Re: Is Petr Cech MIA?
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 10:38:39PM +0200 , Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:23:51PM +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote:
> > The NMU is very simple... I don't have a problem with doing it myself in
> > a week or two.
> >
> > Just try to catch Petr first.
>
Hi,
> Eh, (1) there is a standing 0-day NMU policy for very long already (at
> least half a year, don't remember even), (2) two weeks definitely is too
> late, I suggest NMU'ing ASAP, (3) no need to start the "MIA procedure"
> thingy when just doing a NMU, everyone gets busy once in a while, a NMU
> is not a bad thingy, just an attempt to help out a maintainer who
> otherwise apparantly couldn't find the time to fix a particular issue.
> As #288741 is 120 days old without maintainer reaction, there was
I sent a ITO last july and I thought that it took someone. There were some
license problems IIRC, but it seems it's solved now.
As it seems that soneone has yesterday orphaned phpdoc for me (wtf?) I don't
have to do it myself :-) Anyone is welcome to take over maintaining phpdoc
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Try: cat /dev/urandom | perl
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please move autoconf and autoconf2.13 into testing
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:45:06AM +0200 , Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it seems those two packages are depending on each other and are thus
> stuck. php4-dev depends on autoconf2.13 and is also stuck therefore. Could
if php4 was stuck only because of autoconf I'd jump of joy
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GNU\Linux on Win32 systems
Re: what's wrong with last KDE update?
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:55:32PM +0200 , Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> In the last update of unstable:
kdelibs didn't get installed.
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Try: cat /dev/urandom | perl
Re: Date format (was: How many people need locales?)
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 09:17:12PM +1000 , Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> Does that mean it should always take a certain format irrespective of the
> locale? If so, which format?
or number format. ie. in Czech decimal separator is `,' comma and in C it's
`.' dot. OK, now restart gnumeric in other locale and you cannot load the
file :((
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<_Anarchy_> telsa: rommable debian will be potato chips
Re: Questions to testing/unstable
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 07:29:31PM +1000 , Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 11:05:49AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> > On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 06:42:33PM +1000 , Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > FWIW, I do all my development under testing. I virtually ignore unstable
> > > unless I need a specific package from it.
> > but autobuilders will still compile with unstable, so it's really useless
> > (even dangerous) to upload i386 build on woody, when autobuild packages are
> > unstable.
>
> That's not true at all. It's quite possible (although probably a little
> unlikely) to maintain your packages from a box running stable, if you like.
that depends. If I need libc6, X and gtk maybe, but you really loose on
apache, sablot (I need to kick the maintaner for the stupid shlibs, IMHO).
Or the ssl fiasco. I´ve had unstable package made uninstallable day after I
uploaded it with compiled latest unstable. Now, should I let the package
there - no, because mostly the new upload also deletes the one I compiled
with and so there is NO way to get that upload into testing
The same if, if I would compile with woody - it made the package
uninstallable on sid and I would have to pray that the hacked build-depends,
what were made according the status of woody, when I uploaded was still
valid when autobuilders get around to rebuild. Of course I loose unstable
for that. The result? The package is not in testing and not installable in
unstable
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We Are Debian. You Will Be Packaged. Media Opinion Is Irrelevant.
Re: PostgreSQL in testing
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 06:09:10PM +0100 , Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> >Nah, it's the other way around: one of the php3 binaries in testing
> >doesn't work with the postgresql in unstable, and the php3 in unstable
> >doesn't work with the postgresql in testing; ditto some other php3 binary
> >and apache, and a few other similar things. It gets quite complicated :)
>
> Is the automatic system capable of handling that (when the versions in
> unstable work together)? or will it need manual intervention?
it's the dependencies. Remember, I pested you about libpgsql2 vs.
libpgsql2.1 - that's the cause. unstable has no libpgsql2 and testing has no
libpgsql2.1, that's why must php3 (and php4) go together with postgresql.
Now it's even better, because postgresql moved to non-US. I'll probably need
to stop building postgresql module from the whole package and make it a
separate non-US package.
aj: feel free to remove php3 from testing if it will make things easier. I'd
like to get php4 there ass php3 is not maintained upstream anymore.
