: http://wiki.rosalab.com/en/index.php/Blog:ROSA_Planet/Linux_Kernel_ABI_Tracker -- Andrey Ponomarenko, ROSA Lab

Re: Bug#733045: debhelper: Can debhelper make autotools-dev updating default behaviour?

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 05:33:56PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > Generally agreed, although I believe you have to be somewhat careful > when using it in combination with dh-autoreconf dh-autoreconf(7) says "you do not need --with=autotools_dev if you use --with=autoreconf" > I've been sending rathe

Re: Bug#737563: ITP: telegram-cli -- Command-line interface for Telegram

On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:52:41PM +, Cleto Martín wrote: > * URL : https://github.com/vysheng/tg > * License : GPL As the binary is linked with -lssl, it cannot be distributed. -- WBR, wRAR -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject

Re: Can we please change the Subject: ?

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:50:32PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, > > Andreas Beckmann: > > It's annoying to read and no longer relates to the discussion. > > I don't think the original poster deserves this publicity. > > > Your email has no old Subject:, no References: and no In-Reply-To:

Re: Please upgrade your build environment when you are affected by transition

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 01:38:51PM +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote: > Hi, > > this is just a pledge to you all fellow debian developers to update your > build environment before you build a package. > > This mostly affects transitions, f.e.: > > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/db5.3.html >

Re: repacked source ball upgrade

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 02:21:57PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote: > Hello, > > for some of my packages, I would like to update the repacking > of the upstream source ball: > what is the versionning debian custom ? > > Let assume the following name: > pi_3.14+ds.orig.tar.xz > > May I name the upgrad

Re: Having fun with the following C code (UB)

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 01:06:02PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > > Here is a little bug I just discovered: > > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22664658/finding-off-t-size > > > > For reference, here are the packages affected in debian: > > > > http://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=LARGE_

Re: systemd - some more considerations

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:23:36PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > >> I'd say the opposite way. Could you please explain in which case you > >> find it acceptable to *just crash*, and render the system completely > >> unusable, and possibly even not recoverable? > > > >1. If the kernel is configured wit

Re: systemd - some more considerations

On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 08:27:01AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > For the record, there's CONFIG_BINFMT_SCRIPT, which when disabled, causes > all > > #! scripts to be run under /bin/sh unconditionally. > > > > *everything* runs under /bin/sh, including Perl, Python, and Bash scripts. > > Yes,

Re: shebang (was Re: systemd - some more considerations)

On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 12:58:23PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > Are you sure about this? > > Yes. > > > Some references would be helpful. I can't seem to find anything on this > > through > > Sure. I’ve patched mksh mksh doesn't count as a reference. > > some cursory googling. > Try duck

Re: shebang

On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 02:00:46PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > I'm interested where POSIX says what you are sure it says (that the > > shell is responsible for evaluating #!). > > I said the shell is supposed to, and suggested to search POSIX, but > I wasn’t sure that it was POSIX standardis

Re: shebang (was Re: systemd - some more considerations)

On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 02:04:32PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: > > > Sure. I’ve patched mksh > > > > mksh doesn't count as a reference. > Did you even read before replying? He patched it to use #? Instead of #! that > was using. > He was sure about it being there because he had patched it to b

Re: ld.so for multiarch and multilib installed at same time

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 06:49:49PM +0800, Yunqiang Su wrote: > >>On amd64 system: > >> > >> libc6-i386 make /lib/ld-linux.so.2 link to /lib32/ld-linux.so.2 and link > >> to > >> /lib32/ld-2.18.so > >> > >>libc6:i386 make /lib/ld-linux.so.2 link to /lib/i386-linux-gnu/ld-2.18.so > >> > >>wh

Re: Bug#745872: ITP: profanity -- a console based XMPP client

On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 09:32:00AM +0200, Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Dariusz Dwornikowski > > * Package name: profanity > Version : 0.4.0 > Upstream Author : James Booth > * URL : http://www.profanity.im/ > * License

Re: Bug#745872: ITP: profanity -- a console based XMPP client

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 08:22:59AM +0200, Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote: > > >> PKG_CHECK_MODULES([openssl], [openssl], [], > > >> [AC_MSG_ERROR([openssl is required for profanity])]) > > >> > > >> The resulting binary cannot be distributed. > > > > > Could You elaborate on that ? Why would open

Re: standalone logind (Re: Bits from the systemd + GNOME sprint)

On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 01:28:44AM -0007, Cameron Norman wrote: > This is incredibly unfair to those components' competitors because it is not > a fair playing field. We are not having a sports competition here. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: position independent executable issue

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 04:12:09PM +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote: > Hello List, > > for one of the Debian package that I maintained, bibtool to name it, it > appears that > the added option -pie (aka --pic-executable) caused some issue: #747519 > > While the upstream source is not subject to the re

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >