Re: Adding CA certficates outside of ca-certificates (see ITP #666229)
Hi Dennis, On Mon, April 16, 2012 15:44, Dennis van Dok wrote: > I would like to include the CA distribution of the IGTF > (www.igtf.net), which is an international collaboration of CAs for use > in the e-science communities (i.e. scientific grid computing & cloud > computing). > http://mentors.debian.net/package/igtf-policy-bundle You're probably aware that there's already an APT-compatible repository that contains Debian packages for the current IGTF distribution? https://dist.eugridpma.info/distribution/igtf/current/ How does this package relate to that? What goal do you want to reach by uploading to Debian proper? In the IGTF community it's more or less expected that relying parties update their trust anchors not too long after new IGTF updates are released - if a relying party uses packages from Debian (old)stable they can easily be two or three years old and are not easily updated. I'm not sure if newly accredited CA's would be enthusiastic to wait that long, for example. > The policy bundle offers a choice of opt-in or opt-out, so it's easy > to enable 'all but a few' or 'none but a few' certificates. And > enabling here means placing symlinks in > /etc/grid-security/certificates, which is the de facto place for grid > middleware to look for certificates. I think that makes sense: placing or linking them in /etc/grid-security/certificates/ 'enables' them from a grid middleware point of view. As I understand it, you're not doing anything with /etc/ssl or ca-certificates.crt. This means that the certificates will not change the trust anchors for 'regular' tools on the system (curl, system daemons, etc). I'm unfortunately not at the upcoming EUgridPMA meeting in Karlsruhe this May, but perhaps there's another opportunity where we can meet to discuss the ideas and specifics. Cheers, Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/18c07df56a7978b1cf49f5bdda40f79b.squir...@wm.kinkhorst.nl
Re: [pkg-lighttpd] Changing the default document root for HTTP server
On 2012-04-17 10:46:17, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > > > Suexec's compiled-in document root would stay at /var/www so that it > > would include all vhost document roots. And dspam-webfrontend could > > keep its files in /var/www/dspam, inside suexec's document root, > > without polluting the default document root. > > What if the sysadmin chose to use > /srv/http/east-coast/foo.bar.org.vhost/ for the foo.bar.org vhost? Can > they still use suexec? I had problems with running anything with suexec outside /var/ and recompilation was needed to make it possible. -- |_|0|_| | |_|_|0| "Heghlu'Meh QaQ jajVam" | |0|0|0| kuLa - | gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x58C338B3 3DF1 A4DF C732 4688 38BC F121 6869 30DD 58C3 38B3 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [pkg-lighttpd] Changing the default document root for HTTP server
On 17/04/12 03:46, Paul Wise wrote: > What if the sysadmin chose to use > /srv/http/east-coast/foo.bar.org.vhost/ for the foo.bar.org vhost? Can > they still use suexec? Not the normal version, no, because suexec hard-codes the top directory /var/www as a security measure (you can never use it to execute something in, say, /tmp). Debian does have a patched suexec (apache2-suexec-custom) which is configurable for different directories, although it isn't supported by Apache upstream. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f8d1ead.4010...@debian.org
Re: Adding CA certficates outside of ca-certificates (see ITP #666229)
Le Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 03:44:51PM +0200, Dennis van Dok a écrit : > > There seems to be no real way to include extra ca-certificates-* > packages at the moment. I've tried to conform as much as possible to > the structure of the ca-certificates package, and the way I've > packaged it right now is that the administrator has the choice to > include individual certificates from IGTF in /etc/ssl upon > reconfiguring ca-certficates. > > http://mentors.debian.net/package/igtf-policy-bundle Dear Dennis and everyboyd, perhaps a broader package would be useful ? I am still looking for a sane place for the Amazon EC2 public certificate, see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=573857 I also welcome comments. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120417074649.ga26...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Adding CA certficates outside of ca-certificates (see ITP #666229)
