Re: Bug#753641: ITP: liblinux-pid-perl -- wrapper around the getpid() and getppid() C functions

Hi! On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 12:21:15 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 10:09:12 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > With glibc and NPTL this module does not seem to make much sense, as > > each different thread will have the same PID. If it was exposing the > > L

dpkg-source to automatically add a Testsuite field

Hi! Given that dpkg-dev has recognized the Testsuite field for some time, I don't really see a reason for dpkg-source not to automatically add it to the generated .dsc with an “autopkgtest” value if there is a debian/tests/control file around, instead of requiring maintainers to remember to set it

Re: Bug#753704: ITP: amap -- Next-generation scanning tool for pentesters

Hi! On Sun, 2014-07-06 at 21:04:25 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 04:02:05PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > > The standards FHS directory layout gives us four locations in which to > > put executabes: /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. In theory we could > > then have four pr

Re: dpkg-source to automatically add a Testsuite field

Hi! On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 13:19:41 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 06:35:47PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Reading the spec [S], it seems to me that the file can be empty, as it > > states “This is a file containing zero or more RFC822-style stanzas”,

Re: people.debian.org will move from ravel to paradis and become HTTPS only

On Sun, 2014-07-13 at 15:19:22 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:13:10PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > > Furthermore, we will change the people.debian.org web-service such that > > only HTTPS connections will be supported (unencrypted requests will be > > redirected). >

Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!

Hi! On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 18:39:14 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > It would be nice, however, to have a way to specify the alternate behavior > > in > > a consistent reliable way (meaning something I can put in the package when I > > add

Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!

Hi! On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 10:11:00 +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > A proper lintian warning can enlighten the maintainer and push him > > toward the change or somehow qualify the NMUer to add that file (if > > there are no other big changes) > > Ther

Re: Bug#754513: ITP: libressl -- SSL library, forked from OpenSSL

On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 14:09:55 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > This will all probably take some time. > > As long as you don't mean to wait to deploy symbol versioning. It becomes > *really* painful after a while. Changes to symbol versioni

Re: Solutions for the Apache upgrade hell

Hi! On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 11:41:25 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2014-07-13 13:17:24 +0200, Arno Töll wrote: > > Unfortunately it turns out, that /a lot/ of people use "aptitude > > --purge-unused safe-upgrade", or the apt equivalent "apt-get > > dist-upgrade --purge" which causes dpkg to pur

Re: Bug#754513: ITP: libressl -- SSL library, forked from OpenSSL

Hi! On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 19:54:38 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > The other major concern was about scary entropy-gathering code, > implemented in LibreSSL Portable for Linux as a last resort for when > /dev/urandom can't be read. I agree that it's too risky, or: too > difficult to prove saf

Re: people.debian.org will move from ravel to paradis and become HTTPS only

Hi! On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 19:44:18 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Peter Palfrader , 2014-07-20, 12:07: > >we have been moving towards https for most services over the last 12 > >months. > > Is that intentional that the http->https redirect for bugs.d.o is only > temporary (302)? Should we update de

SSH upload queue stuck?

Hi! As I'm not sure if this is being worked on, or even a known issue due to the migration away from ravel, as I did't find any mention on the BTS or RT, I'm just posting it here, so that others might also get aware of any answer/status. The SSH upload queue on ssh.upload.debian.org:/srv/upload.d

Re: ifupdown2 by Cumulus Networks

Hi! On Tue, 2014-08-05 at 23:51:04 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > Cumulus Networks is using Debian as a base and has produced "ifupdown2", > a "compatible" replacement for ifupdown written in Python: > https://github.com/CumulusNetworks/ifupdown2/tree/master/ifupdown2 > > They maintain a state o

Re: First steps towards source-only uploads

Hi! [ I had a note to reply to the previous thread, but never got to it. ] On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 13:27:38 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > On 08/12/2014 12:33, Hector Oron wrote: > > 2014-08-01 9:37 GMT+02:00 Ansgar Burchardt : > >> We will allow not including arch:all packages in uploads once we

Re: First steps towards source-only uploads

Hi! On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 02:35:46 -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > #756975 dpkg-dev: dpkg-genchanges option to only include arch:all debs This is now available in dpkg 1.17.11, and as mentioned on the bug report, you can use it in at least these ways: # Source and arch-indep only build, will fail if

Re: First steps towards source-only uploads

On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 12:24:49 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Guillem Jover wrote: > > # Full build, but filter the generated .changes file to only inlcude > > # source and possibly arch-indep binaries, will not fail if the > > # latter are missing. > > $ dpkg-bu

Re: let missing-debian-source-format lintian tag be a warning!

On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 09:20:51 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jul 2014, Guillem Jover wrote: > > The only reason for that warning right now is to pester people into > > either switching, which they should be doing out of their own > > volition anyway because

Re: dpkg-source to automatically add a Testsuite field

Hi! On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 11:22:57 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 03:06:14AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > How will it handle an existing value in that field? In the future, we > > > might have other forms of test suite, thus requiring differe

Re: First steps towards source-only uploads

On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 11:27:00 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Guillem Jover (2014-08-13 13:48:11) > > On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 13:27:38 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > > There are also other problems that need to be eventually addressed: as far > > > as I

Re: daemon user naming scheme

Hi! On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 11:02:54 +, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote: > > This has the advantage of being short and downstreams not having lots of > > Debian-* > > users on their systems possibly confusing users not familiar with > > Debian. I'd be nice to standardize on this. > > I have the

Base binary packages using xz instead of gzip

Hi! It seems there's quite many binary packages in the base system using xz as compressor instead of gzip, since the switch to xz as default, which might make debootstrapping from non-Debian systems harder. After running the follwing: $ debootstrap --download-only sid sid-root-path $ cd sid-r

Possible abuse of dpkg-deb -z9 for xz compressed binary packages

Hi! I had noticed this a while ago while reading changelogs, but didn't realize at the time this poses actual problems, besides being possibly just a dubious practice. There seems to be some packages overriding the default compression level for xz to 9. This means dpkg-deb will require way more m

Re: Base binary packages using xz instead of gzip

Hi! [ CCing Joey, as he was one of the people who seemed to care about this at the time, and might be able to improve the current situation, if he still cares, see below. ] On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 13:30:55 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 01/09/14 12:33, Guillem Jover wrote: > >

Re: There should not be dependencies on systemd (Was: Cinnamon environment now available in testing)

On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 00:05:59 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 06, Noel Torres wrote: > > It is just wrong to have dependencies on the init system. > > If you need dbus, you should Depend on dbus, and systemd should > > Provides dbus. > This is why most of these dependencies are on libpam-sy

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Hi! On Sat, 2014-09-27 at 18:30:17 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:32:18AM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > So far, I need to do the following to remove bash (and associated risk of > > 0-days until something sane is done about functions) > > That is not supported, so

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Hi! On Sun, 2014-09-28 at 18:39:50 +1000, Russell Stuart wrote: > On Sun, 2014-09-28 at 09:33 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 09:11:44PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > > Does update-menus really need bash? Why? > > > > pipefail is actually a fairly useful bashism. > >

Re: binary data file and endianness and multiarch

On Sun, 2014-09-28 at 18:42:24 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 09/27/2014 05:36 PM, Adam Borowski wrote: > > Except that the endianness war has been won by little-endian and thus your > > code would optimize for an already tiny part of the population that is going > > to only decrease: arm, mips

Pre-Depends changed for dpkg on GNU/kFreeBSD

Hi! In dpkg 1.17.13 I switched start-stop-daemon on GNU/kFreeBSD to use the native kFreeBSD backend using libkvm instead of using the Linux backend through linprocfs. Requiring linprocfs has always seemed somewhat wrong to me, more so when on FreeBSD procfs is actually optional. This means the li

Re: Pre-Depends changed for dpkg on GNU/kFreeBSD

On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 22:03:37 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > On 19:34, Guillem Jover wrote: > > In dpkg 1.17.13 I switched start-stop-daemon on GNU/kFreeBSD to use > > the native kFreeBSD backend using libkvm instead of using the Linux > > backend through linprocfs. &

Re: Pre-Depends changed for dpkg on GNU/kFreeBSD

Hi! On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 04:45:13 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > After checking the s-s-d and libkvm code again now, it seems it does > not require any kvm_read(3) at all, so /dev/mem should not be needed > either, could you try the attached patch on a jail? (I need to recover > my

Inert DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS noopt in debian/rules files

Hi! While going through the dpkg codebase, I realized that any debian/rules file that calls dpkg-buildflags through make's $(shell) function will not honor at least noopt from DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS, which affects the build flags returned by dpkg-buildflags. This is fixed in dpkg 1.17.14 buildflags.mk

Re: Inert DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS noopt in debian/rules files

Hi! On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 01:55:01 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Guillem Jover , 2014-10-06, 01:33: > >I realized that any debian/rules file that calls dpkg-buildflags through > >make's $(shell) function will not honor at least noopt from > >DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS, whi

Re: Inert DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS noopt in debian/rules files

On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 19:10:47 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 01:55:01 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > > Why? > > > Because make does not (yet) pass make variables to $(shell) subshells. > [...] > > Try t

Re: Pre-Depends changed for dpkg on GNU/kFreeBSD

On Sat, 2014-10-04 at 23:59:25 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 04:45:13 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 22:03:37 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > > > No problem. Does that mean you'd happily revert to using linprocfs? > &

Re: inconsistent versions of M-A: same packages

Hi! On Sat, 2014-11-01 at 11:45:56 +0100, Marc Glisse wrote: > sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively rebuilding > all "Multi-Arch: same" packages that have inconsistent version numbers > across architectures before releasing Jessie? That's something for the release-team

Packages using old dpkg tools paths

Hi! I was notified by Emmanuel Bourg that there are still packages making use of the old compat paths for u-a, dpkg-divert and dpkg-statoverride in /usr/sbin. Those compat symlinks got removed in dpkg 1.17.0: ,--- * Remove update-alternatives, dpkg-divert and dpkg-statoverride compatibili

Re: Packages using old dpkg tools paths

Hi! On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 22:20:48 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: > On 2014-11-03 11:23, Guillem Jover wrote: > > I'm planning on starting to file bug reports for the source packages > > below (BCCed). I've not checked (yet) how severe the dpkg-statoverride > > ones

Re: inconsistent versions of M-A: same packages

Hi! On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 17:18:10 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Ralf Treinen (2014-11-09 15:58:15) > > Interesting, I did not know this. Is this documented somewhere? I just > > looked > > through apt-get(1) man page and couldn't find it there. > > it should definitely be documented

Re: RFC: DEP-14: Recommended layout for Git packaging repositories

Hi! On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 15:38:59 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote: > > I'd like to note that there are very good reasons for a debian-only, > > overlay-style packaging repository too. This section should, in my > > opinion, at least acknowledge that,

Re: Packages using old dpkg tools paths

Hi! On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 11:23:37 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > I'm planning on starting to file bug reports for the source packages > below (BCCed). Here's the current status. I've filed bugs now with patches, or just uploaded for orphaned ones. > Sources

Bug#669390: O: ppmd -- fast archiver program with good compression ratio

Package: wnpp Severity: normal Continuing with my intention to try to match my current dissatisfaction with the project with my dedication to it, I've just orphaned the ppmd package. The package just got ported recently to 64-bit systems so builds for those systems need to be hand-held for now as

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 19:28:35 -0600, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Montag, 30. April 2012, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > Conflicts: foo (>= 0), foo (<< 0) > > to be exact, since versions smaller than 0 are possible. > > *grin* > > btw, is the concept of numbers smaller than zero but not negative known/use

Re: Switch from xz-utils to liblzma in dpkg Pre-Depends

Hi, On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 06:19:48 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > As I'd like to change a Pre-Depends in dpkg, I'm bringing this up here > for discussion, as per policy §3.5 and given dpkg “Essential: yes” > nature. > > > As mentioned in [0] some time ago, I'

Re: Configuration file handling (was: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian)

On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 13:41:32 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:53:34AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > > >If dpkg kept a copy of the original configuration file (to be retrieved > > >at all times), it would be easier to spot local changes. > >

Re: on the use of chmod/chown in maintainer scripts

On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 12:28:27 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:23:49PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > A lot of daemon packages in Debian nowadays create their own user and groups > > during installation. Usually this also implies that a couple of files and > > directories

Re: Wheezy release: CDs are not big enough any more...

