Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

On Thursday 16 December 2010 11:55:05 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> On the note of ia32-libs-gtk. It seems that was rejected by an
> overzelous lintian check. It doesn't depend on libc (no kidding :).
> I will have to check that and add lintian overrides to it or get lintian
> fixed.

Is there progress on this?
As I mentioned earlier I think reasonably up to date ia32-libs* packages are 
essential to be able to provide some kind of security support for these 
packages in squeeze.


Cheers,
Thijs


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Thijs Kinkhorst  writes:

> On Tuesday 07 December 2010 18:01:05 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Uploading ia32-libs-core_20101207_source to mentors. Sponsors
>> welcome.
>
> I have uploaded this now. I think this needs unblocking so that ia32-libs can 
> also migrate.
>
> I've also sponsored ia32-libs-gtk/20101125 which could also need an unblock.
>
> My interest in this is from a security team standpoint where if we want to be 
> able to support these packages in an at least somewhat acceptable way, we 
> need 
> them to be as up to date w.r.t. the contained packages as possible at time of 
> release, so that if we need to make an update later we will not drag in 
> updates for half of the libraries aswell.
>
> Ideally ia32-libs* contain the same versions of the libraries that are also 
> released as normal packages. If we update ia32-libs* now that we're in a deep 
> freeze we can at least get reasonably close. Depending on how long the freeze 
> still lasts and what updates are let in, it may be desirable to make another 
> upload later that updates the contained packages. And/or we ship a "catch up" 
> update in the first point release.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Thijs

Thanks.

On the note of ia32-libs-gtk. It seems that was rejected by an
overzelous lintian check. It doesn't depend on libc (no kidding :).
I will have to check that and add lintian overrides to it or get lintian
fixed.

MfG
Goswin



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Julien Cristau]

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 15:29:00 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:

> I have uploaded this now. I think this needs unblocking so that
> ia32-libs can also migrate.
> 
Unblocked.

> I've also sponsored ia32-libs-gtk/20101125 which could also need an unblock.
> 
dak says:
20101215143236|process-upload|dak|ia32-libs-gtk_20101125_ia64.changes|check_lintian|auto
 rejecting|overridable|missing-dependency-on-libc

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

On Wednesday 15 December 2010 15:29:00 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> I've also sponsored ia32-libs-gtk/20101125 which could also need an
> unblock.

Unfortunately this got rejected:
  Reject Reasons:
  ia32-libs-gtk: lintian output: 'missing-dependency-on-libc needed by
  ./lib32/libglib-2.0.so.0.2400.2 and 142 others', automatically rejected
  package.
  ia32-libs-gtk: If you have a good reason, you may override this lintian tag.

Goswin?



Thijs


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

On Tuesday 07 December 2010 18:01:05 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Uploading ia32-libs-core_20101207_source to mentors. Sponsors
> welcome.

I have uploaded this now. I think this needs unblocking so that ia32-libs can 
also migrate.

I've also sponsored ia32-libs-gtk/20101125 which could also need an unblock.

My interest in this is from a security team standpoint where if we want to be 
able to support these packages in an at least somewhat acceptable way, we need 
them to be as up to date w.r.t. the contained packages as possible at time of 
release, so that if we need to make an update later we will not drag in 
updates for half of the libraries aswell.

Ideally ia32-libs* contain the same versions of the libraries that are also 
released as normal packages. If we update ia32-libs* now that we're in a deep 
freeze we can at least get reasonably close. Depending on how long the freeze 
still lasts and what updates are let in, it may be desirable to make another 
upload later that updates the contained packages. And/or we ship a "catch up" 
update in the first point release.


Cheers,
Thijs



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Alexander Reichle-Schmehl]

Hi!

Am 08.12.2010 09:31, schrieb Alexander Reichle-Schmehl:

> That one FTBFS for me with:

Sorry for the noise.  I was just pointed at the fact, that this is the
expected behaviour when building an ia64 package on amd64 :(


Best regards,
  Alexander



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Alexander Reichle-Schmehl]

Hi!

Am 07.12.2010 18:01, schrieb Goswin von Brederlow:

> Uploading ia32-libs-core_20101207_source to mentors. Sponsors
> welcome.