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Computers are useless. They can only give answers."Pablo Picasso
Re: Questions to testing/unstable
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 06:42:33PM +1000 , Herbert Xu wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Most of us don't bother too much with testing, unless we're trying to get
> > something into testing for one particular reason or another (such as, the
> > package in testing is too damn buggy, or has a security hole).
>
> FWIW, I do all my development under testing. I virtually ignore unstable
> unless I need a specific package from it.
but autobuilders will still compile with unstable, so it's really useless
(even dangerous) to upload i386 build on woody, when autobuild packages are
unstable.
Also there are problems with library dependencies. Should I let rot a
package in unstable uninstallable, just because I hope it will make it in
month or two into testing? No way!
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian - It is all about choice, baby!!
Re: Questions to testing/unstable
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 08:25:53PM +0200 , Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Most of us don't bother too much with testing, unless we're trying to get
> > something into testing for one particular reason or another (such as, the
> > package in testing is too damn buggy, or has a security hole).
>
> Whow! Now that is a great explanation. We started testing for a reason. If
yes. and some of us gave up on testing. If I could do anything with it, I
would. But as it's now I can safely ignore it
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Computers are useless. They can only give answers."Pablo Picasso
Re: Gnome bug 94684
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 09:29:27AM -0500 , Steve Langasek wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2001, Christian Marillat wrote:
>
> > *You* are a serious problem.
>
> > If you don't want to change your configuration each time you did a apt-get
> > upgrade, then install potato.
>
> > testing/unstable is for real men (tm).
>
> In that case, perhaps these packages should be removed from testing. The
> purpose of testing is to prepare these packages for release as a stable
> distribution. If you're not interested in providing a clean upgrade path from
> potato and fixing bugs that *will cause problems* for users who upgrade, then
hmm. provide a clean upgrade path with libdb2 and libdb3. How? Does that
mean, that packages using db3 are off from testing? No. You just cannot
always make upgrades painless - like upstream change in postgresql config,
...
So stop this
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Joy sees a potato running down the street and shouting "I'm late! I'm late!"
;))
Re: imp broken in unstable?
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 09:09:06AM +1000 , Brian May wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Recently, not long after I upgraded imp and horde to unstable, it broke :-(
>
> Now whenever I try to use it I can compilation warnings like this:
>
> Warning: This compilation does not support pg_cmdtuples() in
> /etc/horde/db_pgsql.inc on line 122
old php4 or some strange build. version?
> Warning: PostgresSQL query failed: ERROR: Cannot insert a duplicate key into
> unique index active_sessions_pkey in
> /etc/horde/db_pgsql.inc on line 52
know upstream bug. it's happening only sometimes, when imp tries to insert
same session value onto postgresql and of course fails
> (the first line always occurs every-time, the second line is
> intermittent).
>
> The Debian maintainer said he was unable to help (see bug #95683),
> however he suggested it was a postgresql problem. He also downgraded
> the bug to normal
>
> However, if I run apache from my stable chroot, which uses the stable
> version of horde and imp, then everything works fine, even with
> postgresql 7.0 (I am going to refrain from upgrading again until I get
> this sorted out).
>
> So, any ideas how I should solve this? Or do I conclude that imp in
> unstable is broken, and unusable in my given configuration?
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
Peak
Re: postgresql and libssl - Bug#95146
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 09:13:49PM +0100 , Oliver Elphick wrote:
> I have to reiterate a query about what to do with postgresql in view of its
> now being linked with libssl.
don't do it
> Since this question is currently being referred to legal advice, do you
> want me to move postgresql into non-us, which will force any packages
> depending on it into non-us too, or should I leave it alone pending
> resolution of the legal question?
oohhh. it the crypto really necessary? I think, that building without libssl
installed fix it
> (I do not propose to do anything to remove the ssl code from PostgreSQL.)
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
Peak
Re: Unable to complete dselect install
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 09:56:50PM +0200 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got a problem with updating my Debian system. It is running the unstable
> version with kernel 2.4.3. When I run dselect and update the package list
> everything goes well. Then I try to install some packages (and update some
> existing packages). Downloading goes well, but then: the package system halts
> with the following message:
>
edit /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg and add
no-debsig
or maybe remove debsig-verify
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Obviously the only rational solution to your problem is suicide.