On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 17:04:16 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Remembering the fun that we had during the Squeeze release with trying > to make single-CD installations work well, it's time to consider what > we're going to *claim* to support in Wheezy. We've had a history of > supporting the followi

Re: on the use of chmod/chown in maintainer scripts

On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 22:47:22 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 03:55:24PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > One option would be to make dpkg-deb use an internal tar implementation, > > and add a file describing the attributes of the to be packaged files. >

Re: on the use of chmod/chown in maintainer scripts

On Sun, 2012-05-13 at 01:17:35 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 02:10:13AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > This would imply BSD tar needs to be promoted to the Essential set > > alongside GNU tar, at which point I might as well just use an > > intern

Re: Wheezy release: CDs are not big enough any more...

On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 17:31:47 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le lundi 14 mai 2012 à 17:56 -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > Installed-Size is generated automatically by dpkg-buildpackage, so the > > only way that you'd get a package without it is by manually creating a > > package, which nearly

Re: Wheezy release: CDs are not big enough any more...

On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 10:18:25 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 05:56:54PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Installed-Size is generated automatically by dpkg-buildpackage, so the > > only way that you'd get a package without it is by manually creating a > > package, which nearly no

Re: Wheezy release: CDs are not big enough any more...

On Sun, 2012-05-13 at 18:47:01 -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Adam Borowski wrote: > > Special-casing base packages would be a lot of complexity, let's avoid that > > if possible -- but still preferred to letting gzip stay. > > Base packages can be identified at build time by their priority. > if ($pri

Re: Wheezy release: CDs are not big enough any more...

On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 12:44:02 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Adam Borowski dixit: > >using the attached script. > > Ah, no, don’t use ar to create .deb files. > > http://www.mirbsd.org/permalinks/wlog-10_e20110818-tg-g10046.htm Using binutils' ar should be considered supported, and works fine

Re: Wheezy release: CDs are not big enough any more...

On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 12:47:01 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Guillem Jover dixit: > > the archive override. And if we have to keep changing the packages > > anyway to make sure they match changing priorities, we might as well > > just set the compressor (to gzip) explici

Re: amd64 as default architecture

On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:03:35 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote: > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Sven Joachim wrote: > > On 2012-05-20 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > Slightly OT but I wanted to mention it for its similarity: > > > > > > One thing that should be tested and then do

Re: on the use of chmod/chown in maintainer scripts

On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 13:49:19 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Roger Leigh writes: > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 02:38:14PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> That just leaves the question of wether dpkg uses uid/gid or symbolic > >> names when unpacking debs. > > > > I think this one is c

Re: Assumptions when processing triggers (was [pkg-mono-group] Bug#671711: monodoc-browser: fails to upgrade) from 'testing'

Hi! On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 16:12:14 +0100, Iain Lane wrote: > On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 10:37:53AM +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > > […] > > > > during a test with piuparts I noticed your package fails to upgrade from > > 'testing'. > > It installed fine in 'testing', then the upgrade to 'sid' fail

Re: [xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#676686: libxslt1.1: libxslt1.1 binNMU broke multi-arch installability

On Sat, 2012-06-09 at 15:26:06 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Henrique de Moraes Holschuh (h...@debian.org) [120609 02:31]: > > We'd just have to teach the tool to binNMU all arches when the target > > package would need it due to multiarch. Release team requests a binNMU of a > > package for som

Re: [xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#676686: libxslt1.1: libxslt1.1 binNMU broke multi-arch installability

On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 11:39:24 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Guillem Jover writes ("Re: [xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#676686: libxslt1.1: libxslt1.1 > binNMU broke multi-arch installability"): > > As I mentioned in the long ref-counting thread, I strongly disagree this > > is

