Re: mklibs is marked for autoremoval from testing
Hello! On 1/14/21 5:39 AM, Debian testing autoremoval watch wrote: > mklibs 0.1.44.1 is marked for autoremoval from testing on 2021-01-27 > > It is affected by these RC bugs: > 937054: mklibs: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye > https://bugs.debian.org/937054 >From the description it seems that mklibs is required for low-memory systems, is that correct? If yes, I'll have a look at converting the package to Python 3. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
i need
help how do iboot my hp
remove email from message body
Hi, When I reported an issue many years ago I also added my email by mistake. If you could please remove it from the message that would be good. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=718720 Thanks Nikos
Re: i need
You dont boot your hp, your hp boots you On Jan 14 2021, at 4:09 pm, robert crowe wrote: > help how do iboot my hp
Re: i need
On 1/14/21 6:39 AM, Perkin Tahmaz wrote: You dont boot your hp, your hp boots you funny! On Jan 14 2021, at 4:09 pm, robert crowe wrote: help how do iboot my hp robert crowe: I think you need to investigate your BIOS settings. I have several HP machines, they all have different manners of presenting and edition the settings. *HP does have a forum/user group that is very handy
Re: remove email from message body
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 03:45:23PM +0200, niko...@yahoo.com wrote: > Hi, > > > When I reported an issue many years ago I also added my email by mistake. If > you could please remove it > > from the message that would be good. > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=718720 > Hi Nikos, Sorry - there's no straightforward way to remove emails from the Debian lists. The lists are archived, others copy them, Google probably has a cache. The more you try to do this, the worse the problem becomes - it's the Streisand effect - and your mail requesting this has added to it. With apologies - but in this instance, it's beyond the ability of the Debian project to do this even if we wished to. With every good wish, as ever, Andy C > > Thanks > > Nikos >
Re: Naming convention for udebs: -udeb/-installer suffix
On Wed, 2021-01-13 at 17:24 -0500, John Scott wrote: > > We don't ship udebs for firmware. So please discuss first how this > > s[h]ould work > > I presumed a udeb was necessary for it to be usable during installation. If > it's not needed, that's good to hear and I guess I'll hold off. > > If that's because the ordinary .deb is suitable (it conforms to udeb > requirements), I wonder what my next steps are to see it incorporated in the > installation images. Free firmware should be packaged in udebs so we can integrate it into the installer. However, most firmware that may be useful in the installer is non-free and has to be kept separate from the official images. So the installer doesn't currently have any provision for finding and installing firmware from udebs. We recently added a udeb for wireless-regdb, which contains a file that the kernel loads in the same way as firmware. We ended up putting it in the installer initramfs, so that it's always present. We could do the same for free firmware blobs, but we really shouldn't be adding large files to the initramfs unless we have to. Both wireless-regdb and the ath9k free firmware are useless without nic- wireless-modules-di (udeb for wifi drivers), and should be installed along with it. The idea I had a while back was that nic-wireless-modules-di should depend on wireless-regdb-udeb, and I think the same would go for the free ath9k firmware udeb. However, currently all the kernel module udebs are generated by kernel-wedge which doesn't allow defining dependencies on other packages. Perhaps you could have a look at kernel-wedge and think of a good way to support declaring such dependencies? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Design a system any fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1
Hi, On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 23:59 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 11:39:13PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > wrote: [...] > > The i release in unstable managed to migrate to testing. It was > > blocked due to ci by m2crypto and swi-prolog. The swi-prolog issue > > got fixed in unstable (the testuite was updated) and is not an > > issue in stable (the package builds, the testsuite gets ignored). > > The m2crypto issue is a different story and is still open in BTS > > (#977655). I *think* someone added an override or the ci-system was > > kind to Kurt/me and looked the other way :) > > The m2crypto package in stable and bpo will FTBFS with the updated > > openssl package. > > > > I'm not aware of other issues. > > I think there are at least 2 upstream issues since the 1.1.1i > release we want to fix first. As far as I know, they haven't been > fixed upstream yet. Just to confirm, these are issues that you'd want to have fixed before adding 1.1.1i to stable, presumably requiring further uploads to unstable first? Do you have pointers to upstream issues? Regards, Adam
Re: Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 05:43:00PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 23:59 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 11:39:13PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > > wrote: > [...] > > > The i release in unstable managed to migrate to testing. It was > > > blocked due to ci by m2crypto and swi-prolog. The swi-prolog issue > > > got fixed in unstable (the testuite was updated) and is not an > > > issue in stable (the package builds, the testsuite gets ignored). > > > The m2crypto issue is a different story and is still open in BTS > > > (#977655). I *think* someone added an override or the ci-system was > > > kind to Kurt/me and looked the other way :) > > > The m2crypto package in stable and bpo will FTBFS with the updated > > > openssl package. > > > > > > I'm not aware of other issues. > > > > I think there are at least 2 upstream issues