Re: libc6 broken?
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 12:28:51PM +0200 , Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
> Hello,
> I upgraded to unstable and now, my libc6 seems to be borken.
works fine here. it wasn't upgraded in quite a while
> If I try a ./configure or a "make xconfig" with a new Kernel, I get this
> error-msg:
> /lib/libc.so.6: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> /lib/libc.so.6: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
any optimized libs in /lib/i586(or whatever?)
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Debian - 3 million penguins can't be wrong."
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:53:15PM +1000 , Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hello world,
> + mysql-gpl uploaded 307 days ago, out of date by 297 days!
> has an RC bug related to php4-mysql in testing (although php4-mysql
> isn't in testing..)
is mysql-gpl really still needed? shouldn't it be removed instead?
any news one getting php4 into testing? pretty please :))
> + xcdroast uploaded 152 days ago, out of date by 142 days!
> gtk/setgid problems, see 92230 etc
that's new change in gtk 1.2.9 to disallow suid applications, which I find
silly
> + netscape4.7 uploaded 125 days ago, out of date by 115 days!
> depends on X3 libs, should remove?
yes, iff it's not needed for !=i386
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Computers are useless. They can only give answers."Pablo Picasso
Re: Curious...
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 09:34:01AM -0400 , B.C.J.O wrote:
> php4... Is this a known problem? both potato and sid have packages. Any
yes
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Try: cat /dev/urandom | perl
Re: NMUers: STOP BEING STUPID
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 11:07:20AM +0300 , Richard Braakman wrote:
> In that case the right "repository" could be a bugreport to the package
> involved. That way the diff submission is guaranteed. If the diff turns
though this doesn't catch broken build environment :(( like XF4.0.3 or
obsolete slang ...
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We are debian.org, resistance is futile, you will be apt-get upgraded.
Re: Update release management
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:23:43AM +0100 , Michel Salim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I apologise if this is considered off-topic - might be barking up the
> wrong tree in the wrong forest here - but bringing up an old issue here
> of release frequency, once the transition to using package pools and the
> new debian-installer is done, would it be reasonable to expect Debian
> releases more often - say, once every quarter like FreeBSD already does?
probably not. once a year should be "definitely", twice a year - hmm,
3/4 between releases - could try
> 2. This frequent release should allow Debian to generate more revenue
more what?
> 4. Inter-release update CDs could be issued ala Microsoft's Service
you volunteer?
> Packs with updated packages only - so it might depend on previous
> release CDs. Should be simple enough to automate, does not even need an
> installer.
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Joy notes some people think "Unix" is a misspelling of "Unics" which is a
misspelling of "Emacs" :)
Re: Developer Behavior
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 07:55:04AM -0700 , John Galt wrote:
> Of course, the .conf in lilo.conf implies that packages really shouldn't
> futz with it without warning. I really don't remember a exception in
yes. though lilo.conf is always autogenerated - either by boot floppies or
by liloconfig (sp?).
anyway - use grub :)
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Obviously the only rational solution to your problem is suicide.
Re: BIND 9.X package status
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:48:47AM +1100 , Brian May wrote:
> I have to wonder if it is really worth having a different name for the
> newer package version. Are the versions really that different?
> Personally, I would prefer to have apt-get automatically upgrade the
> package, and that will be disabled once you include the version number
if you have libbind-dev installed, than if there is a newer libbind-dev
that it will depend on the "correct" version of libbind?? and pull it in.
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We are debian.org, resistance is futile, you will be apt-get upgraded.
Re: woody and 2.4
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 05:25:16AM -0800 , Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> Just saw this as I suppose many already have
>
> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-01-05-001-04-NW-LF-KN
>
> Since Woody is probably still many months away is
> there a chance that it will include the 2.4 Kernel?
yes. It was already stated here couple of times
Petr Cech
P.S. I hope I will not show on lwn for this :)))
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the UNIX trademark has changed hands so much no one is quite sure who
really owns it anymore
Re: Compiling 2.0.38 kernel
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:54:37AM -0600 , Steve Langasek wrote:
> While a 2.0 kernel may not /run/ with a given glibc, I'm puzzled as to how
kernel doesn't care what you have under it. and newer glibc's should work OK
even with an older one.
