Ping?
Am Sat, Dec 09, 2023 at 06:13:24PM +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> Hi Amul,
>
> I realised that fis-gtm is lagging behind upstream some versions and the
> Debian packaged fis-gtm is featuring CVE-2021-44496 and CVE-2021-44504.
> It would be great if you could upgrade the
Hi Amul,
I realised that fis-gtm is lagging behind upstream some versions and the
Debian packaged fis-gtm is featuring CVE-2021-44496 and CVE-2021-44504.
It would be great if you could upgrade the Debian package to the latest
upstream version.
Kind regards,
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
: Debian buildds
Date: Wednesday, 10 12, 2022 at 03:30 PM
To: dispa...@tracker.debian.org
Subject: failed i386 build of fis-gtm 7.0-004-1
* Source package: fis-gtm
* Version: 7.0-004-1
* Architecture: i386
* State: failed
* Suite: sid
* Builder: x86-ubc-02.debian.org
* Build log:
https://eur02
y more
these days. I keep Amul Shah in CC of this mail as well as the Debian
Med mailing list where things like this are discussed. Amul is part of
the upstream fis-gtm team and will hopefully know some answer.
BTW, in principle its the best idea to report issues like this by
doing
reportbug f
Hi again,
this is a last warning. If I do not hear any decision I will choose
my own prefered naming scheme and will upload the package.
Kind regards
Andreas.
Am Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 02:36:26PM +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> Hi again,
>
> Amul, can you please, pretty please get to some
Hi again,
Amul, can you please, pretty please get to some decision *right now* and
than we act accordingly? Leaving CVEs unattended just because there is
a package name discussion pending is not acceptable. If I do not hear
from you until Monday I will throw a coin and do what the coin says.
Hi Karsten,
I do not mind, to keep the numbering scheme if it makes sense and
reflects the truth. It just needs do be done in a timely manner. Long
standing open CVEs are not acceptable. The current decision should be
drawn quickly and acted accordingly. I hope I made the consequences to
keep
Am Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 09:56:05AM +0200 schrieb Andreas (Debian):
> I wonder if there is some decision about the naming scheme. I *really*
> want to get the CVE bugs fixed. Users might consider Debian packages
> useless otherwise.
As far as I remember the "Mumps community" considers each and
can be changed
> more easily than the package name. To make it clear what I mean I
> propose the following patch against the current Git repository:
>
>
> diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control
> index 15f2d39..fb077fb 100644
> --- a/debian/control
> +++ b/debian/contr
debian/control b/debian/control
index 15f2d39..fb077fb 100644
--- a/debian/control
+++ b/debian/control
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ Description: metapackage for the latest version of FIS-GT.M
database
.
This metapackage always depends from the default fis-gtm version.
-Package: fis-gtm-7.0-002
+Pac
Subject: Re: Naming scheme of fis-gtm binary packages (Was: Bug#1009900:
fis-gtm: Multiple CVEs in fis-gtm)
Hi Andreas,
Thanks for changing the subject and dropping the bug tracker. I realized
my faux pas after the bug tracker replied to my email.
> > Could you remind me about what we are
ow situation where there are two possible GT.M
> > versions?
> > > aptitude search fis-gtm
> > p fis-gtm
> > - metapackage for the latest version
>
Hi Amul,
Am Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 05:58:54PM + schrieb Shah, Amul:
> > Please reconsider the "add any minor version bump leads to a new binary
> > file name" strategy. This means that fis-gtm always needs to pass the
> > Debian new queue which always means that t
My 2 Euro cent:
> and comment on the current status (may be also addressing my repeated
> question for reflecting the version inside the package name which
> is IMHO not the best idea since it always delays the uploads).
A change to that will likely never happen because that's part
of the very
Hi again Amul,
this is the last ping before I update what is currently in Git. We
*really* need to proceed now with fis-gtm package since we will face
Debian freeze for next stable release soon. (Not too soon but since the
last commit in Git that is not from me was in April last year it is
soon
Hi Amul,
ping. Will you be able to check my latest commits and finalise the
fis-gtm package. We should upload soonish since the freeze is
approaching.