Hi Thijs, Op 17-04-12 09:26, Thijs Kinkhorst schreef: > Hi Dennis, > You're probably aware that there's already an APT-compatible repository > that contains Debian packages for the current IGTF distribution? > https://dist.eugridpma.info/distribution/igtf/current/ > > How does this package relate to that? What goal do you want to reach by > uploading to Debian proper? Yes, I'm aware of the APT repository of the IGTF; the maintainer is a close colleague. The current packages are not made with the Debian Policy in mind. Although they're not outright awful, we've discussed how we could bring the IGTF distribution more in-line with the Debian way of packaging. For administrators it's always an extra hurdle to enable or install extra repositories. Having the IGTF distribution in Debian proper would remove this burden. > In the IGTF community it's more or less > expected that relying parties update their trust anchors not too long > after new IGTF updates are released - if a relying party uses packages > from Debian (old)stable they can easily be two or three years old and are > not easily updated. I'm not sure if newly accredited CA's would be > enthusiastic to wait that long, for example. Worse than that, CAs that lose their accreditation should be removed. Isn't it possible to have intermediate updates in stable in such cases? In the same way security updates are done? > I'm unfortunately not at the upcoming EUgridPMA meeting in Karlsruhe this > May, but perhaps there's another opportunity where we can meet to discuss > the ideas and specifics. Yes, sure. My contact details are below. Thanks! Dennis -- D.H. van Dok :: Software Engineer :: www.nikhef.nl :: www.biggrid.nl Phone +31 20 592 22 28 :: http://www.nikhef.nl/~dennisvd/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f8d247f.2010...@nikhef.nl
Re: [pkg-lighttpd] Changing the default document root for HTTP server
On 17.04.2012 09:41, Marcin Kulisz wrote: > I had problems with running anything with suexec outside /var/ and > recompilation was needed to make it possible. As Simon says, you can install apache2-suexec-custom. That brings you a configurable suexec, but that's completely our own stuff unsupported by Apache. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#669102: ITP: sanlock -- a shared storage lock manager - useful for accessing vm images on a NAS or SAN
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: David Weber * Package name: sanlock Version : 2.1 Upstream Author : David Teigland * URL : https://fedorahosted.org/sanlock/ * License : (LGPLv2+, GPLv2, GPLv2+) Programming Lang: (C, Python) Description : a shared storage lock manager - useful for accessing vm images on a NAS or SAN Sanlock ensures that single disk cannot be used by more than one running VM at a time, across any host in a network. See http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=sanlock.git;a=blob;f=README.license;h=9bf5cae09fc44d7050c89535f0a8b49f23fcae3d;hb=HEAD for license -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120417093906.20315.52941.report...@debian-buildhost.munzinger.de
Bug#669108: general: assorted segfault
Package: general Severity: normal Hi there, I'm using debian testing. Lately I've been experiences frequent segfaults with eventual complete freeze. I attach evidence found in kern.log. Is there anybody out there who could guide me to collect further information to investigate the problem? So far I've done a complete disk scan using smarttools, but the disk seems ok. Thank you anyway, Carlo. -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (100, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Apr 15 11:55:13 Uranus kernel: [ 7811.496368] gnome-shell[2831]: segfault at 2c41eb008 ip 7fe95070b618 sp 7fff05951020 error 4 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7fe9506a9000+f6000] Apr 15 11:58:15 Uranus kernel: [ 7993.284366] gnome-shell[14406]: segfault at 2acc04008 ip 7f09d2731618 sp 7fffa776bb40 error 4 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7f09d26cf000+f6000] Apr 15 12:03:00 Uranus kernel: [ 8278.234638] gnome-shell[14591]: segfault at 38f481008 ip 7f3cbc453618 sp 7fffe71da900 error 4 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7f3cbc3f1000+f6000] Apr 15 12:03:33 Uranus kernel: [ 8310.267483] gnome-shell[14735]: segfault at 441790008 ip 7f97dbf07618 sp 7fffc73dce10 error 4 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7f97dbea5000+f6000] Apr 