That one FTBFS for me with:

dh_builddeb -s
dh_builddeb: You asked that all arch in(dep) packages be built, but
there are none of that type.
 dpkg-genchanges  >../ia32-libs-core_20101207_amd64.changes
dpkg-genchanges: error: cannot read files list file: No such file or
directory
dpkg-buildpackage: error: dpkg-genchanges gave error exit status 2
E: Failed autobuilding of package


Full build log available at
http://people.debian.org/~tolimar/tmp/ia32-libs-core_20101207_amd64.log


Best regards,
  Alexander



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Goswin von Brederlow]

"Adam D. Barratt"  writes:

> On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 08:37 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>> On Thursday 18 November 2010 22:24:01 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>> >   On Wednesday 17 November 2010 14:26:07 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > >  ia32-libs-core (20101117) unstable; urgency=low
>> > >  ia32-libs (20101117) unstable; urgency=low
>> > 
>> > I just uploaded these to sid.
>> 
>> I think ia32-libs-core still needs an unblock?
>
> Why was the Breaks on "ia32-libs (<< 20100418)" dropped?  That isn't

Breaks readded as per policy "7.6.1: Overwriting files in other
packages". Thanks for noticing.

> mentioned in the changelog.  (Nor are the two lines that have
> retrospectively appeared in the changelog for ia32-libs-core 20100421).

Good question actually. Seems like some changes crept in that I had
commited locally but not pushed when Frederik uploaded 20100421.
I've reverted the commit.

> Regards,
>
> Adam

Uploading ia32-libs-core_20101207_source to mentors. Sponsors
welcome.

Packages updated:
  [ gcc-4.4 (4.4.5-8) unstable; urgency=low ]
  [ icu (4.4.1-7) testing-proposed-updates; urgency=high ]

The upload contains one more change to the source which I hope is
acceptable for squeeze. I replaced the older fetch-and-build script with
the newer one from ia32-libs (and ia32-libs-gtk) so that they have the
same script again. This includes the part that automatically generates
the debian/changelog entries for the updated debs. So the future
debian/changelog entries of ia32-libs-core, ia32-libs and ia32-libs-gtk
will all look the same too.

MfG
Goswin




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Julien Cristau]

On Sat, Dec  4, 2010 at 10:12:54 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:

> On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 08:37 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 November 2010 22:24:01 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > >   On Wednesday 17 November 2010 14:26:07 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > >  ia32-libs-core (20101117) unstable; urgency=low
> > > >  ia32-libs (20101117) unstable; urgency=low
> > > 
> > > I just uploaded these to sid.
> > 
> > I think ia32-libs-core still needs an unblock?
> 
> Why was the Breaks on "ia32-libs (<< 20100418)" dropped?  That isn't
> mentioned in the changelog.  (Nor are the two lines that have
> retrospectively appeared in the changelog for ia32-libs-core 20100421).
> 
Ping.

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 08:37 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Thursday 18 November 2010 22:24:01 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> >   On Wednesday 17 November 2010 14:26:07 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > >  ia32-libs-core (20101117) unstable; urgency=low
> > >  ia32-libs (20101117) unstable; urgency=low
> > 
> > I just uploaded these to sid.
> 
> I think ia32-libs-core still needs an unblock?

Why was the Breaks on "ia32-libs (<< 20100418)" dropped?  That isn't
mentioned in the changelog.  (Nor are the two lines that have
retrospectively appeared in the changelog for ia32-libs-core 20100421).

Regards,

Adam




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

On Thursday 18 November 2010 22:24:01 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>   On Wednesday 17 November 2010 14:26:07 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >  ia32-libs-core (20101117) unstable; urgency=low
> >  ia32-libs (20101117) unstable; urgency=low
> 
> I just uploaded these to sid.

I think ia32-libs-core still needs an unblock?


Thijs


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Thijs Kinkhorst  writes:

> On Wednesday 17 November 2010 14:26:07 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>  ia32-libs-core (20101117) unstable; urgency=low
>>  ia32-libs (20101117) unstable; urgency=low
>
> I just uploaded these to sid.
>
> I hope they can be unblocked and their urgency pushed by the release team if 
> they think it's appropriate.
>
> What about ia32-libs-gtk, will there also be another update for that?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Thijs

Petty sure all of them will need more updates as new libs are unblocked
into squeeze. But there was nothing urgent to fix for ia32-libs-gtk. The
current one can go in now and then a later unblock request will just
deal with updated libs and have no source changes.