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 03:32:32PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Amul,
>
> may be you missed my
few months and I keep telling myself that I’ll do the
> > fis-gtm package next week. We released V6.3-006 at the end of last month,
> > but the corporate security goon squad decided to block SourceForge.net and
> > we’re still awaiting for permission to access it from corporate
Hi Amul,
On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 11:56:01AM -0500, Amul Shah wrote:
>
> It’s been a busy few months and I keep telling myself that I’ll do the
> fis-gtm package next week. We released V6.3-006 at the end of last month, but
> the corporate security goon squad decided to block Sou
On Oct 28, 2018, at 7:09 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> Hi Amul,
>
> when updating all Vcs fields of Debian Med packages to salsa I update
> fis-gtm. I noticed that you had injected a changelog entry for V6.3-004
> but now V6.3-005 is up to date. You did not yet answered m
Hi Amul,
when updating all Vcs fields of Debian Med packages to salsa I update
fis-gtm. I noticed that you had injected a changelog entry for V6.3-004
but now V6.3-005 is up to date. You did not yet answered my question
about the continuous name change of the binary package (or I forgot your
ules
index cef9eff..5415aa0 100755
--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ BINPKG := $(shell awk '/Package:.*[0-9]/{print $$2;}'
debian/control)
GTM_INSTALL_DIR := lib/$(MARCH)/fis-gtm/$(UAPIDIR)
LOCAL_GTM_INSTALL_DIR := $(CURDIR)/debian/$(BINPKG)/usr/$(GTM_INSTALL_DIR)
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:32:24PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Just uploaded. Will be in unstable after the next mirror sync.
I forgot that due to the name change of the binary package it needs to
pass the new queue. To my experience processing of the new queue is
faster these days than for
; >>Debian package. Since I have the spare cycles, I want to address a few of
> >>the "action needed" items listed on https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fis-gtm
> >Thanks for keeping the packages up to date.
> [amul:2] After the last round of updates, we instituted a f
ems listed on https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fis-gtm
Thanks for keeping the packages up to date.
[amul:2] After the last round of updates, we instituted a few changes internally to ensure that we can ship the Debian package
ASAP. Can you look over my recent commit and make any necessary changes?
les? * I agree with it the principle, but I have an
> exception that I cannot work around.
I do not think that you can exclude any files from beeing checked. I'd
recommend talking with upstream whether any fixed time setting would be
possible or the reproducible builds team whether they know any
Hello,
FIS released GT.M V6.3-000 yesterday and I am in the process of updating the Debian package. Since I have the spare cycles, I
want to address a few of the "action needed" items listed on https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fis-gtm. I made some changes to
address the uscan error a
. So I decrease its severity from
serious to important.
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:36:20PM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
Someone logged a FTBFS (failed to build from source) bug against fis-gtm
(https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fis-gtm). I have at my disposal Debian
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 08:31:41AM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
How do I respond to such a claim when I cannot reproduce it?
Thanks Andreas! Does the bug reporter usually respond to confirm that it's no
longer present?
It depends from the reporter. Usually these FTBFS bugs are properly
dealt
Someone logged a FTBFS (failed to build from source) bug against fis-gtm (https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fis-gtm). I have at my
disposal Debian 7.8 and unstable servers. I attempted to reproduce the failure on each without success.
How do I respond to such a claim when I cannot reproduce
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 01:19:35PM +, Shah, Amul wrote:
Thanks for your work on this
[amul:2] Thank you for responding while on vacation! I'm fine with waiting if
no one can do the upload.
Just uploaded. Thanks for your preparation
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To
Hi Andreas,
From: Amul Shah [amul.s...@fisglobal.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 2:25 PM
To: debian-med@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: [fis-gtm] FW: GT.M V6.2-002 available
Hi Andreas,
On 06/09/15 10:36, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi Amul,
On Tue, Jun 09
Hi Amul,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 01:19:46PM +, Shah, Amul wrote:
I uploaded the latest version of GT.M that we released yesterday.
Thanks for your work on this.
I tagged the version as unstable. Let me know if that was the correct thing
to do.
Perfect. Unfortunately I'm on vacation
Hi Andreas,
On 06/09/15 10:36, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi Amul,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 01:19:46PM +, Shah, Amul wrote:
I uploaded the latest version of GT.M that we released yesterday.
Thanks for your work on this.
I tagged the version as unstable. Let me know if that was the correct
[sorry for the top post, Outlook doesn't do proper quoting]
Hi Andreas,
I uploaded the latest version of GT.M that we released yesterday. I tagged the
version as unstable. Let me know if that was the correct thing to do.
As always, thanks for help.
Amul
From:
Sent via OWA2010
From: Andreas Tille [andr...@an3as.eu]
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 2:47 PM
To: debian-med@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: [fis-gtm] Updating fis-gtm to V6.2-001
Hi Amul,
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 02:01:17PM -0500, Amul Shah wrote
can upload without any change to unstable
once Jessie is released.