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
it's amazing how "not-broken" debian is compared to slack and rh
Re: Compiling 2.0.38 kernel
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:28:25AM -0500 , Chris L. Mason wrote:
> Right, good point. In fact I did use gcc272 for the actual compile. But
> neither gcc272 or gcc 2.95.3 compiled mkdep.c properly. Hmm, I wonder if
hmm. I wonder how could we compile it in the first place, given there was no
other compiler.
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phear my "Typical bloody smart-arse debian attitude."
Re: Compiling 2.0.38 kernel
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:08:22AM -0500 , Chris L. Mason wrote:
> Anyway, this might help others who need to compile old kernels, and
> hopefully the problem will be fixed by gcc 2.95.3 final.
2.0.38 will probably not compile with gcc > 2.7.2.3 very well. You might
want to try gcc272
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Debian - 3 million penguins can't be wrong."
Re: egcs/gcc?
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 04:24:44AM -0500 , Jason Lunz wrote:
> This has been bugging me for a while, but with linux 2.4.0 being
> "official", I'm wondering about gcc versions. The recommended compiler
> for the kernel is, AFAIK, egcs 1.1.2 (gcc 2.91.66?). There's a warning
> in Documentation/Changes specifically for 2.95-derived compilers...the
> only recent i386 gcc in debian is 2.95.2.
>
> In short, is there a summary somewhere of the various gcc branches?
> Which one should be used for kernel compiles, and if it's not 2.95.2,
i use 2.95.2 and it works. if you want to be really sure, use gcc272
> what's the "right" way to make a kernel in debian? Why the discrepancy?
>
> Jason
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The guy may know awk like the back of a dingo, too.
Re: package pool and big Packages.gz file
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 06:07:20AM +0800 , zhaoway wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 11:19:59PM +0200, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> > how would the package manager (namely apt) know which ones you need.. even
> > if
> > you don't have X11 installed (and apt assumes you don't need X11 packages
> > file)
> > doesn't mean that you wouldn't want to install x11 packages file.
>
> another solution is to let every single deb provides its.pkg-gz
>
> then, apt-get update will do nothing,
> apt-get install some.deb will first download some.pkg-gz, then check its
> dependency,
> then grab them.pkg-gz all, then install.
but it will immensly restrict it's view on dependencies - think about
virtual packages. This is really not the way. Maybe spliting by as in pool/
so you only download changed part of the whole thing. But that's about it.
Maybe you can leave some part out, but ..
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Joy notes some people think "Unix" is a misspelling of "Unics" which is a
misspelling of "Emacs" :)
Re: X broken after yesterdays dist-upgrade (sid)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 12:37:05PM +0100 , Martin Maciaszek wrote:
> When booting my workstation today I noticed that xdm won't come
> up. I tried starting X by hand and got the following error
> messages:
>
> Symbol drmMap from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/drivers/mga_drv.o is
> unresolved!
> Symbol drmUnmap from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/drivers/mga_drv.o is
> unresolved!
> Symbol DRIGetDrawableStamp from module
> /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/drivers/mga_drv.o is unresolved!
> Symbol DRIGetDrawableInfo from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modues/drivers/mga_drv.o
> is unresolved!
>
> Can someone explain what happened?
enable dri in XF86Config - don't know why that's needed.
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<_Anarchy_> telsa: rommable debian will be potato chips
Re: Obsolete packages
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 09:41:29AM +0200 , Michael Meskes wrote:
> After upgrading my machine I found some obsolete packages. Before purging
> them I'd like to know if there are replacements:
> lde
yes. it had RC, and it is still in mess due to some strange gcc header
interactions :(
> manpages-net
this package appeared only for a short time (and yes, I have it installed
too). I think it was in Incoming only.
> gtkbrowser
woody
Petr Čech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how about a real unstable?
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 12:13:45PM +0200 , Josip Rodin wrote:
> grep experimental /etc/apt/sources.list, please?
deb http://samosa.debian.org/debian/project/experimental/ /
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how about a real unstable?