MfG
Goswin



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Thijs Kinkhorst  writes:

> On Wednesday 17 November 2010 14:26:07 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>  ia32-libs-core (20101117) unstable; urgency=low
>>  ia32-libs (20101117) unstable; urgency=low
>
> I just uploaded these to sid.

Thx.

MfG
Goswin



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

On Wednesday 17 November 2010 14:26:07 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>  ia32-libs-core (20101117) unstable; urgency=low
>  ia32-libs (20101117) unstable; urgency=low

I just uploaded these to sid.

I hope they can be unblocked and their urgency pushed by the release team if 
they think it's appropriate.

What about ia32-libs-gtk, will there also be another update for that?


Cheers,
Thijs


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Goswin von Brederlow]

"Thijs Kinkhorst"  writes:

> As for ia32-libs, I would be willing to sponsor it but I don't think we
> should be making uploads for such trivial cleanup operations, is this
> really necessary to get ia32-libs unblocked?
>
> I can take a look at wine later this week if no-one beats me to it and if
> the release team approves the change for squeeze.

Hi,

I've just uploaded an updated ia32-libs-core and ia32-libs to mentors:

 ia32-libs-core (20101117) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   [ Goswin von Brederlow ]
   * Replace lib32icu42 with lib32icu44.
   * Update Packages:
 + alsa-lib  1.0.22-2   -> 1.0.23-2.1
 + blcr  0.8.2-13   -> 0.8.2-15
 + bzip2 1.0.5-4-> 1.0.5-6
 + eglibc2.10.2-9   -> 2.11.2-7
 + gcc   4.4_4.4.4-1-> 4.4_4.4.5-6
 + icu   4.2.1-3-> 4.4.1-6
 + libffi3.0.9-2-> 3.0.9-3
 + ncurses   5.7+20100313-2 -> 5.7+20100313-4

 ia32-libs (20101117) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Drop ia32-libs-dev from ia64. No 32bit compiler there
 (Closes: #603679, #540027).
   * Make ia32-libs-dev priority extra (sync with ftp-master overrides).
   * Add lintian  override for executable stack in libSDL-1.2.
 .
   * Packages updated
   [ esound (0.2.41-8) unstable; urgency=low ]
   [ libxml2 (2.7.8.dfsg-1) unstable; urgency=low ]
...



The ia32-libs-core contains the security update for libc6:

   * Add any/submitted-origin.diff from Andreas Schwab to forbid the use
 of $ORIGIN in privileged programs. Add any/cvs-audit-suid.diff to
 only load SUID audit objects in SUID binaries. Fix CVE-2010-3847.
 Closes: #600667.

The ia32-libs fixes the grave bug of ia32-libs-dev being uninstallable
on ia64. With wine in DELAYED/7 that hopefully only leaves the libvdpau
patch as blocker for unblocking ia32-libs.

I would welcome a sponsoring of these.

MfG
Goswin



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Michael Gilbert  writes:

> On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 16:21:19 +0100 Julien Cristau wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov  9, 2010 at 15:41:56 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>> 
>> > As for ia32-libs, I would be willing to sponsor it but I don't think we
>> > should be making uploads for such trivial cleanup operations, is this
>> > really necessary to get ia32-libs unblocked?
>> > 
>> No.  I just didn't want to unblock it until the wine issue was resolved.
>> 
>> I'm still not convinced ia32-libs-dev is a useful/sane thing to ship.
>> Providing a working runtime environment for 32bit programs is one thing.
>> Providing a build environment is another entirely, and the way it has to
>> mangle .la files (and now .pc too) makes me wonder what other sort of
>> brokenness it lets through.  I probably won't object to this if the
>> current breakage gets fixed though, because I'm getting tired of this
>> package and would rather do something useful instead.
>> 
>> alsa-plugins also build-depends on ia32-libs, does it need a fix for the
>> new stuff too?  what about libvdpau?
>
> alsa-plugins, nspluginwrapper, fglrx-driver, nvidia-graphics-drivers,
> and sun-java6 all build-depend on ia32-libs, and build successfully
> without ia32-libs-dev. libvdpau doesn't.  I've uploaded a fix for that
> to mentors:
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libvdpau
>
> Mike

Thanks. I checked in the past but overlooked libvdpau. Good to have this
looked at by another set of eyeballs.