[amul:5] Ack! That's what I get for working on an Ubuntu machine. I changed
the release to unstable. Please upload.
As always, thank you for your help!
Thanks to you since without your contribution there would be no fis-gtm
Hi Amul,
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 02:01:17PM -0500, Amul Shah wrote:
cme fix dpkg-control
[amul:4] Changes committed, please take a look.
Looks ready for upload to me. Should I upload (if yes I would change
the target distribution from precise to unstable).
Kind regards
number. The most easy way to do this is
cme fix dpkg-control
[amul:4] Changes committed, please take a look.
which does this for you besided some checking of your (Build-)Depends.
(See policy manual about what packages to install to enable cme.)
I think fis-gtm is already compliant
Hi Amul,
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:34:44AM +, Shah, Amul wrote:
[amul:3] While I diagnose the issue with #775302, I thought it prudent to not
hold V6.2-001. Please consider this version ready for sponsoring.
OK.
[amul:3] I checked https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fis-gtm
Hi Andreas,
I apologize in advance for the horrid formatting that Outlook does to mails.
From: Amul Shah [amul.s...@fisglobal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 9:26 AM
To: debian-med@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: [fis-gtm] Updating fis-gtm to V6.2-001
Hi Andreas,
On 01/14/15 02:12, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi Amul,
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 04:40:28PM -0500, Amul Shah wrote:
Last month FIS released GT.M V6.2-001. I have staged the changes for
upload. I will upload once I fix one minor issue with the gtmprofile
environment script.
Fine. Just
just filed a bug, Bug#775302, against the fis-gtm package on
behalf of a user on comp.lang.mumps.
+1
Very good to record the issue here.
I was unable to reproduce the
bug using the package that I built on my workstation, but I was able
to reproduce it using the package that I downloaded from
All,
Last month FIS released GT.M V6.2-001. I have staged the changes for upload. I will upload once I fix one minor issue with the
gtmprofile environment script.
I just filed a bug, Bug#775302, against the fis-gtm package on behalf of a user on comp.lang.mumps. I was unable to reproduce
Hi Andreas,
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Andreas Tille wrote:
really sense - I'm no fis-gtm user. However, we agreed that for a low
popcon package it is not possible to maintain several versions
officially.
Does this clarify my idea why fixing the licensing issue in
fis-gtm-6.2-000 would be sufficient
care of that this evening.
To be always informed about issues of the fis-gtm package you should
subscribe it here:
https://packages.qa.debian.org/common/
Depending from your capacity to read some more mails it might be even
better to subscribe the Debian Med maintainers list here
http
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 12:11:51AM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
[amul:9] Thanks for those links. I didn't know there was a bug filed. I'll
take care of that this evening.
[amul:10] I committed and pushed the license update as well as commented on
the bug.
Good.
Does it matter that
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, Bhaskar, K.S wrote:
[KSB2] Adding a license exception to the COPYING file would probably
require me to go through Legal and that may add delays that increase the
risk of pushing us past the deadline.
Aah, ok.
Would removing the claim of copyright to the reference
sensible to fix it in 6.2 which can close the bug
in the same manner.
Hmm, strictly speaking the bug is in 6.1-000 and won't be fixed by
uploading 6.2-000. I think the bug should not be assigned to package
fis-gtm but rather fis-gtm-6.1-000 (and of course be fixed in
fis-gtm-6.2-000 as well
speaking the bug is in 6.1-000 and won't be fixed by
uploading 6.2-000. I think the bug should not be assigned to package
fis-gtm but rather fis-gtm-6.1-000 (and of course be fixed in
fis-gtm-6.2-000 as well)
Hmmm, the affected fis-gtm-6.1-000 will vanish from Debian mirror, after
fis-gtm-6.2-000
Hi Thorsten,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 12:26:16PM +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
Hmm, strictly speaking the bug is in 6.1-000 and won't be fixed by
uploading 6.2-000. I think the bug should not be assigned to package
fis-gtm but rather fis-gtm-6.1-000 (and of course be fixed in
fis-gtm-6.2-000
Hi Thorsten and Andreas,
On 10/09/14 07:37, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi Thorsten,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 12:26:16PM +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
Hmm, strictly speaking the bug is in 6.1-000 and won't be fixed by
uploading 6.2-000. I think the bug should not be assigned to package
fis-gtm
Hi Amul,
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:41:36AM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
Does this clarify my idea why fixing the licensing issue in
fis-gtm-6.2-000 would be sufficient?