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 01:48:01PM -0800 , Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > This is what experimental is for, no?
> >
> > Unstable is for unstable Debian, not necessarily unstable software. The
> > experimental distribution is much more appropriate for unstable upstream
> > software.
> >
> agreed with the addition that experimental must also be apt'able. Getting
it is.
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anyone's able to run 2.3.99-pre*?
On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 08:58:11AM +0200 , Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 11:52:40AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> > check that you don't mount devfs, and have IDE subsystem compiled in (it
> > changed location).
>
> DEVFS is enabled but not mounted. After all the problem occurs way to early
if you don't say otherwise, devfs is _automagicaly_ mounted on /dev, and it
that you have some devices missing. Try running with
append="devfs=nomount"
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Idea: Debian Developer Information Center
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 09:51:50PM +0100 , Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 12:31:54AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog écrivait:
> > Hi dear co-developers,
>
> Hey people ! I posted this mail in order to have some input ... it would
> be great if some of you gave their opinion about this proposition I posted
> a while ago :
OK
> > I think that we need a page (possibly a cgi or a page automatically updated
> > once a day) that would give the maximum of information concerning one
> > maintainer. This would include :
> > - information from the LDAP db (name, email, last seen on ...)
> > - information about the NMU policy that the maintainer has adopted
> > (timeframe before a NMU is allowed, do i need an authorization to do a
> > nmu ?, ...)
This is cool. Could it be added to db.d.o right now?
[snip]
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anyone's able to run 2.3.99-pre*?
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 10:35:02AM +0200 , Michael Meskes wrote:
> e2fscheck always tells me it cannot read the superblock. Up to 2.3.4? it
> worked well. And of course 2.2.14 runs without a problem.
check that you don't mount devfs, and have IDE subsystem compiled in (it
changed location).
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release-critical Bugreport for March 24, 2000
On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 03:15:02AM -0600 , BugScan reporter wrote:
> Bug stamp-out list for Mar 24 03:07 (CST)
>
> Total number of release-critical bugs: 190
> Number that will disappear after removing packages marked [REMOVE]: 5
>
> --
>
> Package: apache (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Johnie Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 59365 cron script kills itself
> 60257 apache-ssl: upgrade changes DocumentRoot!
> 60486 Apache doesn't show README* in dir listings
> 60575 /etc/aliases: No such file or directory
>
> Package: autofs (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Justin Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 52132 autofs: Race condition when expiring autofs submounts leaves daemon
> crippled
> [STRATEGY] Patch available, waiting for reply from upstream
>
> Package: bash (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 58404 bash: *ap++ == 0x55 , segmentation fault out of nowhere!
this one is likely to stay
> Package: bind (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 59649 bind: Gives core dump
fix in Incoming
> Package: communicator (debian/contrib)
> Maintainer: Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 60193 communicator: buss error when replying to message
normal communicator behaviour :(
> Package: communicator-smotif-461 (debian/non-free)
> Maintainer: Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 42259 [TBF] If you open a menu and a cookie pops up, the browser hangs
> 43849 communicator-smotif: Floating point exception error
see above
> Package: debconf (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 60160 Finnish mirrors not included
this is RC?
> Package: dhelp (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Marco Budde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 60853 dhelp: uses glimpse insecurely
fix in Incoming
> Package: dotfile-bash (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Debian QA Group
> 60060 dotfile-bash doesn't start
Joy said he will do an upload
> Package: exim (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 60871 exim_3.12-6.deb depends on libdb1.85, a non-existent package
fix installed some time ago
> 60988 general: problem with ssh install due to lack of gmp2 package in
> frozen
this one should be closed, because user had stable in non-US sources.list
> Package: gpm (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Zephaniah E. Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 59793 gpm: gpm won't start from remote telnet session
should be fixed now
> Package: lsof (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Jim Mintha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 57203 lsof does not build with 2.3 kernel headers [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Log
> for failed build of lsof_4.48-1 (dist=frozen)]
this is a problem, but not RC (IMHO)
> Package: man-db (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Fabrizio Polacco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 60339 How about testing packages before uploading them? 2.3.14 dies on
> unpack
new man-db installed, so maybe it fixes this
> Package: modconf (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Boot Floppies team
> 60182 New screen is drawn on wrong tty if changing tty while module
> detection
RC?
