Re: FPM in Debian archive [Was: Re: Bug#704686: ITP: ruby-arr-pm -- RPM reader and writer Ruby library]

On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 11:50:35 +0200, Laurent Bigonville wrote: > > Jon Dowland wrote: > > >Hi Laurent, thanks for the clarification â?? to ask a related > > >question. What's the worth of FPM on Debian? Especially given the > > >issues that Wouter has raised in the bug¹ > > > > > >¹ http://bugs.

Re: multiarch and interpreters/runtimes

Hi! [ I had pending warning about this on debian-devel before the release, so this is a good way to do that. :) ] On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 16:41:35 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > There are maybe not many use cases where you do want to install an interpreter > like python or perl for a foreign arch

Issues with Multi-Arch:same packages on purge

Hi! [ Seems I lost track of this issue... trying to correct it now. ] While dealing with #682365, Jonathan noticed that several packages [P] were handling non-dpkg tracked files incorrectly on purge. [P] The problem is that they might

Re: Issues with Multi-Arch:same packages on purge

On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 16:06:05 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 07:31:54AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > I guess a way to detect those could be piuparts runs that install > > multiple instances of Multi-Arch:same packages, purge just one of > > them,

Re: Issues with Multi-Arch:same packages on purge

On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 19:06:52 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 22.04.2013 17:24, schrieb Guillem Jover: > > Other problems might be when maintainer scripts use the running dpkg > > architecture instead of the package architecture (DPKG_MAINTSCRIPT_ARCH) > > to decide when to

Re: alternative debian/rules

Hi! On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 09:38:14 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Adam Borowski angband.pl> writes: > > It can be done > > 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 o

Upstream packaging (was Re: Derivatives, MongoDB and freezes)

Hi! On Sat, 2013-04-20 at 11:05:29 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: > [...]. IMO this is why upstream packaging should be > embraced and enhanced rather than focusing on dpkg. I'm not sure if you refer to the tool here, or to the packaging work, doesn't change much anyway. > I once worked on the 'pkgme

Re: multiarch and interpreters/runtimes

On Sat, 2013-05-04 at 06:36:31 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Am 19.04.2013 00:33, schrieb Guillem Jover: > I think the full-multiarch support for python in > > experimental should really be reverted. > > No. This is backward, and the wrong way to go forward. Sorry, but the wa

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

On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 13:09:51 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Guillem Jover writes ("Epoch usage conventions (was Re: R 3.0.0 and required > rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)"): > > Well, I strongly disagree that in general using epochs for packaging > > mistakes

Re: jessie release goals

On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 10:06:34 +0300, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=584865 > > discusses a prototype that I internally use. It hooks to policy-rc.d to > prevent services from starting during package installation and to dpkg > post-invoke to detect n

Removal of install-info from dpkg

Hi! To finish up the install-info split from dpkg[0], I'd like to finally remove the temporary wrapper from dpkg. This means the remaining tail of packages still calling it directly from maintainer scripts need to be dealt with [1]. Most might just need a rebuild if using debhelper and not hardcod

Switching packages to non-awaiting triggers

Hi! To be able to fix dpkg bug #671711, we should first reduce or completely eliminate the possibilty for triggered packages needing its configured dependencies, not ending up being in triggers-awaited status awaiting on them. For packages installing triggers for things that are not necessary for

override: xz-utils:utils/standard

Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: wishlist On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 19:23:37 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > (please direct replies to debian-devel only) > > Ever since dpkg started using liblzma directly (dpkg 1.16.4), the xz > command is no longer needed in a minimal Debian system. Based on its >

Switching default dpkg-deb compressor to xz

Hi! As mentioned some months ago [0], I'm planning to switch dpkg-deb default compressor from gzip to xz, as there seemed to be consensus that was the way to go, and given the amount of already manually switched packages, or packaging helpers. :/ [0]

Re: Switching default dpkg-deb compressor to xz

Hi! On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 12:03:13 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:17:39AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > On 05/07/2013 21:49, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > As mentioned some months ago [0], I'm planning to switch dpkg-deb default > > >

