On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 01:28:09AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> El 28/11/24 a las 0:07, Holger Levsen escribió:
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 07:17:24PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Because the fix you have in mind involves bothering a lot of people,
> > > or worse, a few people with a lot of w
El 28/11/24 a las 0:07, Holger Levsen escribió:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 07:17:24PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
Because the fix you have in mind involves bothering a lot of people,
or worse, a few people with a lot of work, while the intermediate
status proposed by Bill fixes all the undesired ef
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 07:17:24PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Because the fix you have in mind involves bothering a lot of people,
> or worse, a few people with a lot of work, while the intermediate
> status proposed by Bill fixes all the undesired effects you
> have listed before.
but then I w
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 02:01:10PM +0200, Henrik Ahlgren wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-01-28 at 23:00 +0100, Lupe Christoph wrote:
> > On Saturday, 2017-01-28 at 14:51:19 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 03:04:56PM +0100, Daniel Reichelt wrote:
> > > > I highly suspect this stems f
On 2017-05-13 17:52, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 03:44:57PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > a) Has anything changed in the meantime?
>
> Yes: sbuild stopped repeating the changelog time taking it from the last
> entry, and will instead generate a new timestamp based on the curren
Hi all,
Just following up on this thread. As it's been a while, here's the
thread index:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2017/01/threads.html#00014
... but AIUI, the issue is as follows. Naturally, let me know if this
a poor or inaccurate summary:
* binNMUs do not bump debian/changel
On 2017-05-13 21:34, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2017-05-13 17:52, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 03:44:57PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > > a) Has anything changed in the meantime?
> >
> > Yes: sbuild stopped repeating the changelog time taking it from the last
> > entry, and wi
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:48:18PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> The above change should now be deployed on most jessie based buildds,
> it's only missing on the buildds that are currently down.
cool, thank you!
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_
On 2017-08-28 12:33, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2017-08-28 18:06, Adam Warner wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 22:48 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > On 2017-05-13 21:34, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > On 2017-05-13 17:52, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 03:44:57PM +0100, C
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 05:52:04PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 03:44:57PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > a) Has anything changed in the meantime?
>
> Yes: sbuild stopped repeating the changelog time taking it from the last
> entry, and will instead generate a new timestam
On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 12:58 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
[...]
> > > These files haven't been built on a build daemon, but instead have
> > > been uploaded by the maintainer [1]. This is therefore not a buildd
> > > issue, the issue has been fixed there already with the upgrade to
> > > stretch.
>
On 2017-08-28 12:42, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2017-08-28 12:33, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On 2017-08-28 18:06, Adam Warner wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 22:48 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > On 2017-05-13 21:34, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > > On 2017-05-13 17:52, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On 2017-08-28 18:06, Adam Warner wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 22:48 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On 2017-05-13 21:34, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > On 2017-05-13 17:52, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > > > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 03:44:57PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > > > > a) Has anything changed i
Hi,
Quoting Holger Levsen (2017-01-30 14:58:33)
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 02:47:45PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > > b.) if thats the case, shall we scan all packages in sid for files which
> > > have the same timestamp+filename but different checksums and ask for
> > > binNMUs of those packa
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 01:10:12PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > Would reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org be the correct mailing
> > list to discuss this?
the debian-buildd list or a bug against sbuild might be more
appropriate…
(the sbuild maintainer reads the above list which has b
On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 22:48 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2017-05-13 21:34, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On 2017-05-13 17:52, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 03:44:57PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > > > a) Has anything changed in the meantime?
> > >
> > > Yes: sbuild stopped r
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 03:44:57PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> a) Has anything changed in the meantime?
Yes: sbuild stopped repeating the changelog time taking it from the last
entry, and will instead generate a new timestamp based on the current
time:
* For binNMUs, instead of copying the time
Hi Henrik & Holger,
sbuild maintainer here.
Quoting Holger Levsen (2017-01-30 14:25:51)
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 01:10:12PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > > Would reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org be the correct mailing
> > > list to discuss this?
>
> the debian-buildd list or a bu
Bcc:
Subject: Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Some Debian package upgrades are corrupting
rsync "quick check" backups
Reply-To:
In-Reply-To: <148578965254.16460.821466934538220169@localhost>
On 2017-01-30 16:20, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Holger Levsen (2017-01-30 14:58:33)
> > On Mon,
On Sat, 2017-01-28 at 23:00 +0100, Lupe Christoph wrote:
> On Saturday, 2017-01-28 at 14:51:19 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 03:04:56PM +0100, Daniel Reichelt wrote:
> > > I highly suspect this stems from packages' rules files supporting
> > > reproducible builds.