15 12:03:37 Uranus kernel: [ 8314.168806] eclipse[14252]: segfault at 18 ip 7fbc8d48168e sp 7fff6b7246c0 error 4 in libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0.2400.10[7fbc8d40d000+af000] Apr 15 12:09:24 Uranus kernel: [ 8661.053917] gnome-shell[14956]: segfault at 257726008 ip 7f8cab08a618 sp 7fff71a34e80 error 4 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7f8cab028000+f6000] Apr 15 12:09:56 Uranus kernel: [ 8692.919917] gnome-shell[15288]: segfault at 43886d107 ip 7f2faaf01618 sp 7fff1d200520 error 4 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7f2faae9f000+f6000] Apr 15 12:10:01 Uranus kernel: [ 8697.826674] eclipse[15082]: segfault at 18 ip 7fcbd766f68e sp 7fff8a2c6550 error 4 in libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0.2400.10[7fcbd75fb000+af000] Apr 15 12:20:24 Uranus kernel: [ 9319.582410] colord-sane[2541]: segfault at 48 ip 7f18f220a54c sp 7f18f21e0b78 error 6 in libdbus-1.so.3.7.0[7f18f21e2000+44000] Apr 15 12:28:04 Uranus kernel: [ 359.145923] colord-sane[2568]: segfault at 28 ip 7f8e8996f54c sp 7f8e89945b78 error 6 in libdbus-1.so.3.7.0[7f8e89947000+44000] Apr 15 14:21:19 Uranus kernel: [ 6756.627363] gnome-shell[3291]: segfault at 272610008 ip 7f74eca328fc sp 7fff0c8b3df0 error 6 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7f74ec9d+f6000] Apr 15 14:33:18 Uranus kernel: [ 7474.194557] gnome-shell[6935]: segfault at 2afaf3008 ip 7fa09f200618 sp 7fff7c5d9640 error 4 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7fa09f19e000+f6000] Apr 15 14:46:38 Uranus kernel: [ 8271.319739] gnome-shell[7196]: segfault at 399fac008 ip 7f229be22618 sp 7fff01ef0df0 error 4 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7f229bdc+f6000] Apr 15 15:29:11 Uranus kernel: [ 396.505177] gnome-shell[2676]: segfault at 40e3c4008 ip 7f2adf2ee618 sp 7fff4710f9a0 error 4 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7f2adf28c000+f6000] Apr 15 15:31:00 Uranus kernel: [ 504.643880] gnome-settings-[2593]: segfault at 7f8ef4849040 ip 7f8efcba0630 sp 7fffab382eb0 error 4 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7f8efcb5a000+f6000] Apr 15 15:31:12 Uranus kernel: [ 516.305883] colord-sane[2451]: segfault at 28 ip 7f2e4a6ba54c sp 7f2e4a690b78 error 6 in libdbus-1.so.3.7.0[7f2e4a692000+44000] Apr 15 15:32:31 Uranus kernel: [ 65.084537] gnome-panel[2721]: segfault at 7f3a599b130f ip 7f3a56b89f0f sp 7fff971d0960 error 7 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7f3a56b27000+f6000] Apr 15 15:39:36 Uranus kernel: [ 196.276033] colord-sane[2424]: segfault at 8 ip 7ffc0462054c sp 7ffc045f6b78 error 6 in libdbus-1.so.3.7.0[7ffc045f8000+44000] Apr 15 15:43:05 Uranus kernel: [ 191.206854] gnome-shell[2897]: segfault at 3cee58008 ip 7f6485577618 sp 7fff10e8c7f0 error 4 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7f6485515000+f6000] Apr 15 15:43:52 Uranus kernel: [ 238.698766] gnome-shell[3663]: segfault at 3cca34008 ip 7facb639f618 sp 7fff287142e0 error 4 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7facb633d000+f6000] Apr 15 15:47:40 Uranus kernel: [ 196.580748] gnome-shell[2561]: segfault at 2e1599008 ip 7fd4825ff618 sp 7fff6631f540 error 4 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7fd48259d000+f6000] Apr 15 15:54:20 Uranus kernel: [ 595.615788] gnome-shell[3412]: segfault at 450223008 ip 7f51bc17d618 sp 7fffc2b46d80 error 4 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7f51bc11b000+f6000] Apr 15 16:17:51 Uranus kernel: [ 2003.235954] gnome-shell[4082]: segfault at 341b84008 ip 7faf78425618 sp 7fff1811f590 error 4 in libglib-2.0.so.0.3000.2[7faf783c3000+f6000] Apr 15 18:40:27 Uranus kernel: [ 5363.873439] gnome-shell[2662]: segfault at a005d659fc ip
Bug#669108: general: assorted segfault
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 01:06:10PM +0200, ygmarchi wrote: > Package: general > Severity: normal > > Hi there, > > I'm using debian testing. Lately I've been experiences frequent segfaults with > eventual complete freeze. I attach evidence found in kern.log. > > Is there anybody out there who could guide me to collect further information > to > investigate the problem? Try memtest86 to see if it's memory corruption due to bad RAM. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' schroot and sbuild http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools `-GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120417120026.gn13...@codelibre.net
Re: [pkg-lighttpd] Changing the default document root for HTTP server