Re: Switching default dpkg-deb compressor to xz

On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 12:38:47 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:49:03PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > If there's people who are still worried about that, I'd ask them to > > file bugs on the base packages to make them pass -Zgz explicitly to >

Re: Temporary solution for changelog problem in binNMUs

Hi! On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 11:14:07 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > There have been previous discussions how to fix this[2]. The dpkg > maintainers would like to treat changelogs and copyright files as > metadata and move them out of /usr/share/doc[3]. > > [2]

Re: Temporary solution for changelog problem in binNMUs

On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 14:12:14 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Isn't the reason this was on hold the wheezy release and now that is > out work on this can continue? The main reason to not deploy any actual solution at the time was that it would imply possible unexpected breakage on extractors

Re: [DEP 8] About "XS-Testsuite: autopkgtest": time to remove "XS-" ?

Hi! On Fri, 2013-12-27 at 17:41:26 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > the use of autopkgtest as documented in DEP 8 is taking momentum. > > How about allowing a "Testsuite" field to replace the "XS-Testsuite" field? Last time this came up here, it didn't look like we got consensus on whether the fie

Re: Switching default dpkg-source compressor for V2+ formats to xz

Hi! On Tue, 2013-08-13 at 03:52:51 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > I'd like to switch the default dpkg-source compressor to xz for V2+ > (not for V1) source formats, as suggested by Ansgar Burchardt in [0]. > > [0] <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/05/msg00377.htm

Re: Registering a media type for Debian binary packages ?

Hi! On Sat, 2013-11-23 at 11:28:09 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > reading the Launchpad bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1022824, > asking to add application/x-deb to /etc/mime.types, and giving the link to > another bug where it is mentionned that application/x-debian-package is still >

Re: Bug#733029: dpkg-buildpackage: disable signing by default (-us -uc should be the default)

Hi! [ CCing debian-devel to get input from possibly afftected users. ] On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 15:14:22 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > Package: dpkg-dev > Severity: wishlist > File: /usr/bin/dpkg-buildpackage > X-Debbugs-CC: Arno Töll > > Please disable signing by default. Generally the right thing to

Re: Bug#733029: dpkg-buildpackage: disable signing by default (-us -uc should be the default)

Hi! On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 09:24:55 +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:27:29PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > * signing would get rafactored into a new program so that users do > >not need to manually mangle the .changes file, rebuild or require > &

Re: Registering a media type for Debian binary packages ?

Hi Charles! On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 10:42:09 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 02:23:00AM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit : > > This sounds great in theory, but I'm worried that in practice this > > might just make the situation worse, by making applications h

Re: [DEP 8] About "XS-Testsuite: autopkgtest": time to remove "XS-" ?

Hi Jakub! On Fri, 2013-12-27 at 17:35:28 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Fri, 2013-12-27 at 17:41:26 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > the use of autopkgtest as documented in DEP 8 is taking momentum. > > > > How about allowing a "Testsuite" field to replace the

Re: [DEP 8] About "XS-Testsuite: autopkgtest": time to remove "XS-" ?

On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 19:40:54 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Guillem Jover , 2014-01-03, 13:13: > >Given that you (at least) seemed to show opposition to the field > >(AFAIR), and that you've done an independent implementation of the > >runner; does 692704 mean that you

Re: Bug#733029: dpkg-buildpackage: disable signing by default (-us -uc should be the default)

migration (compat symlink to debsign binary name in the phase 1, real > name dpkg-sign or whatever), to try and avoid further complicating the > debian package development universe. > On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 11:03:04AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > IMO having debsign become a thi

Re: Registering a media type for Debian binary packages ?

On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 12:35:05 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Registering a media type for Debian binary > packages ?"): > > On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 10:42:09 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > Magic number(s): > > > Files

Re: prerm/postrm considered harmful in M-A: same packages

Hi! On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 16:40:16 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:37:26PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > dpkg 1.17.2 will setup DPKG_MAINTSCRIPT_PACKAGE_REFCOUNT to make this > > easier to handle. The aforementioned thread contains recipes on how to &g

RFC: Possible deprecating of bzip2 in dpkg-deb?

