On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 06:35:52PM -0700, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
>
> In short:
> I would very much like to see all top-150 packages run Salsa CI at
> least once before being uploaded to unstable. What people think is a
> reasonable way to proceed to reach this goal?
Since I'm the e2fsprogs (one o
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 03:08:11PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > Salsa CI?)
> The effort needed to do so is so small that the question really should
> be "why should I NOT spend a few seconds enabling Salsa CI?".
>
> > 3) What's the simple recipe for enable Salsa CI?
> salsa update_projects $NA
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 12:28:08AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> Not really. The rest of the explanation for non-US is that those
> packages weren't illegal to USE in the USA, but were illegal to
> EXPORT. We don't have a section for packages that you aren't
> allowed to have, or aren't allowed
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 05:03:26AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> As a result, in spite of the timing wrt the release, I'm proposing a
> transition to libmysqlclient12 for a number of packages for sarge. The
> packages listed below are those packages currently in sarge which either are
> broken wi
Fixing this the right way will require changing when Debian boot
scripts run hwclock (as the first very thing), and will require making
changes to util-linux, the installer (so that /etc/zoneinfo is not a
symlink, and so that the information about what the local timezone is
stored somewhere else ot
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 10:37:06PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > (for example if the US Congress
> > changes the definition of daylight savings time),
>
> That should be "when", not "if", unfortunately. AFAIK, they'
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 01:59:55PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 19-Dec-05, 09:21 (CST), Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Specifically, what I would propose is /etc/localtime.conf contain
> > something like "US/Eastern", and let /etc/zoneinfo
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:04:46PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I don't think that patches-submitted-to-the-BTS is a good way to
> measure how much Ubuntu is contributing to Debian. Ubuntu's patches
> are readily available:
>
> http://people.ubuntulinux.org/~scott/patches/
I looked at the pat
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:54:09PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Could you then take my name off as being reponsible for
> software that this diverse group of people have modified, if the
> modifications are more than cosmetic? Also, I would like the bug
> reports to be triaged and f
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 03:12:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Actually, upstream maintainers have no voice before the technical
> committee, which exists to resolve disputes between Debian developers,
> not between Debian developers and outsiders.
Indeed. And likewise, we have absolutely
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:44:01AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I think this is not quite true. In any case, my recollection was that
> the bad cooperation was a two-way street, with you being extremely
> reluctant to acknowledge the concerns and needs of distributions, and
> on the other s
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:06:29PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > I can give a couple of examples; one is way back when, before I took
> > over the maintenance of the e2fsprogs package, and was merely the
> > upstream author. The then maintai
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 07:09:13PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Or the search machine of the choice for those who do not trust Google.
>
> I think most of those types are holed up in a bunker cradling a machine
> gun.
Or live in China. :-)
I have recently received a patch which allows the blkid library to
properly handle device mapper partitions. The problem is in order to do
this, I have to link in libdevmapper, and by extension libselinux and
libsepoll. Since these libraries would depend on the blkid library,
which is used by fs
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 11:07:24PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Michael Banck]
> > Please take into consideration that libselinux is not available on
> > Debian's non-Linux ports.
>
> It's not libselinux you should be worried about, but libdevmapper.
> He's not depending on libselinux direc
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 04:38:27PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Actually, because of the e2fsck-static package, e2fsprogs has to have
> > a build-depends on libselinux. There doesn't seem to be a way to say,
> > "except on non-Linux platforms" for a build-depends as far as I know,
> > un
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 01:54:16PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > List the linux platforms. It is more likely some new non-linux
> > > platform shows up (like armeb, kfreebsd-amd64, ...) than a new linux
> > > one.
>
> > That's. unspeakably horrible.
>
> > What we really need is a separat
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:24:41PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> The Vancouver meeting summary upset me, not because of the proposals
> to drop architectures, but because it contained a reminder of the
> Social Contract changes. The project is moving to what I believe to
> be a ridiculously extre
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:06:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> The license of the GNUTLS OpenSSL shim is GPL, causing possible license
> problems in the other direction with GPL-incompatible apps. It's also not a
> very complete compatibility layer.
>
So dynamically link against _an_ SSL l
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 04:06:22PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Lionel Elie Mamane]
> > I recently found some packages in at an IMHO totally wrong priority
> > in Debian.
>
> Yeah. I've been grumbling about optional vs. extra for years. Nobody
> wants to consider his own packages 'extra'
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:39:59AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > It is my believe that the 2.4 kernel is still in wide spread use
> > both indide and outside Debian, thats a cause for being concerned
> > about it in my books.
>
> Indeed, its the kernel shipped with RHEL 3.x .