MfG
Goswin



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Michael Gilbert  writes:

> On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 16:21:19 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov  9, 2010 at 15:41:56 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>> 
>> > As for ia32-libs, I would be willing to sponsor it but I don't think we
>> > should be making uploads for such trivial cleanup operations, is this
>> > really necessary to get ia32-libs unblocked?
>> > 
>> No.  I just didn't want to unblock it until the wine issue was resolved.
>> 
>> I'm still not convinced ia32-libs-dev is a useful/sane thing to ship.
>> Providing a working runtime environment for 32bit programs is one thing.
>> Providing a build environment is another entirely, and the way it has to
>> mangle .la files (and now .pc too) makes me wonder what other sort of
>> brokenness it lets through.  
>
> Why is it that ia32-libs provides all of these 32-bit libs as a
> monolithic package anyway?  Wouldn't the saner solution be to provide
> each desired 32-bit lib from the original source package for that lib
> (for example bzip2 provides lib32bz2, lib32bz2-dev, etc)?  In that case
> ia32-libs is could just be a metapackage, rather than the mess it is
> currently.  Obviously this solution will need to be deferred to wheezy
> (perhaps as a release goal?) since time is short for squeeze.

1) bzip2 compiles a 32bit flavour on amd64. On ia64 it is included in
ia32-libs (lenny) or ia32-lib-core (squeeze). No 32bit compiler on ia64.

2) Providing the same binary package from different source packages on
different architectures is bad. Confuses the BTS and other
things. Providing a lib32bz2 on ia64 not build from bzip2 would be bad.
So it would have to be named something liike ia32-libbz2.

3) Ftp-master (Ganneff) rejected a split of ia32-libs into 54 source
packages some while back. This was so that each source change would only
require that source to be uploaded, preferably by the original
maintainer. Also dependencies between libs would have been tracked
correctly.

4) Ftp-master (Ganneff) removed ia32-apt-get from Debian. Ia32-apt-get
generated the lib32* packages on-the-fly on the users system. It
provided 32bit support for basically every library in Debian (or any
repository) with instant (security) updates and also support for 3rd
party apt repositories with only i386 (e.g. skype) to be directly
installable.

5) We now have several conflicting packages that need 32bit
support. E.g. nss-ldap and jackd. They should have been split out of
ia32-libs already to allow installing the different flavours of them but
that has to wait for post squeeze. Dependencies on them might require
more splits. At some point doing the full split down to actual source
package will be simpler. Someone might have to convince ftp-master to
reverse their decision on 3 or 4.

MfG
Goswin



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

On Saturday 13 November 2010 00:10:56 Julien Cristau wrote:
> Dropping wine means dropping those, fwiw.  Not that I really care, but
> if somebody does want to keep wine in squeeze the build fix seems
> trivial enough...

For the record, the build fix has been uploaded to delayed/7 last week; not 
sure why there and not to unstable directly, but that's the sponsor's choice, 
but anyway, the fix will appear the upcoming week.


Cheers,
Thijs


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Julien Cristau]

On Mon, Nov  8, 2010 at 19:02:08 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:

> Given that wine in Squeeze is the vintage 1.0 release that already shipped
> with Lenny, we should rather dump it completely.
> 
# Broken Depends:
dssi-vst/contrib: dssi-vst [amd64 i386]
lmms: lmms [amd64 i386]
pptview/non-free: pptview [i386]

# Broken Build-Depends:
dssi-vst/contrib: libwine-dev
lmms: libwine-dev

Dropping wine means dropping those, fwiw.  Not that I really care, but
if somebody does want to keep wine in squeeze the build fix seems
trivial enough...

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Julien Cristau]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 17:56:44 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:

> alsa-plugins, nspluginwrapper, fglrx-driver, nvidia-graphics-drivers,
> and sun-java6 all build-depend on ia32-libs, and build successfully
> without ia32-libs-dev. libvdpau doesn't.  I've uploaded a fix for that
> to mentors:
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libvdpau
> 
cc:ing the libvdpau maintainers, hopefully one of them can
integrate/sponsor your changes.