Hi! While adding support for control.tar.xz and control.tar to dpkg-deb in dpkg 1.17.6, I pondered about adding support too for control.tar.bz2, but ended up not doing so, because it does not seem to bring in any benefit that none, gzip or xz compression do, and because it could always be added la

RFC: Changing default source tarball ignores

Hi! In #735377, Peter Green makes a good case of why ignoring (at least) object files is not a good default for source packages, mentioning: * inconsitency between 1.0 and >= 2.0 formats, creating surprise. * if they need to be shipped, they are silently ignored, which makes their absence no

Re: RFC: Possible deprecating of bzip2 in dpkg-deb?

Hi! On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 16:57:01 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > This made me consider the point of supporting data.tar.bz2 too, because > it's either slower or takes more memory or space than with none, gzip > or xz. So was wondering if maybe we should consider deprecating it in &

Re: Bug#737634: dpkg: is_native version checks in dpkg 3.0 Native

Hi! On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:54:17 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Guillem writes, on the bug but not on debian-devel: > > Part of the definition of what's and what's not a native package is > > the version scheme, and I've never considered that a Debian specific > > thing specified by its policy. The

Bug#740580: O: fbset -- framebuffer device maintenance program

Package: wnpp Severity: normal Going on with my intention to try to match my continued dissatisfaction with the project with my dedication to it, I've just orphaned the fbset package. This package has a lethargic upstream, and needs to be synced from time to time with the latest Linux framebuffer

Re: jquery debate with upstream

[ Lars just covered some of this in another part of the thread, but as I had this drafted already, I'm sending it anyway. ] On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 14:21:22 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > On the other hand, the "upstream" tarballs are becoming temporary cruft that > are not the preferred form for

Re: Registering a media type for Debian binary packages ?

Hi! On Sun, 2014-02-02 at 22:23:02 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Security considerations: > > Debian binary packages can contain scripts executing arbitrary commands during > installation, which is done with administrator privileges. It is therefore > essential to trust the origin of the packag

Re: dist-upgrade strangeness: dependencies not deconfigured

Hi! On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 22:38:45 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > What you're showing here is a snapshot at some point in the middle of an > upgrade, when texlive-common has been removed (because the package no longer > exists, and the new texlive-base conflicts with it) and texlive-base has not >

Re: Checksum mismatch when trying to upload

On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 18:19:45 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 05:14:47PM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > I'm trying to upload a source package created with > > svn-buildpackage. However: > > I have no idea what may have caused this. Can someone give me a hint > > where I sh

Re: tests/test-suite.log build failures

Hi! On Sun, 2014-04-13 at 15:38:05 +0200, Xavier Roche wrote: > I had a build failure (*) on my package due to a failing unit test, and > the only information I got (with the failng unit test) was: > > # TOTAL: 12 > # PASS: 11 > # SKIP: 0 > # XFAIL: 0 > # FAIL: 1 > # XPASS: 0 > # ERROR: 0 > ==

Re: ':any' syntax in package names in jessie/sid Packages

Hi! On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 22:24:11 +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: > It seems that in jessie (and similar in sid) a number of packages [1] > started to use ':' symbol in their dependency lists as part of package > names. This is, if I'm not misreading the Debian Policy §7.1 and §5.6.1, > is not

Re: make 4.0: archive rebuild resulted in 73 packages broken (help wanted)

Hi! On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 21:53:31 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Manoj Srivastava writes: > > I will cut a normal bug on dpkg, and a serious one on make, and > > make the former block the latter while we figure otu what to do. The > > options, as I see it are: > > > 1) Do nothing. reta

Re: make 4.0: archive rebuild resulted in 73 packages broken (help wanted)

Hi! On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 16:22:37 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > I think we should first understand why the detection is failing with > the newer make. I'm taking a look now. Once that's done we might just > be able to fix (or workaround) one of: > > * mak

Re: Automatically dumping test-suite.log on make check failure

Hi! On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 19:10:48 +0200, Marcin Owsiany wrote: > Does anyone know a way to make the automake-generated test suite scripts cat > the test-suite.log to stderr on failure? It just reports which tests failed > but > hides the actual messages. This is most annoying on buildds which th