Re: Handling of changelogs and bin-nmus

On Sun, 2012-06-10 at 14:40:28 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jun 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: > > As I mentioned in the long ref-counting thread, I strongly disagree this > > is a correct solution, it just seems like a hack to me. Instead I > > think we should co

Re: [RFC] Add upstream VCS info to control file

On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 20:40:03 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 07:58:03PM +0900, Osamu Aoki a écrit : > > > > We can think of 3 candidate files. > > #1, debian/copyright > > #2, debian/watch > > #3, debian/control (Not for me but you suggested) > > I would like to add de

Re: Lintian warning: hardening-no-fortify-functions & version numbering

On Sun, 2012-06-24 at 11:07:05 +0300, Serge wrote: > 2012/6/24 Russ Allbery wrote: > >> If you do, then... How should they do that? I.e. if I specify: > >> CPPFLAGS="blablabla hehehe hohoho" > >> How should build system run gcc? Like that? > >> gcc blablabla hehehe hohoho -c -o test.o test.c >

Re: Bug#679078: ITP: acpi-support-minimal -- minimal acpi scripts

Hi! On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 10:52:48 +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: "Bernhard R. Link" > > Package name: acpi-support-minimal > License : GPL2+ > Description: minimal scripts for handling base ACPI events > This package contains minimal sc

Re: Bug#679078: ITP: acpi-support-minimal -- minimal acpi scripts

On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 14:48:10 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > I'll be reopening 665987, but if that gets closed again I'd be very > > happy to switch to acpi-support-minimal from my now locally built > > acpi-support packages w/ the consolekit dependency removed. > > I'm not sure I like the atti

Re: Sysklogd vs. rsyslog

On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 19:40:25 +0300, Touko Korpela wrote: > Recent issue is that new kernels (3.5-rc?) have a problem with sysklogd. > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=134161256014626&w=2 > Maybe someone can reply there if having knowledge. > In same thread Linus made another harsh reply that I

Re: Moving changelog and copyright files to control tarball, or merging control and data tarballs ?

Hi! Just to give some context and background, this started with the discussion of binNMUs and multi-arch [0], related to file conflicts due to the coinstallability of multiple M-A:same instances, and while initially a wild idea to possibly fix that specific case, it seemed to me it was generic eno

Re: debian-cd BoF at DebConf

Hi! On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 17:19:40 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > CD sizing problems > == > There has been much discussion about switching packages over to using > xz compression instead of gzip by default, including Hideki Yamane's > excellent session "Let's shrink Debian package

Namespaces (was Re: Bug#682496: ITP: melange -- Melange Widget System for the Cream Desktop Environment)

Hi! On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 13:00:14 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:22:06PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit : > > Let's please keep the namespace clean. I'll talk with whoever introduced > > it, but we can upload a temp metapackage and upload it with time for a > > beer af

Re: node-like file conflicts

Hi! On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 15:37:11 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > The following package pairs: > 1) are co-installable, > 2) both ship binaries with the same name, but in different > directories within $PATH (e.g. one in /usr/bin, another in > /usr/sbin): Ralf Treinen has been running automated tests

Re: can we (fully) fix/integrate NetworkManager (preferred) or release-goal its decommissioning

On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 22:02:47 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > But also: > > Alternatively you can install the "consolekit" package which will > grant access for all locally logged in users. ConsoleKit has already been dropped and deprecated by upstream:

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source

Hi! On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 10:35:17 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > get-orig-source: > git archive --remote='$(REPO)' --prefix='openafs_$(DEBVERS).orig/' \ > --format=tar '$(TAG)' | tar xf - > rm -r openafs_$(DEBVERS).orig/src/WINNT > tar cf openafs_$(DEBVERS).orig.tar open

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source

Hi! On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 20:50:31 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:39:34 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > Dpkg::Control::Hash - parse and manipulate a block of RFC822-like fields > > > (libdpkg-perl) > > How would you compare this to Jonas solution using > > use Parse::De