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Michael Gilbert]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 16:21:19 +0100 Julien Cristau wrote:

> On Tue, Nov  9, 2010 at 15:41:56 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> 
> > As for ia32-libs, I would be willing to sponsor it but I don't think we
> > should be making uploads for such trivial cleanup operations, is this
> > really necessary to get ia32-libs unblocked?
> > 
> No.  I just didn't want to unblock it until the wine issue was resolved.
> 
> I'm still not convinced ia32-libs-dev is a useful/sane thing to ship.
> Providing a working runtime environment for 32bit programs is one thing.
> Providing a build environment is another entirely, and the way it has to
> mangle .la files (and now .pc too) makes me wonder what other sort of
> brokenness it lets through.  I probably won't object to this if the
> current breakage gets fixed though, because I'm getting tired of this
> package and would rather do something useful instead.
> 
> alsa-plugins also build-depends on ia32-libs, does it need a fix for the
> new stuff too?  what about libvdpau?

alsa-plugins, nspluginwrapper, fglrx-driver, nvidia-graphics-drivers,
and sun-java6 all build-depend on ia32-libs, and build successfully
without ia32-libs-dev. libvdpau doesn't.  I've uploaded a fix for that
to mentors:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libvdpau

Mike



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Luk Claes]

On 11/09/2010 06:35 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 09:05:16 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Michael Gilbert  writes:
>>
>>> Well, it's more like one hundred packages, but nevertheless, a very
>>> large number.  Obviously its a trade off, just like everything else in
>>> this world.  Either take the easy road and continue to provide this
>>> messy monolithic package that doesn't get any security updates, or take
>>> the hard road to get something more supportable but forces additional
>>> work on 100 maintainers.  I personally think the latter is more
>>> appropriate/ideal even though its more work.  Obviously opinions will
>>> vary.
>>
>> The long-term solution is multiarch and allowing people to install 32-bit
>> packages directly on 64-bit systems, which is why people haven't been
>> willing to much effort into making the current system work better.  We
>> keep expecting multiarch to be in the next Debian release.
> 
> I just did some reading up on multiarch.  It looks like its been in
> development since around 2004 (i.e. before sarge was released).  With
> such an oft-delayed process (4 releases including squeeze), I wonder
> what the probability of it being ready for wheezy is?  Is it time to
> work toward a less hackish solution for ia32-libs since multiarch may be
> unlikely for wheezy based on past performance?

Definitely not! ia32-libs should die after squeeze. multiarch is taking
long, very long indeed. Though most of it's progress was made during the
squeeze cycle, the main missing bit to really start using multiarch is
dpkg AFAICS. I still think it's very unfortunate that dpkg maintainers
find time to work on all sorts of new features when multiarch support is
not finalised yet, but maybe that's just my perception on it.

Cheers

Luk



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Michael Gilbert]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 09:05:16 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert  writes:
> 
> > Well, it's more like one hundred packages, but nevertheless, a very
> > large number.  Obviously its a trade off, just like everything else in
> > this world.  Either take the easy road and continue to provide this
> > messy monolithic package that doesn't get any security updates, or take
> > the hard road to get something more supportable but forces additional
> > work on 100 maintainers.  I personally think the latter is more
> > appropriate/ideal even though its more work.  Obviously opinions will
> > vary.
> 
> The long-term solution is multiarch and allowing people to install 32-bit
> packages directly on 64-bit systems, which is why people haven't been
> willing to much effort into making the current system work better.  We
> keep expecting multiarch to be in the next Debian release.

I just did some reading up on multiarch.  It looks like its been in
development since around 2004 (i.e. before sarge was released).  With
such an oft-delayed process (4 releases including squeeze), I wonder
what the probability of it being ready for wheezy is?  Is it time to
work toward a less hackish solution for ia32-libs since multiarch may be
unlikely for wheezy based on past performance?

Mike



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Russ Allbery]

Michael Gilbert  writes:

> Well, it's more like one hundred packages, but nevertheless, a very
> large number.  Obviously its a trade off, just like everything else in
> this world.  Either take the easy road and continue to provide this
> messy monolithic package that doesn't get any security updates, or take
> the hard road to get something more supportable but forces additional
> work on 100 maintainers.  I personally think the latter is more
> appropriate/ideal even though its more work.  Obviously opinions will
> vary.