>
> > I
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 02:47:45PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > (the sbuild maintainer reads the above list which has been cc:ed so he
> > should be able to comment…)
>
> You were talking about buildd-tools-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
yes
> You forgot to CC that one (I understood that wa
El 27/11/24 a las 18:43, Holger Levsen escribió:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 06:31:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Replace dh_buildinfo by a script that just print a warning but does not actually
generate the file, then ask for binNMU ?
Update the description to mention the problem.
why pamper i
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 05:43:04PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 06:31:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Replace dh_buildinfo by a script that just print a warning but does not
> > actually
> > generate the file, then ask for binNMU ?
> > Update the description to menti
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 06:31:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Replace dh_buildinfo by a script that just print a warning but does not
> actually
> generate the file, then ask for binNMU ?
> Update the description to mention the problem.
why pamper it over if we can fix it?
--
cheers,
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 05:16:47PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 02:04:03PM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > IIRC you said in some other thread that dh-buildinfo is causing you
> > issues. If that is the case (= if I'm not misremembering), an upload
> > that "defuses" dh
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 02:04:03PM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> IIRC you said in some other thread that dh-buildinfo is causing you
> issues. If that is the case (= if I'm not misremembering), an upload
> that "defuses" dh-buildinfo would immediately solve the issue.
>
> And then maintainers
[ trimming non-lists from Cc ]
Hi.
I'll note that from the 300 packages affected, around 150 are maintained by
Jonas.
Please be nice with maintainers. Making dh-buildinfo a no-op
(or "defusing" it as Chris has worded it) seems a natural
first step.
Next would come lintian and lintian-brush.
From a quick survey on 10 packages:
- most only need the one line from d/control removed.
-> I think that for those making dh-buildinfo a virtual package
provided by debhelper would be nice
- aflplusplsu needed some more trimming from d/rules.
https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-security-team
Am Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 10:59:09AM + schrieb Holger Levsen:
> > debian-multimedia (0.12) unstable; urgency=medium
> >* Task devel: Do not suggest dh-buildinfo (bug #1068809 asking for
> > removal)
> > [...]
>
> oh, great! Thank you, Andreas.
Greetings from Bug of the Day team to Repro
* Holger Levsen [241127 13:15]:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 12:00:40PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Upload a version of dh_buildinfo that does nothing be output a warning
> > 'warning: db_buildinfo is obsolete, please remove from Build-Depends'.
>
> I certainly wouldn't mind anyone doing this.
Maybe the usual ddlist posting on debian-devel + draft of MBF wording;
some people are very quick and will fix anything they can on the very same day;
and then MBF in a few days. (with severity = ?)
I fixed 5 packages just now.
Le mer. 27 nov. 2024 à 13:12, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> I certainly
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 12:00:40PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Upload a version of dh_buildinfo that does nothing be output a warning
> 'warning: db_buildinfo is obsolete, please remove from Build-Depends'.
I certainly wouldn't mind anyone doing this.
(I also doubt many people would see and ac
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 12:11:23PM +0100, Alexandre Detiste wrote:
> Don't forget the 311 build-depends ...
> $ reverse-depends -l -b dh-buildinfo | wc -l
> 311
so /usr/bin/reverse-depends was the tool I was looking for, thank you!
I've now installed ubuntu-dev-tools...
> These would need a MB
Hi,
Am Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 12:11:23PM +0100 schrieb Alexandre Detiste:
> Don't forget the 311 build-depends ...
>
> $ reverse-depends -l -b dh-buildinfo | wc -l
> 311
I did some UDD query
select source, release, build_depends from sources where build_depends like
'%dh-buildinfo%' and rel
Hi Andreas,
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:04:04AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Today dh-buildinfo appeared as a candidate for the Bug of the Day[1].
> In bug #1068809 the reporter suggested to "consider deprecating and
> removing the package". For me the reasons are perfectly valid and
> thus I che
Don't forget the 311 build-depends ...
$ reverse-depends -l -b dh-buildinfo | wc -l
311
These would need a MBF ?
Greetings
Le mer. 27 nov. 2024 à 11:56, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> Hi Andreas,
>
> YES. :)
>
> I've NMUed cdbs already last Sunday and dropped all occurances of
> dh-buildinfo from
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 10:49:05AM +, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 11:18:55 +0100
> Source: debian-multimedia
> [...]
> Changes:
> debian-multimedia (0.12) unstable; urgency=medium
>* Task devel: Do not suggest dh-buildinfo (bug #1068809 asking for removal)
> [...]
37 matches
Mail list logo