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Arno Töll wrote: > Hi, > > On 16.04.2012 18:56, Olaf van der Spek wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Paul Wise wrote: >>> /srv is solely the domain of the sysadmin, packages cannot rely on any >>> particular layout not specified by the sysadmin (via debconf etc). >> >> I know. Is that a problem though? >> AFAIK packages don't (and shouldn't) put any files into vhost dirs. > > A document root served from /srv would include the HTTP base directory, > e.g. /srv/www or similar with a default document root /srv/www/htdocs > which would include a index.html file at very least. You ship that at > Lighttpd as well. Using /srv for vhosts does not require the default doc root to be under /srv too. The default doc root could stay at /var/www Olaf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAA7U3HNFS_0km-qoqoJVkfVnpa=lhbzq1orwoqx+ikqg+cs...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [pkg-lighttpd] Changing the default document root for HTTP server
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Arno Töll wrote: > On 16.04.2012 18:59, Olaf van der Spek wrote: >> Defining a standard for vhosts would solve the problem without having >> to touch the normal doc root. Seems like a far simpler fix. > > how would you do that? We can't control or enforce what directory people > pick for their virtual hosts. We do not and can not configure any > virtual host beyond a default. Ensure default conf and examples use /srv/ See lighttpd's simple-vhost conf. You could do the same in vhost_alias.conf You could also provide an site.example file in sites-available > Of course we could just write some docs and tell people "please use /srv > for your personal vhosts", but that's not going to solve the problem I > want to address. Most people generally do not read documentation and > those who do, most likely already realize using the default /var/www > vhost plus custom /var/www/site vhosts causes problems. You're right, solving this via docs is not a good approach. > Hence I advocate to configure the default as sane as possible to obey > the principle of least surprise. > > -- > with kind regards, > Arno Töll > IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC > GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D > -- Olaf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAA7U3HM_ht6PK8SwgGVHB4uNvWOebiRBNkye=goresfafts...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [pkg-lighttpd] Changing the default document root for HTTP server
On 04/17/2012 04:38 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > The new document root is supposed to be the default vhosts document > root (there is no need to distinguish between default vhost and no > vhost). Other vhosts can be put in other sub directories in /var/www/, > like /var/www/www.example.com or /var/www/vhosts/example.com/htdocs, > just like the admin prefers it. > It all depends what you do, but if you do massive hosting (eg, a shared hosting server), then you'll be tempted to do: /var/www/sites/$USERNAME/example.com/subdomains/www/html which is what I decide to do, but which would be too much for a "normal" use. So yes, we can't, and shouldn't force, any scheme. > In this regard, /var/www/default would be the most logical name, IMHO. > But we thought that not inventing yet another docroot directory name > would be better, and therefore suggested /var/www/html. But the actual > name does not matter, as long as it's a sub directory of the directory > for all vhosts. > As pointed earlier, /var/www/html has the advantage to exist in other distributions, so it's a good choice! Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f8d79a6.3090...@debian.org
Re: (deferred) bits from the DPL: March 2012
Am Sonntag, den 15.04.2012, 20:19 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: > - as part of a discussion on unofficial "debian" repositories [9], Which discussion? ;) > I've > proposed to open up the list of *.debian.net domains. As nobody > disagreed, consensus has been quickly reached and the announced [10] > change is now imminent. Thanks to Carsten Hey and Gerfried Fuchs for > their help in figuring out the details of the last discussion on the > matter and DSA for their feedback. > > [10] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/03/msg8.html -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
debootstrap loading both libept1 AND libept1.4.12, .. and fails!