Re: correct use of su

Hi! On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 22:50:39 -0700, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > There are two reasons I use su in /etc/cron.daily/spamassassin. One is > to change uid/gid, and the other is to reset the shell environment to a > base state. The need for this was highlighted in bug 738951. I doubt > that this is a

Re: Guile language support in make

On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 13:20:32 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > (It's a shame that the dpkg developers didn't adopt my suggestion of > [ ] for build-profiles, because that would have been > backward-compatible with old tools.) One of the reasons [0] it was not adopted was precisely because it is not ba

Re: Media type vnd.debian.binary-package accepted by the IANA.

Hi! On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 18:32:06 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > thanks to your input when drafting it, the IANA registered the media type > “vnd.debian.binary-package” without asking for any correction or extra. > > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/vnd.debian.binar

Re: holes in secure apt

Hi! On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 19:43:56 +0100, Wookey wrote: > +++ Christoph Anton Mitterer [2014-06-12 01:06 +0200]: > > - [c]debootstrap > > I think they both default now to verify signatures (which is a good > > thing)... but IIRC, debootstrap also defaults to not verify anything... > > if the keyri

Re: use of RDRAND in $random_library

Hi! On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 21:19:06 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:23:58AM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > device is inferiour to the random devices on OpenBSD/MirBSD, so you > > should seed the aRC4 state with additional

Re: Moving bash from essential/required to important?

Package: login Version: 1:4.1.4.2+svn3283-3 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch Hi! On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 10:16:35 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > > What do others think of moving bash to important (required and important > > are part of the

Re: Moving bash from essential/required to important?

On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 01:08:19 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > This appears to open up any accounts that have been deliberately > disabled by setting their shell to a nonexistent path. I know that's a > dumb way to disable an account, but that doesn't make this any less of a > security hole. > > Ho

Re: glibc: causes segfault in Xorg

On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 14:06:41 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 04 May 2011, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > So how do you plan to detect bugs if you never enable a feature? > > Really abort()ing is not a nice behaviour, it would be way better to print > a warning and fallback to a correct behavi

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

Hi! 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'd like to switch the Pre-Depends from the current xz-utils commands to use the liblzma shared library, (with

Re: Alioth status update, take 3

Hi! On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 22:35:00 +0200, Roland Mas wrote: > We should now be in the phase where we pretend it's done, wait for the > complaints, and fix the problems as they are reported. The project web sites do not seem to work anymore, for example:

Re: Bug#627983: ITP: bmake -- Portable version of NetBSD's make

Hi! On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 09:29:44 +0200, Jeroen Schot wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Jeroen Schot > > * Package name: bmake > Version : 20110505 > Upstream Author : Simon J. Gerraty > * URL : http://www.crufty.net/help/sjg/bmake.html > * Licen

Portability improvements with libbsd 0.3.0

Hi! One of the main motivations when creating the libbsd library was to ease porting source code with strong BSD origins by needing to patch them less, and to reduce code duplication in other projects. So if there are functions, macros or declarations commonly found on the BSDs that your packages

Re: Anonymous read-only access and Vcs-* [Re: Alioth status update, take 3]

On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 20:56:25 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 21:15 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > vasks has the copy of the repositories. > > > > wagner NFS mounts the repositories read-only. > > > > vasks is {git,svn,…}.debian.org (so ssh://git.d.o/ continues working), >

Re: throw away debs and source only uploads

Hi! On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 11:20:07 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > > The main decision which needs to be made is whether, as a project, we > > > want source only uploads or to throw away DD built non-all debs. > > > There's

Re: throw away debs and source only uploads

On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 09:03:00 +, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 2011-06-06, Guillem Jover wrote: > > I think this was mentioned in some previous incarnation of this > > discussion, but throwing away debs unconditionally, or at least w/o > > having a way to specify they must

Re: Portability improvements with libbsd 0.3.0

On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 14:24:52 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Guillem Jover dixit: > > pkg-config --cflags libbsd-overlay > > pkg-config is a GNU abomination and not used by BSD projects. I disagree with the abomination part, but in any case do you have a better alternative

Re: throw away debs and source only uploads

On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 19:38:03 +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > Are you saying they cannot be bootstrapped with older versions (which > are already in the archive)??! By definition if they need to be manually bootstrapped it's because their build dependencies are not available. The usual cases for that a

Re: Bug#636164: RFP: apt-clone -- ZFS integrated APT package handling utility

Hi! On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 00:38:13 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > > * Package name: apt-clone > Version : 0.7.9nexenta28 > * URL : see below > * License : CDDL > Programming Lang: Perl > Description : ZFS integrated APT

Re: Introducing Build-Recommends / Build-Core-Depends?