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source

On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 08:42:39 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 03:37:58AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 20:50:31 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > > Not sure how "official" my use of Dpkg::Control::Hash is, so maybe

Re: Enabling uupdate to simply remove files from upstream source

On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 21:09:12 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:20:24PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > See: > > > > /usr/share/doc/libdpkg-perl/README.api > > > > $ dpkg -L libdpkg-perl|grep 'Hash\.pm'|xargs grep VERSION &g

Re: [proposal] use xz compression for Debian package by default

Hi! On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 12:10:18 +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote: > In DebConf12, I talked about xz compression for Debian packages(*). > Now I'll talk about next step, suggestion for use xz with with result > from some experiment. > ---

Re: Renaming packages: maintscripts

On Sun, 2012-09-02 at 15:41:48 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 11:26:34PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > Not sure about cleaner, but that's the supported dpkg interface. > > > That certainly seems a bit cleaner than assuming we know what the dpkg > > database looks like i

Re: Bug#687001: ITP: optional-dev -- fake (empty) dev package

Hi! On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 17:08:34 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > All the above problems may be addressed by using this package as > alternative to optional build dependency like in the example below: > > Build-Depends: libchamplain-gtk-0.12-dev | optional-dev, >libopenipm

Re: "X-" Prefixes deprecated by RFC 6648.

On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 14:55:04 +, Tanguy Ortolo wrote: > Charles Plessy, 2012-09-13 01:55+0200: > > I would like to share with you the recently published RFC 6648, which > > deprecates the use of "X-" prefixes in "application protocols" > > Perhaps we should consider changing the way we write

Re: Changes to Debian Maintainer upload permissions

Hi! On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 10:06:35 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > This new interface replaces the old DMUA field. The old field will stop > working on the 24th of November 2012, from then on only packages > explicitly granted upload permission to their DMs using the interface > described here wi

Re: assumptions about the build environment.

On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 13:14:49 +0100, Wookey wrote: > But the case of uname _is_ easy to deal with - use dpkg-architecture. Well, not really if the patch is supposed to go upstream, given that dpkg-architecture is not a distribution-neutral interface. In most of the cases uname is wrong because

Re: Temporary solution for changelog problem in binNMUs

On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 17:04:51 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > The real problem is that these changelog files are primarily intended > for human beings. They should live in /usr/share/doc, and their > location should be transparent. The fact that parts of it might be mostly consumable by human beings

Re: Temporary solution for changelog problem in binNMUs

On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 18:04:58 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Montag, 13. Mai 2013, Guillem Jover wrote: > > The only thing the metadata solution would need now, is changing > > packaging helper, all packages not using a helper, and changelog and > > copyright extractors to

Re: Temporary solution for changelog problem in binNMUs

e duplication. > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:16:57PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > dpkg supports --control-show and --control-list (already in wheezy), which > > can be used for stuff like: > > > > $ dpkg-query --control-show dpkg changelog > > > > for in

Re: Upcoming libgd2-{xpm,noxpm}-dev -> libgd2-dev transition

Hi! On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 22:34:36 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > Two things has happened with GD Library: > > 1. I have dropped the {xpm,noxpm} dichotomy and there's only >libgd2-dev now. There are transitional packages which are ment >to help with the move to libgd2-dev, so you don't have

Re: Specifying a C++11 compatible pre-dependency

Hi! On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 18:15:37 +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > I have a package[1] that will not transition to testing due to failed > compilation on powerpc. The problem is that the actual package requires > a fairly complete C++11 support in order to compile. I have tried to > signify this b

Re: Source build-dependencies

On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 08:50:39 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Stéphane Glondu wrote: > > Le 13/05/2013 15:51, Paul Wise a écrit : > >> [...] as long > >> as there is a way to build-depend on the build-dependencies for a > >> source package, that should be fine. As a bon

Re: Removal of install-info from dpkg

On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 14:15:56 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > The “dpkg (>= 1.15.4) | install-info” dependency can also be dropped > from packages providing an info file, because all info-browsers are > now guaranteed (due to the release) to Depend on install-info. I'll > fil