Hi, I cannot get debootstrap working anymore in sid since libept update. There is an open bug (#472704) for this but if someone has an idea of what is going on to help the debug A recent upload of libept delivered binary libept1.4.12 instead of libept1 (source release 1.0.6 now). But when debootstrap runs, it tries to get them both (libept1 from v1.0.5 and libept1.4.12 from v1.0.6). ... Unpacking libept1 (from .../libept1_1.0.5_amd64.deb) ... Unpacking libept1.4.12 (from .../libept1.4.12_1.0.6+b1_amd64.deb) ... This creates an issue because libept1 is not compatible with libapt-pkg4.12. I simply execute: debootstrap --arch amd64 --keyring /etc/apt/trusted.gpg --verbose sid f ftp://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian But I cannot understand why libept1 is loaded by debootstrap as I cannot find a package depending on it: root@debiansid:/tmp# apt-rdepends -r libept1 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done libept1 Reverse Depends: goplay (0.5-1) Reverse Depends: packagesearch (2.6+b1) goplay packagesearch goplay and packagesearch are not in package list. Thanks Olivier -- gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438 (keyring.debian.org) Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335 D26D 78DC 68DB 326D 8438
Re: (deferred) bits from the DPL: March 2012
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 05:12:07PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 15.04.2012, 20:19 +0200 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
> > - as part of a discussion on unofficial "debian" repositories [9],
>
> Which discussion? ;)
Right, sorry for the dangling link, although it's referenced from the
other link [10]:
> > [10] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/03/msg8.html
quoting from it:
> After discussion on -devel [3,4] we --- as in: DSA and myself --- have
> decided to open up the list of debian.net entries. The dnsZoneEntry LDAP
> attribute, currently only queryable from debian.org machines, will be
> made publicly accessible.
>
> [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/03/msg00123.html
> [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/03/msg00167.html
Enjoy the (transitive :-)) footnotes!
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: debootstrap loading both libept1 AND libept1.4.12, .. and fails!
2012/4/17 olivier sallou > Hi, > I cannot get debootstrap working anymore in sid since libept update. > There is an open bug (#472704) for this but if someone has an idea of what > is going on to help the debug > > A recent upload of libept delivered binary libept1.4.12 instead of libept1 > (source release 1.0.6 now). > > But when debootstrap runs, it tries to get them both (libept1 from v1.0.5 > and libept1.4.12 from v1.0.6). > > ... > Unpacking libept1 (from .../libept1_1.0.5_amd64.deb) ... > Unpacking libept1.4.12 (from .../libept1.4.12_1.0.6+b1_amd64.deb) > I think I understand the issue, both packages are set to Priority: important, and deboostrap takes"required" and "important" by default. Though this creates an issue to debootstrap. > ... > > This creates an issue because libept1 is not compatible with > libapt-pkg4.12. > > I simply execute: debootstrap --arch amd64 --keyring /etc/apt/trusted.gpg > --verbose sid f ftp://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian > > But I cannot understand why libept1 is loaded by debootstrap as I cannot > find a package depending on it: > > root@debiansid:/tmp# apt-rdepends -r libept1 > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree > Reading state information... Done > libept1 > Reverse Depends: goplay (0.5-1) > Reverse Depends: packagesearch (2.6+b1) > goplay > packagesearch > > goplay and packagesearch are not in package list. > > Thanks > > Olivier > > > -- > > gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438 (keyring.debian.org) > > Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335 D26D 78DC 68DB 326D 8438 > > > -- gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438 (keyring.debian.org) Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335 D26D 78DC 68DB 326D 8438
Re: wine-unstable in Debian
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 03:07:54PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> C) Current WINE maintainers are either MIA or time overload elsewhere.
> Volunteers trying to help who have made additional 1.1.x packages are stuck
> waiting because they do not have access to the pkg-wine git repo.
Just to nitpick a bit on the above, Cc:-ing the maintainer, which seems
a fair thing to do given the topic of this discussion. The current
maintainer did reply to at least a couple of the inquiries in the buglog
and does not appear to be MIA. He has, however, some specific
requirements on the work that he wants to be done before granting commit
access to the Git repository. That is his prerogative.
Given the nature of Git, others are not blocked from working on the
packaging. (Although I surely won't deny that coordination among all the
other non-maintainers would be easier if they had access to the official
VCS, especially if the people who do have access to it are not active.)
Also, let's keep in mind that VCS commit access in Debian is not a
requirement to modify a package. Our main "VCS" is the Debian archive
and all (uploading) Debian Developers have access to it.