since the 1.1.1i > > release we want to fix first. As far as I know, they haven't been > > fixed upstream yet. > > Just to confirm, these are issues that you'd want to have fixed before > adding 1.1.1i to stable, presumably requiring further uploads to > unstable first? Yes. > Do you have pointers to upstream issues? They both got merged today: commit 76ed0c0ad119569f6e6f6c96b27b76d3b110413b (origin/OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable) Author: Dr. David von Oheimb Date: Mon Dec 28 11:25:59 2020 +0100 x509_vfy.c: Fix a regression in find_isser() ...in case the candidate issuer cert is identical to the target cert. Fixes #13739 Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/13749) commit fb1e2411042f0367c2560e4ec5e4b1189ca9cd45 Author: Dr. David von Oheimb Date: Wed Dec 30 09:57:49 2020 +0100 X509_cmp(): Fix comparison in case x509v3_cache_extensions() failed to due to invalid cert This is the backport of #13755 to v1.1.1. Fixes #13698 Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/13756) There are a whole bunch of other issues and pull requests related to this. I hope this is the end of the regressions in the X509 code. Kurt
Re: os-prober | os-probes: probe microsoft OS on arm64 (!7)
Hi, Am Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2021 schrieb Shawn Guo: > > > > Shawn Guo commented: > > > @holgerw Any comments? We really need the change to get installer be able to > probe Windows on arm64 laptops. I see these machines are a growing target... Me personally, I am lacking the skills to judge on these changings, unfortenately. Could someone review this MR, please? Are there any objections against merging? Holger > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitLab: > https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/os-prober/-/merge_requests/7#note_213102 > You're receiving this email because you have been mentioned on > salsa.debian.org. > > > -- Sent from my Jolla phone http://www.jolla.com/
Re: remove email from message body
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 04:53:12PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 03:45:23PM +0200, nikos wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > When I reported an issue many years ago I also added my email by mistake. If > > you could please remove it > > > > from the message that would be good. > > > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=718720 > > > > Hi Nikos, > > Sorry - there's no straightforward way to remove emails from the Debian lists. > The lists are archived, others copy them, Google probably has a cache. > > The more you try to do this, the worse the problem becomes - it's the > Streisand effect - and your mail requesting this has added to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect > With apologies - but in this instance, it's beyond the ability of the Debian > project to do this even if we wished to. So true > With every good wish, as ever, > > Andy C Regards Geert Stappers -- Silence is hard to parse
Re: os-prober | os-probes: probe microsoft OS on arm64 (!7)
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 06:06:21PM +, Holger Wansing wrote: > Hi, > > Am Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2021 schrieb Shawn Guo: > > > > > > > > Shawn Guo commented: > > > > > > @holgerw Any comments? We really need the change to get installer be able > > to probe Windows on arm64 laptops. > > I see these machines are a growing target... > > Me personally, I am lacking the skills to judge on these changings, > unfortenately. > > Could someone review this MR, please? https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/os-prober/-/merge_requests/7 It only adds stuff, unlikely it will break existing stuff. > Are there any objections against merging? No objection from me. And I even encourage the merge because it makes it possible to get Libre software on more systems. Regards Geert Stappers -- Silence is hard to parse
Processed: Re: #904131 debian-installer: wrong keyword in netboot/xen/debian.cfg example file
Processing control commands: > tags -1 + pending Bug #904131 [debian-installer] debian-installer: wrong keyword in netboot/xen/debian.cfg example file Added tag(s) pending. -- 904131: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=904131 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Re: Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1
On 2021-01-14 19:03:37 [+0100], Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > Do you have pointers to upstream issues? > > There are a whole bunch of other issues and pull requests related to > this. I hope this is the end of the regressions in the X509 code. Okay. Please ping once this gets sorted out and I will prepease unstalbe/stable uploads. The m2crypto issue got resolved in unstable \o/. > Kurt Sebastianc
Bug#980127: busybox-static: Please enable the "hush" applet
Package: busybox-static Version: 1:1.30.1-6 Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-Cc: j...@joshtriplett.org For busybox-static, I'd love to have the "hush" applet available. It's a more feature-complete shell, including features such as brace expansion. Please consider enabling CONFIG_HUSH and CONFIG_HUSH_BASH_COMPAT in busybox-static. Thank you. -- System Information: Debian Release: bullseye/sid APT prefers unstable-debug APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental-debug'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 5.10.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads) Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
Bug#904131: #904131 debian-installer: wrong keyword in netboot/xen/debian.cfg example file
Control: tags -1 + pending Stefan Kadow wrote: > Am Samstag, 12. Dezember 2020, 23:03:22 CET schrieben Sie: > > > Package: debian-installer > > > Severity: minor > > > Tags: newcomer > > > > > > In Section "CDROM install:" > > > bootargs=... > > > > > > But, the newer xen Toolkit "xl" uses > > > bootloader_args=... Now applied. Tagging this bug as pending Thanks Holger -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