The long-term solution is multiarch and allowing people to install 32-bit
packages directly on 64-bit systems, which is why people haven't been
willing to much effort into making the current system work better.  We
keep expecting multiarch to be in the next Debian release.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Michael Gilbert]

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Nov  9, 2010 at 11:43:00 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>
>> Why is it that ia32-libs provides all of these 32-bit libs as a
>> monolithic package anyway?  Wouldn't the saner solution be to provide
>> each desired 32-bit lib from the original source package for that lib
>> (for example bzip2 provides lib32bz2, lib32bz2-dev, etc)?  In that case
>> ia32-libs is could just be a metapackage, rather than the mess it is
>> currently.  Obviously this solution will need to be deferred to wheezy
>> (perhaps as a release goal?) since time is short for squeeze.
>>
> No.  Your suggestion makes a mess out of a thousand packages.  At least
> the crap we have now is contained.

Well, it's more like one hundred packages, but nevertheless, a very
large number.  Obviously its a trade off, just like everything else in
this world.  Either take the easy road and continue to provide this
messy monolithic package that doesn't get any security updates, or
take the hard road to get something more supportable but forces
additional work on 100 maintainers.  I personally think the latter is
more appropriate/ideal even though its more work.  Obviously opinions
will vary.

Mike



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Julien Cristau]

On Tue, Nov  9, 2010 at 11:43:00 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:

> Why is it that ia32-libs provides all of these 32-bit libs as a
> monolithic package anyway?  Wouldn't the saner solution be to provide
> each desired 32-bit lib from the original source package for that lib
> (for example bzip2 provides lib32bz2, lib32bz2-dev, etc)?  In that case
> ia32-libs is could just be a metapackage, rather than the mess it is
> currently.  Obviously this solution will need to be deferred to wheezy
> (perhaps as a release goal?) since time is short for squeeze.
> 
No.  Your suggestion makes a mess out of a thousand packages.  At least
the crap we have now is contained.

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Michael Gilbert]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 16:21:19 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Nov  9, 2010 at 15:41:56 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> 
> > As for ia32-libs, I would be willing to sponsor it but I don't think we
> > should be making uploads for such trivial cleanup operations, is this
> > really necessary to get ia32-libs unblocked?
> > 
> No.  I just didn't want to unblock it until the wine issue was resolved.
> 
> I'm still not convinced ia32-libs-dev is a useful/sane thing to ship.
> Providing a working runtime environment for 32bit programs is one thing.
> Providing a build environment is another entirely, and the way it has to
> mangle .la files (and now .pc too) makes me wonder what other sort of
> brokenness it lets through.  

Why is it that ia32-libs provides all of these 32-bit libs as a
monolithic package anyway?  Wouldn't the saner solution be to provide
each desired 32-bit lib from the original source package for that lib
(for example bzip2 provides lib32bz2, lib32bz2-dev, etc)?  In that case
ia32-libs is could just be a metapackage, rather than the mess it is
currently.  Obviously this solution will need to be deferred to wheezy
(perhaps as a release goal?) since time is short for squeeze.

> I probably won't object to this if the
> current breakage gets fixed though, because I'm getting tired of this
> package and would rather do something useful instead.

What else is currently known broken?

> alsa-plugins also build-depends on ia32-libs, does it need a fix for the
> new stuff too?  what about libvdpau?

I'll check these later tonight.

Mike



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Julien Cristau]

On Tue, Nov  9, 2010 at 15:41:56 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:

> As for ia32-libs, I would be willing to sponsor it but I don't think we
> should be making uploads for such trivial cleanup operations, is this
> really necessary to get ia32-libs unblocked?
> 
No.  I just didn't want to unblock it until the wine issue was resolved.

I'm still not convinced ia32-libs-dev is a useful/sane thing to ship.
Providing a working runtime environment for 32bit programs is one thing.
Providing a build environment is another entirely, and the way it has to
mangle .la files (and now .pc too) makes me wonder what other sort of
brokenness it lets through.  I probably won't object to this if the
current breakage gets fixed though, because I'm getting tired of this
package and would rather do something useful instead.

alsa-plugins also build-depends on ia32-libs, does it need a fix for the
new stuff too?  what about libvdpau?

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

On Tue, November 9, 2010 05:21, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov  8, 2010 at 19:02:08 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
>>
>>> Given that wine in Squeeze is the vintage 1.0 release that already
>>> shipped
>>> with Lenny, we should rather dump it completely. A 1.2 release could be
>>> introduced in a point release if necessary.
>>>
>> I don't think there's precedent of adding new software in a point
>> release...
>
> wine 1.2 wasn't in shape at freeze time, and although there were many
> offers for help, it was decided that getting it into shape in time
> would be too risky.  There is always backports.
>
> I've fixed the wine ftbfs [0] and cleaned up the leftover ia32-libs
> debhelper files [1].  I need to find a sponsor for those.  Anyone
> interested?  Are there any remaining issues keeping ia32-libs blocked?
>  If so, I will look at fixing them.