Hi! On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 13:28:36 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > During bootstraping a new architecture, there are sometimes ugly > build-dependency-loops (usually involving generating documentation > for the core build utilities means you need to have the architecture > already available; same wi

Re: RFC: dpatch - past, present and future

Hi! On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 22:33:55 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Gergely Nagy wrote: > > As for the future: I still believe dpatch is a temporary solution, and > > that better tools exist now. Therefore, it is my long-term plan to > > slowly deprecate dpatch, and eventually

Re: /usr/share/doc/ files and gzip/xz/no compression

On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 19:55:12 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:33:48 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > >On the other hand, many computers now have an SSD drive, for speed, > >which is relatively small. Further, most users will likely need files in > >/usr/share/doc rarely, if ever,

Re: dpkg predependency against tar >= 1.23, objections?

On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 20:02:16 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > Couldn't dpkg figure out from tar --version whether it can add the > option? Well it could, but then I'd rather remove the warning suppression (or the equivalent of postponing adding the option until after wheezy) than doing something l

Re: Architectures where unaligned access is (not) OK?

On Fri, 2014-11-21 at 18:01:11 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Felipe Sateler , 2014-11-21, 14:04: > >Sparc is definitely not ok. For evidence, see #721617, liblo was trying to > >fetch a double from a 4-byte aligned address. Experience with liblo shows > >that other architectures are just fine (or at

Re: Javascript trigger design

Hi! On Tue, 2014-12-02 at 06:46:33 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 12/01/2014 04:26 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > No, triggers unfortunately are not that simple: if you install/upgrade > > openstack-dashboard together with some of the packages it wants a > > trigger on, $1="triggered" will some

Re: The inittab interface - Re: Bug#766187: runit: Fails to install runit after fresh install of jessie beta2

Hi! On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 14:56:56 +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014, at 12:24, Gerrit Pape wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:08:49PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > On 24/11/14 21:41, Gerrit Pape wrote: > > > > Better than (2) would be to make the existence of /etc/inittab st

Re: one package altering other package's postrm

Hi! On Sat, 2014-12-13 at 23:09:08 +0100, Alexandre Detiste wrote: > Would it be OK / ugly / forbiden to do a > "rm -f /var/lib/dpkg/info/cron.postrm" > in systemd-cron preinst script ? This would be just wrong and unnecessary. This is not the prerm case in

Re: one package altering other package's postrm

Hi! On Sun, 2014-12-14 at 14:26:19 +0100, Christian Kastner wrote: > On 2014-12-14 00:36, Guillem Jover wrote: > > There are some possible more “correct” ways to fix this, for example: > > > > * Move the handling of those (and any other) common files or dirs > >

Re: one package altering other package's postrm

On Sun, 2014-12-14 at 15:26:37 +, Philip Hands wrote: > Alexandre Detiste writes: > > I've sent a one-liner patch, as this put the least work on cron maintainers: > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=773095 > > > > I guess they can apply it right away, even during the free

Re: length of a package extended description

Hi! On Sat, 2015-01-10 at 07:20:31 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote: > Please also note that identifying "lists" in package descriptions > might be a very interesting thing to do, given the various way you > (maintainers) all have to make lists, given the loose rules for > writing package descriptio

Re: length of a package extended description

Hi! On Sun, 2015-01-11, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On 10 January 2015 at 17:27, Guillem Jover wrote: > > I think fixing translator tools would be an improvement, because it > > would reduce translator work in other situations too, by chunking the > > description o

Re: new pre-dependency: perl{,-base,-modules} -> dpkg (>= 1.17.17)

[ CCing debian-release. ] Hi! On Sun, 2015-01-18 at 20:12:55 +0200, Niko Tyni wrote: > In order to fix trigger related wheezy->jessie upgrade failures in > xfonts-traditional (#774844, cc'd), I intend to make the main perl > binary packages (perl, perl-base, and perl-modules) Pre-Depend on dpkg >

Re: dpkg-capoverride (?)