Bug#708566: library -dev naming policy encourages unnecessary transitions (was: Re: Upcoming libgd2-{xpm,noxpm}-dev -> libgd2-dev transition)

Hi! [ Just saw while drafting this, that you filed the bug on policy, so sending a copy there too, let's continue the discussion there then. ] On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 09:51:23 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Andreas Beckmann writes: > > On 2013-05-15 09:58, Ondřej Surý wrote: > >> The '2' in libgd2

Re: Do opaque struct changes break C library ABIs

Hi! On Thu, 2013-05-16 at 17:35:10 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I have a C shared library that takes a pointer to an opaque struct as the > first argument to most of its API calls. The internal layout of that > opaque struct is changing (to add new members). The only way to create > the opaque s

Re: Upstart & kFreeBSD port for Debian

Hi! On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 01:47:42 +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > On 22 May 2013 01:16, Michael Biebl wrote: > > Am 22.05.2013 02:00, schrieb Dmitrijs Ledkovs: > >> On 21 May 2013 21:53, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > >>> On 20/05/13 at 18:19 +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > >>> - Neither systemd n

Re: Upstart & kFreeBSD port for Debian

On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 22:16:46 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 04:09:33 AM Guillem Jover wrote: > ... > > ... But then I'm not interested in assigning my copyright to a for-profit > > company that is not employing me ... > ... > >

Re: Debian systemd survey

Hi! On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 09:15:03 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 05/21/2013 10:53 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > >- Neither systemd nor upstart are likely to be ported to kfreebsd soon, > > as they both rely on many Linux-specific features and interfaces. > > What about launchd? Wou

Re: [Popcon-developers] Encrypted popcon submissions

Hi! On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 22:30:49 +, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:33:21PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > GPG=/usr/bin/gpg > > if [ "$ENCRYPT" = "yes" ] && [ -x "$GPG" ]; then > > POPCONGPG="$POPCON.gpg" > > rm -f "$POPCONGPG" > > $GPG --no-default-keyring --key

Re: [Popcon-developers] Encrypted popcon submissions

On Sat, 2013-07-13 at 15:32:15 +, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 02:33:57PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Hmm, do you have a reference? I've looked in the gnupg git master and > > stable-2.0 branches and I don't see any obvious mention of this

Re: build warnings treated as failures

On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 19:15:42 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Ritesh Raj Sarraf, le Wed 17 Jul 2013 22:38:51 +0530, a écrit : > > I see a sudden surge of build failures against my latest upload of > > packages[1]. From the build logs, it looks like all warnings are treated > > as errors now. > >

Status of deb(5) format support in Debian

Hi! Due to bug 718295, and in preparation to add non-gzip compression support for control.tar, I've tried to get an accurate view of the current deb(5) format support in software present in Debian. The resulting table looks pretty bad: Please he

Re: Status of deb(5) format support in Debian

Hi! On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 16:40:51 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:24:32PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > [...] in preparation to add non-gzip compression support for control.tar > > May I ask why would you want that? See <http://lists.debian.org/d

Re: Status of deb(5) format support in Debian

Hi! On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 09:38:35 +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:24:32 +0200 > Guillem Jover wrote: > > Due to bug 718295, and in preparation to add non-gzip compression > > support for control.tar, I've tried to get an accurate view of the &g

Re: Status of deb(5) format support in Debian

Hi! On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 22:16:02 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > Can you expand on the planned remedy and in how "soon" it might arrive? > > That I would be interested in as well. > I know that everyone dreams about a stable AP

Re: new hashes (SHA512, SHA3) in apt metadata and .changes files?

Hi! On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 14:52:33 +0200, Paul Wise wrote: > I noted[1] that some derivatives have introduced SHA512 into their > Release files (and probably Packages/etc). This will increase those files (Packages, Sources, etc) by quite a bit, at least 128 bytes per entry. Is that something we w

Re: Status of deb(5) format support in Debian

Hi! On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 23:25:30 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 04:09:20AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > The other side of the support I've been pondering about is extending > > dpkg-deb so that .deb files can be modified in conformant ways, stuf

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