[amul:11] We have two options at this point regarding
fis-gtm-6.1-000. Withdraw the version or update it. We - I, Bhaskar
Andreas (or anyone else with the answer :),
When we request an upload of the fis-gtm package, does that imply the creation of a source package? If not, what do I need to do
to ensure that there is a source package?
thanks
Amul
_
The information contained in this message
with an updated /debian folder is uploaded, and also the new binary
package.
Does that answer your question?
+Emilien
2014-10-08 16:48 GMT+02:00 Amul Shah amul.s...@fisglobal.com:
Andreas (or anyone else with the answer :),
When we request an upload of the fis-gtm package, does that imply the
creation
16:48 GMT+02:00 Amul Shah amul.s...@fisglobal.com:
Andreas (or anyone else with the answer :),
When we request an upload of the fis-gtm package, does that imply the
creation of a source package? If not, what do I need to do to ensure that
there is a source package?
thanks
Amul
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 08:33:53PM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
Andreas,
Kindly upload fis-gtm... again.
No - the package is not ready yet. :-(
You did not addressed
https://bugs.debian.org/762457
which is really important to let fis-gtm migrate to testing (=future
stable). Please fix
On 10/08/14 15:57, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 08:33:53PM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
Andreas,
Kindly upload fis-gtm... again.
No - the package is not ready yet. :-(
You did not addressed
https://bugs.debian.org/762457
which is really important to let fis-gtm migrate
Hi Andreas,
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014, at 05:40 PM, Amul Shah wrote:
On 10/08/14 15:57, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 08:33:53PM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
Andreas,
Kindly upload fis-gtm... again.
No - the package is not ready yet. :-(
You did not addressed
https
the claim of copyright to the reference implementation of
the plugin solve the issue? Thanks.
Regards
-- Bhaskar
Bhaskar,
As discussed, the fis-gtm package no longer includes the reference encryption
plugin libraries. I committed those changes and fis-gtm 6.2-000 is ready for
upload.
Andreas
.
Oh, come on, why should it matter whether you are linking at compile
time or at run time? In both cases the result is a combined binary.
kbhaskar@bhaskark:~$ ls -l
/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.2-000_x86_64/plugin/lib*crypt*
/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.2-000_x86_64/plugin/libgtmcrypt_openssl_AES256CFB.so
-r
dynamically.
Oh, come on, why should it matter whether you are linking at compile
time or at run time? In both cases the result is a combined binary.
kbhaskar@bhaskark:~$ ls -l
/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.2-000_x86_64/plugin/lib*crypt*
/usr/lib/fis-gtm/V6.2-000_x86_64/plugin/libgtmcrypt_openssl_AES256CFB.so
On 10/06/2014 07:55 AM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
Hi Bhaskar,
On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Bhaskar, K.S wrote:
[KSB] Those *openssl* files are versions of the reference
implementation of
the plugin compiled with #include, #if, etc. configured to call call
OpenSSL. They are not actually linked to
Andreas, please hold off on the upload till the discussion between
Thorsten and me runs its course. Thank you.
My preference is to keep the package with openssl in the names of the
symbolic links, since V6.2-000 just continues what V6.1-000 did in the
reference implementation of the plugin being
Yes, we'll sort it out in the next few days, Andreas. Two points:
* What Amul has created is not complete. He removed one place where
openssl is in the name of a symbolic link, but did not remove
another place where the reference implementation of the plugin calls
OpenSSL.
* I'm
Hi Andreas,
[amul:4] V6.2-000 is ready for upload!
And so I did. Thanks for your work on this
[amul:7] While we wait for the apparent licensing conflict to resolve (I don't
understand how dynamically linking a library causes problems, but I'm no lawyer
;), I went ahead and updated the
at the Debian package, I found the following comment:
The upstream V6.2-000 CMakeLists.txt file built only one of three
possible encryption plugin libraries. This meant that the debian fis-gtm
package was missing a core piece of the distributed binaries. Upstream
will
apply this change
:
The upstream V6.2-000 CMakeLists.txt file built only one of three
possible encryption plugin libraries. This meant that the debian fis-gtm
package was missing a core piece of the distributed binaries. Upstream will
apply this change to the next release after internal review.