So nobody is "stuck". But if packaging work continue to happens outside
the official VCS and will keep on having troubles being merged into it,
at some point people will probably feel the need to NMU the packages ---
better if with sensible delays that allow for review by others. It would
be preferable to reach a consensual solution before that. But the option
is on the table, as it is for every other package in the archive.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#669108: general: assorted segfault
Hi Roger, thank you very much for replying. I tried memtest86+, I completed two whole passes, with no error detected. Actually my leptop ***FELL*** a couple of weeks ago. I don't know if there could be such subtle damages to cause segfaults without any memory or disk problems detected by tools. Thanks again, Carlo. On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 01:06:10PM +0200, ygmarchi wrote: > > Package: general > > Severity: normal > > > > Hi there, > > > > I'm using debian testing. Lately I've been experiences frequent > segfaults with > > eventual complete freeze. I attach evidence found in kern.log. > > > > Is there anybody out there who could guide me to collect further > information to > > investigate the problem? > > Try memtest86 to see if it's memory corruption due to bad RAM. > > > Regards, > Roger > -- > .''`. Roger Leigh > : :' : Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ > `. `' schroot and sbuild > http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools > `-GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 > E800 >
ITP: sumo -- Simulation of Urban MObility
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Anton Gladky * Package name: sumo Version : 0.15.0 Upstream Author : Institute of Transportation Systems at the German Aerospace Center * URL : http://sumo.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Description : Simulation of Urban MObility signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#660842: ITP: python-gnupg -- python wrapper for the gnupg command
On Feb 26, 2012, at 12:26 AM, Evgeni Golov wrote: >On 02/22/2012 10:40 AM, Elena Grandi wrote: > >> * Package name: python-gnupg >> Version : 0.2.8 >> Upstream Author : Vinay Sajip >> * URL : http://code.google.com/p/python-gnupg/ >> * License : BSD >> Programming Lang: Python >> Description : python wrapper for the gnupg command > >What's wrong with >python-gnupginterface - Python interface to GnuPG (GPG) >python-gpgme - python wrapper for the GPGME library >python-pyme - Python interface to the GPGME GnuPG encryption library > >What are the benefits of python-gnupg? The homepage doesnt tell any, >neither does the description :) Another important benefit is that python-gnupg supports Python 3[*], while I think the last upstream change to python-gnupginterface predates Python 3 by many years. Please do create the python3- version of the package. This page may provide some helpful guidelines on how to do this: http://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide I also hang out on #debian-python and am willing to help and/or answer questions. Cheers, -Barry [*] 3.1 according to the documentation, but 3.2 according to the Cheeseshop page. Given the recentness of the last activity, and knowing Vinay, I'm willing to bet it's 3.2 compatible and wouldn't be surprised if it even worked with the in-development 3.3 branch. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#666790: ITP: python-regex -- alternative regular expression module
On Apr 02, 2012, at 09:58 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >This sounds like a bad name, since there used to be a regex module in >the standard distribution a few years back and there's therefore a fair >amount of documentation warning against using it. Some of us were even joking at Pycon 2012 that we should just have a revolving set of names for the regular expression module rewrites in Python: +- regex -> re -> sre -> -+ ^ | |-+ rinse-and-repeat-ly y'rs, -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Chalanam New Version
Chalanam 2D Animation Studio Latest Version 1.1.3 https://launchpad.net/chalanam/pushpam/chalanam/+download/chalanam_1.1.3_i386.deb * Drawing * Importing * Library * Timeline * Animation * Tweening * Exporting -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caafo10gy6qwvidzwdsc45dhnu6ge+cz7lcku2nzrwvhpahp...@mail.gmail.com
Re:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > >So nobody is "stuck". But if packaging work continue to happens outside >the official VCS and will keep on having troubles being merged into it, >at some point people will probably feel the need to NMU the packages --- >better if with sensible delays that allow for review by others. It would >be preferable to reach a consensual solution before that. But the option >is on the table, as it is for every other package in the archive. If a maintainer isn't (capable of) doing the necessary work on a package themselves, then after a while the best thing they can do is admit that and cede control to others. It's not an easy thing to admit "failure" like this, but it's better to do it for the good of our users and other developers than to continue blocking people. It's also better for the developer involved to get away from the feelings of guilt they may be having about not keeping up. There's no shame in admitting a lack of time on a big volunteer project, we all understand how this works... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1skik0-0002le...@mail.einval.com
Re: wine-unstable in Debian