Sort of. 2.4 kernel
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 01:41:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> True enough, but since USENIX took over Atlanta Linux Showcase, ran it
> for one year, and then shot it in the back of a head like a drug kingpin
> assassinating an unwanted lieutenant, Debian developers in the U.S.,
> particula
Miquel,
It is certainly true that sysvinit is an important package, and as
such, it requires either frequent care and attention to deal with bugs
(and you have a lot[1] of open bugs against the sysvinit package).
For better or for worse, the release history of sysvinit has not been
one which has b
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:03:47AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> (For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
>
> Since the doc-rfc packages have been moved to non-free, I have just cloned
> the doc-rfc RC bug (#92810) and assigned it to some other packages whic
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:49:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> If I ever add filtering to the notes debconf allows to be displayed,
> notes that refer the user to README.Debian will be at the top of the
> list to never be displayed.
>
> Of course, I am much more likely to bow to the pressure of n
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 05:05:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The point of decoupling installation and configuration is to let the admin
> choose which of these scenarios happen, instead of the distribution or
> the maintainer. The first is appropriate if you're doing installs of many
> systems
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:57:35PM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> Ralf Treinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > E2tools is a simple set of GPL'ed utilities to read, write, and
> > > manipulate files in an ext2/ext3 filesystem.
> >
> > please excuse my ignorance - what would be the advantage of the
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 10:12:03PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 10:28:07PM +0200, Koblinger Egmont wrote:
> > Yes, when saying "random order" I obviously ment "in the order readdir()
> > returns them". It's random for me. :-)))
> >
> > It can easily be different on diff
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 11:36:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> I can only presume this is new or obscure, since everything I tried
> had the traditional behaviour. Can't see how to turn it on, either.
>
It's new for 2.5. Backports to 2.4 are available here:
http://thunk.org/tytso
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:01:34AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >
> > I believe htree == dir_index, so tune2fs(8) and mke2fs(8) have the answer.
>
> My /home has that enabled and readdir() returns files in creation order.
>
Then you don't have a htree-capable kernel or the directory isn't
in
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:15:31PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:33:22AM -0400, Work Needing Prospective
> > Packages wrote:
> > >judy (#172772), orphaned 210 days ago
> > > Description: C
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:58:55PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 08:25:57AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > There's someone on d-mentors wanting to adopt this. As in the BTS:
> >
> > Debian Bug report logs - #172772
> > ITA: judy -- C library for creating and accessing dyna
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 01:26:17PM +0200, cobaco wrote:
> > and why on stable you do not expect a stable KDE?
> kde 3.2. will be the stable kde release come 8 december
The reality is that if KDE 3.2 is stable in KDE, and it entered
testing on December 8th, it would probably delay the release of
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 05:11:01PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote:
>
> i fully agree that generally an opt-in system is better, but in this
> case it is far more complicated to implement, and it's not really
> anything big that we are talking about here. if you want to hide where
> you are living from
There doesn't seem to be anything in policy about debug packages, are
there any wiki pages or best practices documents about what are the best
ways to create debug packages?
Some of the questions I have are:
*) I assume that the priority of -dbg packages is extra
*) What section should -dbg pac
Hi all,
Apparently udev 0.125-3 is going to be in Lenny (it's not yet in
Lenny, but apparently the release-team will be giving an exemption to
let it in despite the freeze). One of the changes in udev 0.125-3 is
that /dev/.static/dev is going to be going away. (Rightly so, it's a
hack).
Hi all, some of you may have noticed have received mail bounces from
mail that you sent me from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that referenced failure
to deliver mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], for example:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Deferred: Connection timed out with thunk.org.
Message could not be delivered for
At the most recent Linux.conf.au pgp keysigning, I noticed a number of
Debian developers present. Like me, they had new keys that they offered
up for signing, presumably so they could start replacing their 1024DSA
keys with stronger keys.
If you are signing keys where you've verified the identity
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:20:49PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > I don't know whether this package needs to match the kernel version or
> > not, but if not I think the name is poorly chosen.
>
> It does not need to. Feel free to propose a patch to document this
> more clearly (I don't reall
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 08:23:42PM +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> I need to upgrade my semi-woody system. I don't want to do a
> dist-upgrade (only upgrade MIT Kerberos V). The 1.3-2 version
> needs comerr-dev (>= 2.0-1.33-2) and I have 2.0-1.27-2.
>
> Jumping to 1.34+1.35-WIP-2003.08.21-3 seem
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 11:00:23PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> >> No, the fix is a fucking huge amount of work, which is why nobody has
> >> done it before, even for the upstream kernel.