Further the Debian
, depend on OpenSSL. But there is a looser
relationship / dependency.
hmm, while looking at the Debian package, I found the following comment:
The upstream V6.2-000 CMakeLists.txt file built only one of three
possible encryption plugin libraries. This meant that the debian fis-gtm
package
we adopted to handle the DESTDIR problem.
instance1:~ lintian --display-info fis-gtm-6.2-000_6.2-000-1_amd64.deb
I: fis-gtm-6.2-000: spelling-error-in-binary
usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/fis-gtm/V6.2-000_x86_64/dse accomodate accommodate
I: fis-gtm-6.2-000: spelling-error-in-binary
usr/lib/x86_64
Hi Amul,
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:55:11AM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
instance1:~ lintian --display-info fis-gtm-6.2-000_6.2-000-1_amd64.deb
I: fis-gtm-6.2-000: spelling-error-in-binary
usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/fis-gtm/V6.2-000_x86_64/dse accomodate accommodate
I: fis-gtm-6.2-000: spelling
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Andreas Tille wrote:
[amul:4] V6.2-000 is ready for upload!
And so I did. Thanks for your work on this
Hmm, AGPL code without exception linked with openssl doesn't look well ..
Thorsten
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On 09/29/2014 02:08 PM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Andreas Tille wrote:
[amul:4] V6.2-000 is ready for upload!
And so I did. Thanks for your work on this
Hmm, AGPL code without exception linked with openssl doesn't look well ..
[KSB] Thorsten, I manage FIS GT.M, the
.
instance1:~ lintian --display-info fis-gtm-6.2-000_6.2-000-1_amd64.deb
I: fis-gtm-6.2-000: spelling-error-in-binary
usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/fis-gtm/V6.2-000_x86_64/dse accomodate accommodate
I: fis-gtm-6.2-000: spelling-error-in-binary
usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/fis-gtm/V6.2-000_x86_64/libgtmutil.so
this before I'll upload? Please tell me once you
are happy with the package since I personally know to less about fis-gtm
to know whether these todos are blocking issues or not.
[amul:1] I would like to fix the build to generate all of the
encryption plugins, but I don't think that should hold up
chuckle a bit. I didn't realize that we had
typos in our messaging from C sources. The flagging of M sources below occurred
because of the technique we adopted to handle the DESTDIR problem.
instance1:~ lintian --display-info fis-gtm-6.2-000_6.2-000-1_amd64.deb
I: fis-gtm-6.2-000: spelling-error
if they are
correct.
Lintian was able to use the crated overrides - so this is obviously fine.
I just fixed
W: fis-gtm-6.2-000: debian-changelog-line-too-long line 6
(git pull) - please note that the target distribution should be
UNRELEASED until we will release.
I also wonder whether you could forward
warnings overrides. Please let me know if they are correct.
Lintian was able to use the crated overrides - so this is obviously fine.
I just fixed
W: fis-gtm-6.2-000: debian-changelog-line-too-long line 6
(git pull) - please note that the target distribution should be
UNRELEASED until we
Hi Andreas,
Thanks to your prior instructions and V6.2-000 changes eliminating the patch
series, going through this round was a quite quick.
I added two lintian warnings overrides. Please let me know if they are correct.
While looking at the installed directory, I noticed two inconsistencies
case you can always consult debian-ment...@lists.debian.org if you
might face problems to apply the technique used in these packages for
fis-gtm.
[amul:8] Since V6.2-000 was just release, I'm skipping this feature for the
V6.1-000 package.
Sounds very reasonable.
Multiarch is the way to go
to I
would have a look how openjdk, python or gcc are solving this issue. In
any case you can always consult debian-ment...@lists.debian.org if you
might face problems to apply the technique used in these packages for
fis-gtm.
[amul:8] Since V6.2-000 was just release, I'm skipping this feature
Hi Amul,
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 06:33:48PM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
I uploaded after fixing some lintian overrides. Thanks for your work on
this package.
[amul:9] Thanks for the fixes. I’ll read through to understand what I missed.
Probably you missed to run `lintian *.changes`. The
Hi Andreas,
On 09/11/14 16:46, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi Amul,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 03:30:18PM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
[amul:7] To manage the default current link, /opt/fis-gtm/current,
debian/rules includes a override_dh_link target. We would like to
let users install GT.M version 6.0-003
the patch for the debian package, (c) carry the build changes
forward to the upstream release and lastly, (d) update the source
README.