Hi! On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 11:30:02 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > Would it worth to have a procedure like "dpkg-capoverride" so that > whenever a package needs to change a capability, the change gets > registered somewhere other than the filesystem itself? Yes and no. It might be more convenient,

Re: CUT rolling release debian BUT a cautionary comment

Hi! On Sun, 2015-03-08 at 03:50:50 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 12:38:53PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote: > > If I remember correctly btrfs mostly showed its ugly experimental > > state by being very slow which is hard to justify in an environment > > where everyone alre

Re: Bits from the dpkg project: 1.17.x series, general news

Hi! On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 15:01:48 +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > Le 18/04/2015 21:27, Guillem Jover a écrit : > > Portability in dpkg is very important, to be able to support downstreams > > and people who use it on other systems, or even package it in other >

Re: Experimental ddeb support in debhelper and lintian (Was: Re: -dbg packages; are they actually useful?)

Hi! On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 22:11:18 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > A) Use ".deb" (i.e. the regular extension) with a new "section". Is there any problem with using the existing "debug" section? Or is the different section used to distinguish that these are autogenerated perhaps? > B) Use ".dde

Allowing both cross building and using an alternative compiler

[ Please followup on debian-devel (M-F-T set). ] Hi! There are currently two goals people are pursuing that seemed to initially conflict with each other: But they can be made to co

Heads up: Upcoming dpkg-buildpackage -j precedence change

Hi! “Recently” when adding support for «-jauto» to dpkg-buildpackage, I noticed that the semantics for the -j option were quite unorthodox. The value from the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS paralle= option takes precedence and overrides any explicit value passed on the commend-line via -j, (when -j should be o

Re: Bug#761348: ftp.debian.org: need machine-readable metadata about suites & repositories

Hi! On Sat, 2014-09-13 at 15:24:58 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > Package: ftp.debian.org > Severity: wishlist > X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > Various places in Debian infrastructure (QA especially) hard-code > aspects of the Debian archive (suite, code, component, arch names etc). > T

Re: Heads up: Upcoming dpkg-buildpackage -j precedence change

On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 19:56:49 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 18:49:25 +0100, Wookey wrote: > > I'm happy if you change this - it seems like fixing a bug to me, but I > > will just throw in this observation from recent arm64 archive-rebuilds, > > that -j and DEB_BUILD_OPTION

Re: Heads up: Upcoming dpkg-buildpackage -j precedence change

[ reproducible-builds people, please see below. ] Hi! On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 10:02:27 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:40:16PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > $ make -jN -f debian/rules build > > > > and > > > > $ DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=par

Re: Allowing both cross building and using an alternative compiler

Hi! On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 01:34:08 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 05/10/2015 03:32 AM, Guillem Jover wrote: > > CC_FOR_BUILD = gcc > > the above mentioned wiki pages still talk about HOSTCC and BUILDCC. Please > clarify when to use these. I think HOSTCC and BUILDCC sh

Heads up: Changes in dpkg-shlibdeps directory search list

[ Please follow up on d-d and d-cross (M-F-T set). ] Hi! There are several cleanups and order changes in the pipe for the default dpkg-shlibdeps shared library directory search list in dpkg 1.18.x. It was previously, in decreasing order of preference: 0. «dpkg-shlibdeps -l» (or via «dh_shlibd

Re: static linking

Hi! On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 18:21:40 +0100, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: > What's the preferred way to set Built-Using: > http://sources.debian.net/src/chromium-browser/42.0.2311.135-2/debian/control/?hl=82#L82 This one is wrong in two ways, it's missing the exact version, and the field does not belon

Re: Adding support for LZIP to dpkg, using that instead of xz, archive wide

Hi, On Sun, 2015-06-14 at 01:08:29 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 06/13/2015 10:55 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> I've been using xz compression for a long time, but I see a big defect > >> which is today pushing me to turn it off for the .o

Re: DEB_SIGN_KEYID vs DEBSIGN_KEYID

Hi! On Sun, 2015-06-07 at 10:36:41 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > For devscripts you can define a variable "DEBSIGN_KEYID". For > dpkg it is called "DEB_SIGN_KEYID". git-buildpackage doesn't > support a keyid environment variable at all, as it seems. All > ignore the default-key option set in .gnup

Re: Adding support for LZIP to dpkg, using that instead of xz, archive wide

Hi! On Sun, 2015-06-14 at 16:48:21 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2015-06-14 05:46:00 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Sun, 2015-06-14 at 01:08:29 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > On 06/13/2015 10:55 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at

Re: Is the Debian dependency system broken? (wget vs libgnutls-deb0-28)

Hi! On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 09:18:34 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > There is not a lot of documentation about how to handle that from an > upstream point of view. There is the info page (section VERSION) of ld > about -version-script. That's true, there's lots of information spread all over the pla

Re: Adding support for LZIP to dpkg, using that instead of xz, archive wide

On Sun, 2015-06-14 at 14:08:24 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 06/14/2015 05:46 AM, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Well if you want reproducible output, then use the same tool version. > > That's not possible: Jessie, Sid and Trusty don't have the same version, > and we n

Timezone name in Debian changelog format

Hi! The other day, while fixing some dpkg code, I noticed that the Debian changelog trailer regex intended to support a timezone name inside parenthesis, like this: -- Name Sat, 30 May 2015 03:18:43 +0200 (CEST) is bogus (since its inception in dpkg 1.3.0, 1996-08), and it only accepts one ch

Re: Allowing both cross building and using an alternative compiler

On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 16:07:20 +0100, Wookey wrote: > (Guillem - I was wondering if you had any response to my post on this > therad. I do. > I hope I haven't derailed your progress by asking awkward > questions without really providing solutions. I should really take > your suggestion and try to

Re: Bug#790933: ITP: drive - Google Drive tool

Hi! On Fri, 2015-07-03 at 09:09:42 +0200, Sophie Brun wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Sophie Brun > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > Package name : drive > Version : 0.2.5 > Upstream Author : Emmanuel Odeke

Re: Bug#790399: ITP: structlog -- tructured Logging for Python

Hi! On Wed, 2015-07-01 at 02:58:41 +0100, Filippo Giunchedi wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 01:56:55PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:22:30AM +0200, Adrien CLERC wrote: > > > Le 29/06/2015 02:51, Filippo Giunchedi a écrit : > > > > * Package name: structlog >

Re: Bug#791857: ITP: daemonize -- tool to run a command as a daemon

Hi! On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 16:45:12 -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Sandro Tosi > > * Package name: daemonize > Version : 1.7.6 > Upstream Author : Brian Clapper, b...@clapper.org > * URL : http://software.clapper.org/daemonize/

LFS status, and enabling it opportunistically on next SONAME bump

Hi! Our Large File Support on some 32-bit architectures is a bit poor, and this has been going on for a while now: (Although this includes some false-positives as reported in #787853.) In addition, the problem is ac

Re: Timezone name in Debian changelog format

Hi! On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 10:56:58 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 04:40:58AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > So given that the timezone name has never been accepted, many > > time-parsing functions ignore it, it is redundant, declared obsolete > >

Re: Huge data files in Debian

Hi! On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 12:03:36 -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Ole Streicher wrote: > > But: These packages sum up to ~25 GB, with the maximal package size of > > 3.5 GB. What is the best way to deal with them? Loosely following the > > discussion about the Icedove icon

Bug#793404: massive waste of CPU time in debian/rules by inline commands

Control: block -1 by 793330 Hi! On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 19:43:46 +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > Package: general > Severity: minor > The problem: I see lots of $(shell ...) stuff. In boost, there are about > 12 such calls. And they run dpkg-architecture or dpkg-parsechangelogs or > similar commands.

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