As for ia32-libs, I would be willing to sponsor it but I don't think we
should be making uploads for such trivial cleanup operations, is this
really necessary to get ia32-libs unblocked?

I can take a look at wine later this week if no-one beats me to it and if
the release team approves the change for squeeze.


Cheers,
Thijs



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Michael Gilbert]

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Michael Gilbert  wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov  8, 2010 at 19:02:08 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
>>
>>> Given that wine in Squeeze is the vintage 1.0 release that already shipped
>>> with Lenny, we should rather dump it completely. A 1.2 release could be
>>> introduced in a point release if necessary.
>>>
>> I don't think there's precedent of adding new software in a point
>> release...
>
> wine 1.2 wasn't in shape at freeze time, and although there were many
> offers for help, it was decided that getting it into shape in time
> would be too risky.  There is always backports.
>
> I've fixed the wine ftbfs [0] and cleaned up the leftover ia32-libs
> debhelper files [1].  I need to find a sponsor for those.  Anyone
> interested?  Are there any remaining issues keeping ia32-libs blocked?
>  If so, I will look at fixing them.

[0] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/wine
[1] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/i/ia32-libs



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Michael Gilbert]

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Nov  8, 2010 at 19:02:08 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
>
>> Given that wine in Squeeze is the vintage 1.0 release that already shipped
>> with Lenny, we should rather dump it completely. A 1.2 release could be
>> introduced in a point release if necessary.
>>
> I don't think there's precedent of adding new software in a point
> release...

wine 1.2 wasn't in shape at freeze time, and although there were many
offers for help, it was decided that getting it into shape in time
would be too risky.  There is always backports.

I've fixed the wine ftbfs [0] and cleaned up the leftover ia32-libs
debhelper files [1].  I need to find a sponsor for those.  Anyone
interested?  Are there any remaining issues keeping ia32-libs blocked?
 If so, I will look at fixing them.

Thanks,
Mike

[0]



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Julien Cristau]

On Mon, Nov  8, 2010 at 19:02:08 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:

> Given that wine in Squeeze is the vintage 1.0 release that already shipped
> with Lenny, we should rather dump it completely. A 1.2 release could be
> introduced in a point release if necessary.
> 
I don't think there's precedent of adding new software in a point
release...

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Moritz Muehlenhoff]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:42:29AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:26:50 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > A lesson we learned from Lenny is that ia32-libs is hardly security
> > supportable if the libraries it contained aren't as much up to date as
> > their 'normal' stable versions as possible. In the ideal situation we
> > would release with a ia32-libs being completely up to date with the normal
> > package versions, and the closer we get to that ideal the better security
> > supportable it will be. Therefore I ask to please unblock 20101012 for
> > squeeze.
> > 
> > As far as I could check the recently updated libraries all have that
> > version (or a slightly newer one) also present in squeeze.
> > 
> > I would consider releasing ia32-libs with a 2009 version to be of grave
> > concern to the security team about its supportability for the squeeze
> > lifetime.
> > 
> See #596899.  AFAICT wine is still unbuildable with this version.

Given that wine in Squeeze is the vintage 1.0 release that already shipped
with Lenny, we should rather dump it completely. A 1.2 release could be
introduced in a point release if necessary.

Cheers,
Moritz



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#596899: Please unblock ia32-libs/20101012

[Julien Cristau]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:26:50 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> A lesson we learned from Lenny is that ia32-libs is hardly security
> supportable if the libraries it contained aren't as much up to date as
> their 'normal' stable versions as possible. In the ideal situation we
> would release with a ia32-libs being completely up to date with the normal
> package versions, and the closer we get to that ideal the better security
> supportable it will be. Therefore I ask to please unblock 20101012 for
> squeeze.
> 
> As far as I could check the recently updated libraries all have that
> version (or a slightly newer one) also present in squeeze.
> 
> I would consider releasing ia32-libs with a 2009 version to be of grave
> concern to the security team about its supportability for the squeeze
> lifetime.
> 
See #596899.  AFAICT wine is still unbuildable with this version.

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature