[p-a-s/sid] Remove ppmd entry: now 64-bit clean.

[Debian bug #635323] The ppmd upstream release 10.1 (j1) is now 64-bit clean. Signed-off-by: Guillem Jover Signed-off-by: Philipp Kern --- Packages-arch-specific |1 - 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/Packages-arch-specific b/Packages-arch-specific index

Re: Please give back firebird2.5 on s390x

On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 13:37:05 +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > wb gb firebird2.5_2.5.2~svn+54698.ds4-1 . s390x > > The regular build[1] failed with a very strange error in the package > creation phase: > > dpkg-shlibdeps: error: dpkg-query --control-path libicu48:s390x symbols died > from sign

Re: Please give back firebird2.5 on s390x

On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 16:20:24 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 03:35:01PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > ISTR other segfaults in other dpkg code paths on s390x (maybe I'm just > > misremembering), if that's the case that might hint at a deeper > &

[p-a-s/wheezy 4/6] Remove ppmd entry: now 64-bit clean.

[Debian bug #635323] The ppmd upstream release 10.1 (j1) is now 64-bit clean. Signed-off-by: Guillem Jover Signed-off-by: Philipp Kern --- Packages-arch-specific |1 - 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/Packages-arch-specific b/Packages-arch-specific index

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 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: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Hi! On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 11:16:09 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Sven Joachim writes ("Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus"): > > I'm afraid I don't really have a good suggestion. Using current date > > would work but obviously break reproducibility, and any other date seems > > arbitrary. > > I

Re: Bug#894441: dpkg-buildpackage: SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH must ignore bin-nmu changelog entries. Breaks M-A:same

Control: reassign -1 buildd.debian.org Hi! On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 17:43:58 +0200, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote: > On Friday, 30 March 2018 15:02:31 CEST Chris Lamb wrote: > > [ https://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2017/05/msg00011.html ] > > On Friday, 30 March 2018 20:15:33 CEST Sven Joachim w

Re: Bug#894441: dpkg-buildpackage: SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH must ignore bin-nmu changelog entries. Breaks M-A:same

On Fri, 2018-04-13 at 19:01:08 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 05:43:58PM +0200, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote: > > > So, during compilation: > > > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH must ignore bin-nmu changelog entries > > > because it breaks Multi-Arch:same on bin-nmu. > > > > > > During dpkg

Re: Bug#846970: Patch to document Build-Indep-Architecture field

On Fri, 2018-06-15 at 19:05:17 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#846970: Patch to document Build-Indep-Architecture > field"): > > > +``Build-Indep-Architecture`` > > > + > Zooming out a bit: > > We do not normally add fields to Policy until they

Re: packages expected to fail on some archs

Hi! [ Mostly to summarize the status re dpkg. ] On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 17:08:57 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > The issue we see is that some DDs end up setting a hardcoded list in > the "Architecture" field, rather than just letting builds keep failing > on these archs (and then possibly succeedi

Re: Bug#1023870: dpkg: Problems in buildds due to slow compression

Hi! On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 19:15:59 +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Package: dpkg > Version: 1.21.9 > Severity: normal > X-Debbugs-Cc: m...@debian.org, debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org > After some investigation by aurel32 and myself, this was traced back to the > commit f8d254943051e

Re: Bug#1023870: dpkg: Problems in buildds due to slow compression

Hi! On Sun, 2022-11-13 at 00:17:36 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2022-11-12 22:28, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 19:15:59 +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > > > Package: dpkg > > > Version: 1.21.9 > > > Severity: normal > &g

[p-a-s/sid] Update svgalib related entries

[Debian bug #625680] Remove svgalib entry, the .dsc already contains information about the supported architectures. Remove packages no longer available in archive depending on svgalib. Signed-off-by: Guillem Jover Signed-off-by: Philipp Kern --- Packages-arch-specific |8 1

[p-a-s/wheezy 6/7] Update svgalib related entries

[Debian bug #625680] Remove svgalib entry, the .dsc already contains information about the supported architectures. Remove packages no longer available in archive depending on svgalib. Signed-off-by: Guillem Jover Signed-off-by: Philipp Kern --- Packages-arch-specific |8 1

Re: binNMUs?

Hi! On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 21:19:29 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [110912 20:44]: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 08:19:09PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 15:31:56 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > Also, I think we still have a reason

Re: binNMUs?

n in debian/changelog. This would even allow to use > something else than +bX for bin-nmu which is desirable for many > other usages (backports, PPA, etc.). These look like hacks to me. > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Guillem Jover wrote: > > What comes to mind, even if slightly radical, is tha

Re: Bug#1092051: dpkg-buildpackage incredible slow since end of 2024

Hi! On Wed, 2025-01-22 at 21:39:55 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > It's actually quite noticeable on fast machines for the rtpengine > package, and even with the latest dpkg mitigations. The build time on > fast machine increased on average by a factor ~30, for instance: > amd64: 5m => 2h39 > arm64