> Package: netbase (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [STRATEGY] Maintainer has fixed upload ready, coordination with sysvinit
> is required.
> 59282 networking killed too early
this should be fixed in Incoming and maybe others
> 59377 netbase: can't build
> 60367 portmap isn't started on changing runlevels, breaking NIS/YP and NFS
> startup
> 60374 netbase: networking doesn't play well with NFS root
> 60517 prerm of netbase hangs
> 60770 netbase: inetd upgrade breaks services
>
> Package: netscape (debian/contrib)
> Maintainer: Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 60619 netscape: Error message: 'Bus error' when trying to run netscape.
old story
> Package: python-base (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 61004 Python-base 1.5.2-9 still depends on libdb1.85
this is a SPARC build problem, on i386 it's OK
> Package: spamfilter (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 60704 spamfilter depends on nonexistent package
geez, filing 2 bug reports, because the previous had been tagged only as
normal, but grave? But yes, he's right about the wrong dependency.
> Package: tar (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 60824 tar: doesn't build from source (src/Makefile.in not up to date)
fix in Incoming
> Package: tetex-base (debian/main)
> Maintainer: teTeX maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 42698 tetex-base: The french option of babel is broken
fix should be in preparation
> Package: tetex-bin (debian/main)
> Maintainer: teTeX maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [HELP] Christoph has set up a mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> to discuss work on these packages.
> 36671 tetex-bin: xdvi fails on gzipped files
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: glibc-compat ???
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 12:09:23PM -0500 , Eric Weigel wrote:
> I've thought about compatibility links, but like you said, they're both
> libc 6.0.
LD_PRELOAD
> Overall though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of broken stuff.
A friend is bitching about broken aplix(sp?). Thing is, it works on RH6.1
and SuSE 6.3 , both glibc-2.1
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#60988: general: problem with ssh install due to lack of gmp2 package in frozen
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:43:32PM + , David Croxford wrote:
> Package: general
> Version: 2323
> Severity: important
>
> Partial output of
> apt-get install ssh
>
> Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
> ssh: Depends: gmp2 (>= 2.0.2)
are you sure, you have the correct line for non-US? Current ssh in non-US
looks like this
apt-cache show ssh
Package: ssh
Version: 1:1.2.2-1.4
Priority: optional
Section: non-US
Maintainer: Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.1.2), libpam0g, libssl09, libwrap0, libz1,
libpam-modules, libwrap0 (>= 7.6-1.1)
[snip]
and sources.list should have
deb http://nonus.debian.org/debian-non-US frozen/non-US main
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5 days till Bug Horizon
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 12:50:19PM +0100 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Package: debianutils (debian/main).
> > Maintainer: Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 59121 run-parts hangs during /etc/cron.daily runs
>
> This is a nasty one..
Hmm. Why not go with the patch in the BTS. Should be easy
> > Package: netbase (debian/main).
> > Maintainer: Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 59282 netbase: portmap is killed too early on shutdown
>
> Hasn't this one been fixed by now?
No, I don't think it is.
> > Package: zsh (debian/main).
> > Maintainer: Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 58941 core dump with function mycd() {builtin cd "$@" && echo $PWD}
> > [STRATEGY] Fixed in the next .deb. Already fixed upstream. (Mar15MH)
>
> That is a week ago, has it been fixed since then?
No.
Petr Čech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apt-Problem
On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 10:29:35AM +0100 , Andreas Tille wrote:
> By the way. Shouldn't dpkg at least warn that md5 sums are wrong?
It can't. dpkg doesn't know the md5sum of the .deb.
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uninstallable Packages
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:13:51PM +1000 , Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> I'm experimenting with a script to work out whether packages are
> installable or not. I figured the world at large might be interested in
> some of the results.
>
> The following packages are not installable (ie, their Depends:,
> Recommends:, and Conflicts: can't be concurrently satisfied) using i386
> packages from main, contrib, non-free, and non-US/*.