>
> > Appliing patches dinamicaly and conditionaly is a huge amount of work?
>
> No, choosing, writing and
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 03:14:49PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There is a bug (actually a number of bugs now) against heimdal
> that causes it to segfault under certain conditions.
>
> The bug has been reassigned to libcomerr2.
>
> It also has a simple one word patch.
>
> However, I ha
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:04:31PM +, bruce wrote:
> > I did a first pass at the UserLinux white paper, it's at
> > http://userlinux.org/white_paper.html. I think I'll sleep for a while.
This is an interesting white paper, but I think it's missing something
rather important in its discussion
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:52:47PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I don't deny that many businesses do have to come to their vendor on
> bended knee to get support for a new platform. It's important, however,
> to realize that this does indicate a problem in the customer's
> relationship with the
IMPORTANT DATES:
* Proposals due: December 16, 2003, 11:59 p.m. EST
* Notification to authors: February 4, 2004
* Camera-ready papers due: May 4, 2004
USELINUX Program Committee
Jerry Feldman
Jim Gleason
Bdale Garbee
Jon "Maddog" Hall
Don Marti
Stacey Quandt
Theodore Ts'o
Victor Yodaiken
Hi,
I updated a new set of e2fsprogs debs 5 or 6 days ago, which among other
things contained an RC bugfix. It's been stalled waiting for someone to
update the override file. I know that people are busy finishing off the
last bits of recovery from the security compromise, but when should I
expec
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 11:14:05AM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
> It's also worth considering that perhaps there is a language difference
> (does Hans have English as a first language?) that make it seem that the
> email seem harsher than it really is. Many Europeans are naturally very
> honest with wha
This issue has degenerated to name calling at this point, and in other
threads, Godwin's law has even been invoked, perhaps not to great
effect.
I agree with you Manoj, as I suspect most people who have commented on
this list, but perhaps this is time to refer the issue to the
Technical Committee,
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 06:33:49PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
> And the bit that the "jumped up developers" don't seem to understand is the
> co-operation and consensus. I constantly see comments on how we should
> restrict the number of maintainers, how we need to make sure everyone's
> packages meas
One big problem about Richard Gooch's simpleinit is that it is
functionally very different from the standard systme V init scripts.
Specifically, he always assumes that runlevel n+1 is always a superset
of runlevel n, and that in order to get to runlevel n+1, you must
first start up all of the serv
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:43:25PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>
> A runlevel is just any script whose name makes it being called by
> /sbin/init on a certain runlevel, like
> /etc/init.d/runlevel.3
> There is nothing special about this script, it could do anything you
> want. Usually I t
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:09:10PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> OK, I think my worst fears are realized. You do actually want to
> solve all the goals I could have imagined you possibly wanting to try
> try and solve.
>
> I think I am very likely to wait until there is a policy change or at
> leas
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 11:40:04PM -0400, Joe Nahmias wrote:
>
> If I may make a suggestion, a user should only be able to upload a
> package that either:
>
> a) doesn't appear in the repository
>
> - -or-
>
> b) already has the uploader as maintainer
>
> - -or-
>
> c) has a RFA/O bug filed i
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:07:29PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
>
> Your engagement for the quality of your package is really great. Only, I
> think that you are not responsible of the translation. I know that there is
> a lack in debian framework concerning this point, but it really should be so
>
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:22:05PM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
> I care about security in testing, and I believe others do too. But I
> don't think the process should be the same as with stable releases.
> Testing should not become another psudo stable distributionit's for
> testing. So
On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 10:16:40PM -0400, Morgon Kanter wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 May 2003 17:17:20 -0500, Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >I have read that Linus is planning to have 2.6 released before July and
> > >ha
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:53:50PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Manoj's answer, while witty, is closer to the mark than you may
> realize.
>
> Debian will always be for whoever the people contributing to Debian
> are willing/want it to be for. No more, no less.
Um, when we all agreed to be Debia
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:37:51PM -0700, Keegan Quinn wrote:
>
> Sure, every now and then a badly-broken package makes it in for a
> day or two. This seems to be far less harmful than the massive
> headache that treating 'testing' as a usable release seems to be
> causing.