Please note that in the following I'm solely trying to help all involved, and that none of the below is meant to be criticism -- so if any is implied, that is strictly unintentional. On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 13:17:45, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 03:07:54PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote: > > C) Current WINE maintainers are either MIA or time overload elsewhere. > > Volunteers trying to help who have made additional 1.1.x packages are > > stuck waiting because they do not have access to the pkg-wine git repo. > > Just to nitpick a bit on the above, Cc:-ing the maintainer, which seems > a fair thing to do given the topic of this discussion. The current > maintainer did reply to at least a couple of the inquiries in the buglog > and does not appear to be MIA. Correct -- not MIA, but he went through his time overload and priorities, such that he doesn't have time to work on the wine packages -- and I did say "either MIA or time overloaded" :-P. Unfortunately Ove did not say when his time overload is likely to change, so there is currently no expectation that it will. > He has, however, some specific requirements on the work that he wants > to be done before granting commit access to the Git repository. That > is his prerogative. That would be fine, except that he doesn't have time to get someone else up to speed on how to accomplish those requirements. Incentive to accomplish difficult requirements also drops if there isn't an explanation of why they're required, and several people are questioning why packing old version of wine are needed. [I don't personally understand what "for QA reasons" means.] > Given the nature of Git, others are not blocked from working on the > packaging. (Although I surely won't deny that coordination among all the > other non-maintainers would be easier if they had access to the official > VCS, especially if the people who do have access to it are not active.) Er... sort of. Work in Git that is never pulled into the main repo is effectively a separate effort. Based on Ove's time overload I doubt that he has time to pull, review, and merge git branches, and then give feedback on someone else's work. :-/ > Also, let's keep in mind that VCS commit access in Debian is not a > requirement to modify a package. Our main "VCS" is the Debian archive > and all (uploading) Debian Developers have access to it. > > So nobody is "stuck". But if packaging work continue to happens outside > the official VCS and will keep on having troubles being merged into it, > at some point people will probably feel the need to NMU the packages --- > better if with sensible delays that allow for review by others. It would > be preferable to reach a consensual solution before that. But the option > is on the table, as it is for every other package in the archive. For simplicity, let me try to cut-to-the-chase. Michael Gilbert has made wine packages for 1.1.39, 1.1.40, 1.1.41, 1.1.42. They may or many not meet Ove's requirements. What do you recommend he do with them? I suspect the only viable answer is "wait for Ove to review them" -- and if that's the case, then he's effectively "stuck" for the time being, because it probably doesn't pay to continue to package further versions without knowing if the packages he's creating meet the requirements. Normally this "stuck" period wouldn't be a problem, except that Debian is heading towards a freeze for the release of Wheezy, so there's some time pressure. The wine packaging is apprently complicated, and Ove described the time required to be weeks of effort at minium for someone motivated, and likely to be longer. I believe that timeframe makes the assumption that the work is correct, i.e. meets the QA/multiarch/backportability requirements. My personal conclusion to all this is simply "something's gotta give". -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us GPG Key: 4096R/0x1E759A726A9FDD74 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#664257: multiarch tuples are not documented/defined
Hi Matthias, Steve McIntyre wrote: > I've updated http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Tuples with lots more > information such as links to external ABI specs where I could find > them. I think the Multiarch/Tuples wiki page is now in a sane state, though as always it could presumably be improved even more. I think future required improvements can be tracked separately. Do you mind if this bug is closed? Thanks much, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120418031651.GA26748@burratino
Re: Chalanam New Version
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Nandakumar wrote: > Chalanam 2D Animation Studio Spamming multiple Debian lists with your software release announcements is not going to get your software into Debian. Please read these pages: http://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6H82QbEO-3we6QjdQ1CQrrn36=aaeqrvy4vw7lzq+w...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#669201: ITP: ffdiaporama -- Movie creator from photos and video clips
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Fabrice Coutadeur * Package name: ffdiaporama Version : 1.2.1 Upstream Author : Dominique Levray * URL : http://ffdiaporama.tuxfamily.org/ * License : GPL-2+ Programming Lang: C++ Description : Movie creator from photos and video clips ffDiaporama is an application for creating video sequences consisting of * titles, fixed or animated. * images or photos, fixed or animated. * movie clips * music These sequences are assembled into a slide show by means of transitions of sequence to produce complete videos. The following options are available: * Refocusing of images and photos * Cutting of video clips * Notes (addition of text) for images, photos, sequences and animations * Graphical filters on the images and the videos (conversion into black and white, dust removal, equalization of colors, etc.) * Creation of animation by zoom, rotation or Ken Burns Effect on images or photos * Correction of the images and the videos during animations (luminosity, contrast, gamma, colors, etc.) * Transitions between sequences with definition of the transition type, sequence by sequence. * Addition of a background sound (wav, mp3 or ogg) with customizable effects for volume, fade in/out and passage in pause, sequence by sequence. * Generation of usable videos for most current video equipment (DVD player / smartphone, multimedia box, hard drive, etc.) but also publishable on the main video-sharing Websites (YouTube, Dailymotion, etc.) * Video formats from QVGA (320×240) to Full HD (1920×1080) by way of the DVD and HD 720 formats. * Image geometry (aspect ratio) : 4:3, 16:9 or 2.35:1 (cinema) * Possible formats for rendering : avi, mpg, mp4, mkv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120418043842.5573.51277.reportbug@localhost6.localdomain6
Re: debootstrap loading both libept1 AND libept1.4.12, .. and fails!