>
> Here we go...
>
> Packages with out-dated dependencies:
>
> Mosaic
> fsviewer
> imaptool
> knews
> libmagick4g-lzw
> libtiff3
> xacc
> xloadimage
> Depends: libjpegg6a ; libjpegg62 is available
these should be fixed (except for libmagick4g-lzw which has yet another
problems) by simply recompiling.
I could do imaptools fsviewer and xloadimage.
> ibcs2.0.35
> pcmcia-modules-2.0.35
> pcmcia-modules-2.2.1
> pcmcia-modules-2.2.5
> pcmcia-modules-2.2.7
> pcmcia-modules-2.2.9
> Recommends: kernel-image- ;
> 2.0.36, 2.2.10, 2.2.12, 2.2.12-i386 are available
so these should be removed. Bug against ftp.debian.org. But I would let it
on pcmcia package maintainer.
> fbrowser
> yagirc
> Depends: libglib1.1 ; libglib1.2 is available
another recompile? Maybe there are other problems. Don't know glib so well.
> emacs19 Depends: liblockfile0 ; liblockfile1 is available, not 0
recompile. Could do it.
> gnome-apt Depends: libapt-pkg2.5 ; libapt-pkg2.6 is available
I've looked at it. But it cannot be only recompiled :((
> libwine-dbg Depends: libwine0.0.971116 ; libwine 0.0.990815-1 is
> available
this should explain it
wine (0.0.990704-2) unstable; urgency=low
* New maintainer Andrew Lenharth.
* Repackaged.
* libwine0.0.971116 renamed to libwine
-- Andrew D. Lenharth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun, 1 Aug 1999 14:36:54 -0700
so. According to debian/control there is no libwine-dbg any more.
I'm filling a bugreport.
> tcl8.0-docDepends: tcl8.0 (= 8.0.5-2); 8.0.5-3 is available
> tcl8.2-docDepends: tcl8.2 (= 8.2.0-1); 8.2.0-2 is available
> tk8.0-doc Depends: tk8.0 (= 8.0.5-3); 8.0.5-4 is available
> tk8.2-doc Depends: tk8.2 (= 8.2.0-1); 8.2.0-2 is available
BTW why do these depend on the exact version?
> lyx Depends: libforms0.89 ; which is in Incoming (since Oct
> 1)
wait :((
> libtricks Depends: libc6, which Conflicts: libtricks
maybe this should be removed as it doesn't/can't work with glibc-2.1
> linbot
> Depends: python-base (>= 1.5.1), python-net (>= 1.5.1),
> python-misc (>= 1.5.1);
> python-base Provides/Replaces/Conflicts:
> python-net, python-misc
>
> python-misc
> python-net
> Depends: python-base ; which Conflicts: python-misc, python-net
these two packages are obsolete. Should be removed. Is the maintainer with us
again. I recall a request for NMU on d-d.
Petr Čech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debhelper compilation on slink
On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 02:35:31PM +0200 , Colin Marquardt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I´m trying to compile a new debhelper on a slink system (which in
> turn I want to use to build lm_sensors -- it needs dh_link which
> isn´t in my slink´s debhelper 1.1.24).
>
> Here is what I get:
>
> $ fakeroot debian/rules build
> ./dh_clean
> rm -f debian/substvars debian/postinst.debhelper
> debian/postrm.debhelper debian/preinst.debhelper debian/prerm.debhelper
> rm -rf debian/debhelper
> rm -f debian/files
> find . -type f -a \( -name \#\*\# -o -name \*\~ -o -name DEADJOE -o
> -name \*.orig -o -name \*.rej -o -name \*.bak -o -name .\*.orig -o -name
> .\*.rej -o -name .SUMS -o -name TAGS -o -name core -o \( -path \*/.deps/\* -a
> -name \*.P \) \) -exec rm -f {} \;
> DH_VERSION=10 perl -MTest::Harness -e 'runtests grep { ! /CVS/ } @ARGV' t/*
> t/dh_linCan't locate Test.pm in @INC (@INC contains:
> /usr/lib/perl5/i386-linux/5.004 /usr/lib/perl5
> /usr/local/lib/site_perl/i386-linux /usr/local/lib/site_perl .
> /usr/lib/perl5/i386-linux/5.004 /usr/lib/perl5
> /usr/local/lib/site_perl/i386-linux /usr/local/lib/site_perl .) at t/dh_link
> line 2.
> BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at t/dh_link line 2.
> dubious
> Test returned status 2 (wstat 512, 0x200)
> FAILED--1 test script could be run, alas--no output ever seen
> make: *** [test] Error 2
>
>
> There is no Test.pm anywhere on my system.
it's in perl-5.005. Just comment the line with Test.pm in debian/rules
and it will build
> The dependencies mentioned at
> http://www.debian.org/Packages/unstable/devel/debhelper.html
> all seem to be met:
>
> perl-5.004: Version: 5.004.04-7
> fileutils (>= 3.16-4): Version: 3.16-5.3
> file (>= 3.23-1): Version: 3.26-1
but these are _run_ dependencies not _build_ dependencie (see flame :) about
creaping featurims)
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dist-upgrade and perl
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 03:13:51PM -0500 , Stephen R. Gore wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > apt-get dist-upgrade' does /not/ upgrade perl from 5.004 to 5.005
> > for the same reason it won't upgrade emacs19 to emacs20. They
> > are different packages. The package is perl-5.005_5.005.03 and
> > not perl_5.005.03, and so the package `name' is perl-5.005 and
> > not simply `perl'.
> >
> > I don't know if it was supposed to replace perl-5.004
> > automatically.
perl in slink is version 5.004. So replacing it with perl-5.004
is what i should do.
> Yes, I realize they are different packages. But is it possible that
> for a script to depend on perl-5.005 features? I don't know perl well
Yes it is. But that package must depend on perl-5.005 and not on
perl5(virtual).
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Potato compiling environment on otherwise slink system
On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 09:23:03AM -0400 , Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > I run Slink at work and at home, but decided to install potato's > gcc and g++ on my home box to recompile the potato packages that and libc6_2.1. Only compiling with new gcc won't have desired effect. > I maintain (keeping work box on slink for stability). > > Since my bandwidth is at work, I doing the following to download > what I need (and then I'll sneaker-net everything home on a Zip): > > # apt-get -d -u install gcc g++ > Reading Package Lists... Done > Building Dependency Tree... Done > The following extra packages will be installed: > libfltk-dev libstdc++2.9-glibc2.1-dev cpp libstdc++2.9-glibc2.1 libc6-dev > libfltk1 libc6 mesag3 > The following packages will be REMOVED: > libstdc++2.9-dev timezone > The following NEW packages will be installed: > libstdc++2.9-glibc2.1-dev libstdc++2.9-glibc2.1 libfltk1 mesag3 > The following packages will be upgraded > libfltk-dev g++ cpp gcc libc6-dev libc6 > 6 packages upgraded, 4 newly installed, 2 to remove and 265 not upgraded. > Need to get 7524kb of archives. After unpacking 7823kb will be used. > Do you want to continue? [Y/n] > > > Anything wrong with this? Or must I upgrade _everything_ to No. More or less, yes. The reason for recompiling is, that packages depend on glibc-2.1 (libc6 (>=2.1)) - so you must install those libraries. The compiler alone won't help. Not mentioning, that gcc in potato in linked with libc-2.1. > potato. > > This will upgrade libc6. Will the rest of the system (slink) > still function correctly? again - almost all. The problem is with shared libraries. When I upgraded to glibc-2.1 one machine, I forgot about libreadlineg2 - bash worked almost corrently, that is, when you hit it core-dumped. > > Thanks! > -- > Peter Galbraith, research scientist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Petr Čech -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux - maintainer & administrator
Intend to package: pavuk
Hi, this is intend to package pavuk. Pavuk is a mirroring program - it can download (mirror) via HTTP, HTTPS, FTP and Gopher protocols. It works in text mode or has a graphical interface in GTK. The licence is GPL, and you can have a look at it at http://www.idata.sk/~ondrej/pavuk/ . It will go into non-US/main because it will be linked with libssl. Petr Cech P.S. I know, that this is on WNPP. I already settled that.