Something that would
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 11:41:02AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Not only you, Jerome and me were suggesting it in the past. However I am
> afraid that the whole package movement machinery would have to be
> rewritten to allow independent handling of the version in different
> "testing" threes, plus
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 06:55:37PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Highly technical packages like zebra, netfilter-related stuff and
> linux-atm are most likely to be used by people who know English. Not
> speaking English will make running routers and/or internet security
> systems almost impossible an
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 11:03:17AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> It seems to me this would be mitigated by two factors: 1) if they know
> enough to realize they should be emailing you in English, they probably
> realize they need to send the error messages in English too (by running
> e2fsprogs in
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:09:02AM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > Excuse me if I'm blunt here, but I understand that, on the point of
> > using entropy to seed a PRNG, if you have several shitty entropy
> > sources and one _really_ good one, and you xor them all together, the
> > resultin
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 06:51:44PM +, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> I would expect that if the NSA wanted to take control of the RDRAND or
> the rest of the CPU, they'd dynamically update the microcode in the
> CPU to change how it behaves. To do this, it appears that they'd need
> to sign a microco
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 02:03:06PM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
>
> maybe this will help in the future:
>
> http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2014/07/17/235
Latest version of the patch:
http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2014/07/18/329
Of course, the syscall numbers and inte
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 02:27:56AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Of course, the syscall numbers and interface details are not set into
> > stone until this gets merged into mainline.
>
> It doesn't say much about sizes you can request and what the
> result of that would be. The getentropy() repla
Potentially stupid question --- why are the gcc-4.[789]-base packages
have the priority required? And what are they used for?
I'm fine-tuning a small kvm appliance (kvm-xfstests, as it happens), and
I'm trying to keep the root file system as small as possible. It
appears that I can dpkg --purge
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 07:46:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois writes:
>
> > I'd therefore contact the relevant maintainers to make sure, probably
> > through a bug report asking for a priority downgrade.
>
> It looks like the only remaining purpose for gcc-4.9-base is to create
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 11:23:24AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2014-08-09 04:27 +0200, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> > Potentially stupid question --- why are the gcc-4.[789]-base packages
> > have the priority required? And what are they used for?
>
> Providing t
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:25:33AM -0700, Andrew Kelley wrote:
>
> High quality libraries must iterate on their API. Especially for a library
> trying to solve such a complex problem as audio and video encoding and
> decoding for every codec and format. It is unreasonable to expect no
> incompatib
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:53:56PM +0200, wm4 wrote:
>
> To be fair, FFmpeg does its own "manual" symbol versioning by appending
> increasing numbers to function names. But the real problem are not
> these functions, but public structs. Imagine a new API user fighting to
> guess which fields in AV
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:26:18PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> See my 1st message to this thread.
Joey,
With respect to your question re HiDPI displays and Xfce, I'm using
Xfce4 from Debian Testing on a Lenovo T540p with 3k screen, and
setting things up was fairly straight forward. I got most of w
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:33:03PM -0007, Cameron Norman wrote:
> >With respect to your question re HiDPI displays and Xfce, I'm using
> >Xfce4 from Debian Testing on a Lenovo T540p with 3k screen, and
> >setting things up was fairly straight forward. I got most of what I
> >needed by setting Cust
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 01:44:43AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
> If you increase the DPI settings under XFCE following the instructions
> posted by Ted, none of the UI elements besides text are scaled, no
> scaled cursor, no scaled icons, no scaled window decorations, etc.
That's a fair comment
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 05:17:10PM -0700, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
>
> That's why I see GNOME 3 as a tablet environment. I'd love to use a
> tablet with GNOME 3. But using it in a desktop just reduces the
> communication between me and my computer. What is Debian?
This is actually the core (hidden)
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 04:09:25PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> To quote a fairly famous Linux user who eventually came back from XFCE
> to GNOME: "But I'm actually back to gnome3 because with the right
> extensions it is more pleasant."[1]
>
> But I'm not sure if he qualifies as a power user
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:18:49PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> Well, Linus' extensions won't break because GNOME updates them with
> every release and ships them with the official GNOME release.
>From the README found in "gnome-shell-extensions" sources:
GNOME Shell Extensions is a collec
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 06:34:46PM -0400, Hashem Nasarat wrote:
>
> The following "first party" extensions are developed along with
> gnome-shell and are updated for each gnome-shell release.
> https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-shell-extensions/tree/extensions
>
> Extensions on https://extension
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 09:39:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Note also that a few of those things (udev, adduser, and
> libdevmapper1.02.1 for example) are likely to be on any non-chroot system
> already since they're either dependencies of other things (such as grub
> for libdevmapper1.02.1) or
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 07:41:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > * telnet: dead for 19 years. Used only by those who misspell 'nc' and hope
> > for no 0xff bytes.
> > * wamerican: what use is a wordlist with no users?
>
> Both of these fall under the "anyone familiar with UNIX would go 'whe
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 03:12:47PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> (Admittedly, cron has to be Priority:important anyway, to support
> logrotate - until/unless someone adds a logrotate.timer for systemd, and
> makes its cron job early-return if systemd is pid 1.)
It's inevitable that systemd wil
One thought... there will probably be trademark concerns with "unix".[1]
So we might have to choose a name for the tasksel task to be someting
like "unix-like".
[1] http://www.unix.org/trademark.html
- Ted
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:37:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > You have convinced me that in this case it's going to have to be that
> > way, so my prejudices notwithstanding. I've rationalised the pain away
> > by deciding it's no so bad as any competent programmer could see that is
> > it onl
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 08:26:45AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I understand why you feel this way, particularly given the tools that
> you're working on, but this is not something I'm going to change as
> upstream. Git does not contain generated files, and the tarball release
> does, because thos
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 02:34:33PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> The Wanderer:
> > Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, no one seems to be remotely
> > interested in trying to address or discuss that disagreement directly...
>
> The problem is that, apparently, any 'support' short of "remove sy
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 08:25:57AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> What do you think we should have done instead? debian-devel was becoming
> the standing debian-canonical-is-evil vs. debian-systemd-sucks standing
> flamewar. (I think people are already forgetting the whole Canonical is
> evil flame
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 09:02:12AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>
> I would, for example, have classified the discussions / arguments in the
> "systemd-sysv | systemd-shim" bug which appears to have recently been
> resolved by TC decision as being an example of what I thought was being
> referred to
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:21:13AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Nov 17, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > This is what many still (retorically) wonder about: we the systemd
> > > maintainers did not reject that change,
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=15;bug=746578
> Please
I'm very confused about what the status is regarding udeb and
data.tar.xz. Are they allowed or not? It seems at the moment that
dh_builddeb is creating them by default, and lintian is complaining that
this is an error.
I've done a search through the web and debian-devel and it looks like
things
If a required package (such as e2fslibs, which is required by e2fsprogs)
provides multiarch support, then Lintian requires that the package have
a dependency on the package "multiarch-support"[1].
However, this causes debcheck to complain because you now have a
required package depending on a pac
Hi,
I'm trying to understand a better way of using the Origin: field as
specified by DEP-3.
I'm currently using something like this:
Origin: http://git.kernel.org/?p=fs/ext2/e2fsprogs.git;a=commitdiff;h=8f00911a21
f4e95de84c60e09cc4df173e5b6701
since DEP-3 seems to strongly encourage a URL. Bu
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 12:51:01PM +, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
> Tanguy Ortolo, 2012-07-04 14:13+0200:
> > A blog post explaining how to set up Debian to boot via UEFI:
> >http://tanguy.ortolo.eu/blog/article51/debian-efi
> > A message to this list detailing the UEFI boot procedure and what is
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 03:21:00PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
>
> Is any of you Debian maintainers/developers using guilt (qit+quilt)for
> patch management/developement? Is it good or bad? If you are not, what
> do you use?
I use guilt for managing ext4 development for the upstream kernel.
It's
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 06:21:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Well, I've said this before, but I think it's worth reiterating. Either
> upstart or systemd configurations are *radically better* than init scripts
> on basically every axis. They're more robust, more maintainable, easier
> for the
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 06:18:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I suspect you and I have a root disagreement over the utility of exposing
> some of those degrees of freedom to every init script author, but if you
> have some more specific examples of policy that you wanted to change but
> couldn't,
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 01:41:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm surprised by this comment. Very little policy is actually encoded in
> upstart's C code; in fact, the only policy I can think of offhand that is is
> some basic stuff around filesystems, which, aside from some must-have kernel
>
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:52:15PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> You can do quite a bit with the hooks that are part of the specification
> >> of both types of files. For example, logic that you may add to control
> >> whether the service should start at all can be implemented by adding a
> >> p
On a different subject, which I don't think has been raised so far ---
has the Debian maintinares for the upstart package made any comments
about bug fixes or code contributions from Debian Developers who are
personally opposed to being forced to sign copyright assignment
agreements, or for whom th
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 03:05:58PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Yet full of misinformation, like the idea that using D-Bus makes a
> service less scriptable (while the reality is a complete opposite), or
> that configuration files are less human-readable than shell scripts.
My biggest complain
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:20:02PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
>
> 1. Do we need to check that generated files which we don't use are actually
>generated from the provided source? Main example here is a configure file
>which gets overwritten during build.
For the record, the reason why I sh
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:19:37AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I've never seen a convincing argument that the kernel /dev/random is
> likely to be *less* secure than the hardware random number generator.
> It's either more secure or the same level of security. Given that, it's a
> risk analysis,
1 - 100 of 218 matches
Mail list logo