Package: libept1.4.12 Version: 1.0.6.1 Severity: Important Hi Oliver, hi Enrico, hi all, On Di 17 Apr 2012 17:29:53 CEST olivier sallou wrote: 2012/4/17 olivier sallou Hi, I cannot get debootstrap working anymore in sid since libept update. There is an open bug (#472704) for this but if someone has an idea of what is going on to help the debug A recent upload of libept delivered binary libept1.4.12 instead of libept1 (source release 1.0.6 now). But when debootstrap runs, it tries to get them both (libept1 from v1.0.5 and libept1.4.12 from v1.0.6). ... Unpacking libept1 (from .../libept1_1.0.5_amd64.deb) ... Unpacking libept1.4.12 (from .../libept1.4.12_1.0.6+b1_amd64.deb) I think I understand the issue, both packages are set to Priority: important, and deboostrap takes"required" and "important" by default. Though this creates an issue to debootstrap. same problem here. Chroot creation for my pbuilder environment is not possible anymore with a two staged debootstrap. Both packages libept1 and libept1.4.12 get installed by debootstrap. $ debootstrap --foreign --arch= \ sid sid- ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian $ cd sid- $ chroot . $ /debootstrap/debootstrap --second-stage libept1 depends on libapt-pkg4.10. However, libapt-pkg4.10 is not available in SID anymore, so libept1 fails to install during debootstrap. dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of libept1: libept1 depends on libapt-pkg4.10; however: Package libapt-pkg4.10 is not installed. dpkg: error processing libept1 (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Errors were encountered while processing: libept1 root@japsand:/debootstrap# apt-cache show libapt-pkg4.10 N: Can't select versions from package 'libapt-pkg4.10' as it is purely virtual N: No packages found root@japsand:/debootstrap# apt-cache show libapt-pkg^C root@japsand:/debootstrap# apt-get install libapt-pkg4.10 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Package libapt-pkg4.10 is not available, but is referred to by another package. This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or is only available from another source E: Package 'libapt-pkg4.10' has no installation candidate root@japsand:/debootstrap# Any idea how to fix this / work around this??? Thanks, Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, dorfstr. 27, 24245 barmissen fon: +49 (4302) 281418, fax: +49 (4302) 281419 GnuPG Key ID 0xB588399B mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de freeBusy: https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb pgpf6QOIOmNEo.pgp Description: Digitale PGP-Unterschrift
Re: debootstrap loading both libept1 AND libept1.4.12, .. and fails!
On 2012-04-18 08:06, Mike Gabriel wrote: > Package: libept1.4.12 > Version: 1.0.6.1 > Severity: Important > > Hi Oliver, hi Enrico, hi all, > Hi, I am closing this bug #669203 as not a bug, because ... > On Di 17 Apr 2012 17:29:53 CEST olivier sallou wrote: > > [...] > > libept1 depends on libapt-pkg4.10. However, libapt-pkg4.10 is not > available in SID anymore, so libept1 fails to install during debootstrap. > > > dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of libept1: > libept1 depends on libapt-pkg4.10; however: > Package libapt-pkg4.10 is not installed. > dpkg: error processing libept1 (--configure): > dependency problems - leaving unconfigured > Errors were encountered while processing: > libept1 > > Looking at the PTS[0]: """ This package is part of the ongoing testing transition known as apt. """ So this /temporary/ uninstallability is expected, while libept is rebuilt against the new version of apt. Please see [1] for a list of affected packages. [0] http://packages.qa.debian.org/libe/libept.html [1] http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/apt.html > [...] > > Any idea how to fix this / work around this??? > > Thanks, > Mike > For transitions, wait till the relevant packages have been rebuilt. In other cases, the package may be broken or an uncoordinated transition may have started. In the latter case, please contact the release team. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f8e5d5c.8010...@thykier.net