- Fix the issue where the /opt/fis-gtm/current link points to the 32bit
version of GT.M for the 64bit install
- Allow i386 and x86_64 packages to coexist
for the debian package, (c) carry the build changes forward to the upstream release and lastly, (d) update the
source README.
- Fix the issue where the /opt/fis-gtm/current link points to the 32bit version
of GT.M for the 64bit install
- Allow i386 and x86_64 packages to coexist. Currently
Hi Amul,
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 08:14:03AM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
While `rm -rf .pc` is sensible before commiting you should make sure
that you do not forget `quilt pop -a` before.
[amul:4] I check git status -s before moving forward.
OK.
Well, do you have a valid GPG key? If
Hi Amul,
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:15:07AM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
[amul:5] I've surmounted the above issue. I don't completely follow
everything, but I reverted the commit that merged the upstream (this is
branch that existed only in my local copy as opposed to the branch from
already chained off the initial source import until the upstream/6.0-003. I
used the commit ID of the upstream/6.0-003 below.
git clone ssh://git.debian.org/git/debian-med/fis-gtm.git fis-gtm-debmed.git
cd fis-gtm-debmed.git
git branch upstream d883233f4018839ce9f3da6faa57a5de8e2de98f
push error that I don't understand. I try doing some more
searches tomorrow.
To give a short summary:
0. create gpg key
1. gbp-clone ssh://git.debian.org/git/debian-med/fis-gtm.git
2. cd fis-gtm
3. git import-orig --pristine-tar new_upstream_tarball
4. dch -i
5. git
with.
instance1:~/fis-gtm-debmed.git git-import-orig --pristine-tar
~/Downloads/fis-gtm-V6.1-000.tar.gz -u 6.1-000
gbp:error:
Repository does not have branch 'upstream' for upstream sources. If there is
none see
file:///usr/share/doc/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.import.html
/msg2.html),
but didn't quite understand some terms. What is the drop dead date
to get fis-gtm up to date?
Lets finish things in September to be sure. Targeting at a drop dead
date is not a good idea since a last minute RC bug might cross our
plans. Our internal deadline should be 2014-09-31
to follow the step by step
instructions I have given in my other mail.
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:13:53AM +, Amul Shah wrote:
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.
tuskentower-guest pushed a change to branch master
in repository fis
Hi Amul,
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 08:51:51AM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
Hi Andreas,
I apologize for the mix-up. Is there a way for me to back those changes out
of the master branch?
At a second thought it might be that nothing really bad has happened.
Perhaps you just gbp-clone the current
Hi Amul,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 03:44:44PM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
Folks,
I'm working towards updating the fis-gtm package. I have several TODOs for
this:
- Incorporate the updated sources
- Refresh existing and apply new patches, quilt is just awesome
- Update the virtual package fis-gtm
On 08/27/14 16:46, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi Amul,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 03:44:44PM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
Folks,
I'm working towards updating the fis-gtm package. I have several TODOs for this:
- Incorporate the updated sources
- Refresh existing and apply new patches, quilt is just awesome
Hi Andreas,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014, at 04:46 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 03:44:44PM -0400, Amul Shah wrote:
Folks,
I'm working towards updating the fis-gtm package. I have several TODOs for
this:
- Incorporate the updated sources
- Refresh existing and apply new
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Andreas Tille andr...@fam-tille.de wrote:
Hi Luis,
On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 06:01:44PM -0400, Luis Ibanez wrote:
The fis-gtm package was in the backlog while I was teaching a class
on VistA at SUNY Albany this Spring.
I can now come back to this task
Hi Luis,
On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 06:01:44PM -0400, Luis Ibanez wrote:
The fis-gtm package was in the backlog while I was teaching a class
on VistA at SUNY Albany this Spring.
I can now come back to this task, and look at updating to version 6.1.
I'd like to remember that there is some
On 06/08/2014 06:01 PM (US Eastern Time), Luis Ibanez wrote:
[KSB] …snip…
Just to make sure that I'm summarizing the consensus from this discussion:
a) My understanding is that we will package both versions
of fis-gtm (6.0 and 6.1)
b) We will use the meta-package fis-gtm to point
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Andreas Tille ti...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Luis,
any news about fis-gtm update?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
Hi Andreas,
The fis-gtm package was in the backlog while I was teaching a class
on VistA at SUNY Albany
Hi Luis,
any news about fis-gtm update?
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:22:01PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Dominique Belhachemi
domi...@debian.orgwrote:
There is no big difference to all the other packages in Debian.
Transitions
1 - 100 of 306 matches
Mail list logo
