Re: Packages not making it into testing (fwd)
The mail below was sent earlier, but got lost in a local mail loop... - Jonas -- Jonas Smedegaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jones.dk/~jonas/ IT-guide dr. Jones[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dr.jones.dk/+45 40843136 Debian GNU/Linux[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ GnuPG(1024D/C02440B8): 9A98 C6EB C098 9ED0 3085 ECA9 9FB0 DB32 C024 40B8 GNU GPL: The source will be with you... always. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:25:04 +0200 (CEST) From: Jonas Smedegaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Daniel Kobras [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Packages not making it into testing On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Daniel Kobras wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 09:41:46PM +0300, Tommi Virtanen wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: + mpg123 uploaded 125 days ago, out of date by 115 days! mpg123-alsa is uninstallable (needs alsa-base 0.4, which is no longer available?) mpg123 won't work with the newer ALSA, and there seems to be no real mpg123 activity. I'll drop ALSA support when I get time to update the package (not very soon). Current mix of alsa-headers and -libs doesn't allow you to build anything on unstable anyway. If you want some help on that package drop me a note. I've hacked on mpg123 before, and we're in the process of getting ALSA 0.9 support into Glame at the moment. Quite interesting! If you need testers speak up, I have ALSA running on my powerpc TiBook now that 0.9 with powerpc drivers has been released. - Jonas -- Jonas Smedegaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jones.dk/~jonas/ IT-guide dr. Jones[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dr.jones.dk/+45 40843136 Debian GNU/Linux[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ GnuPG(1024D/C02440B8): 9A98 C6EB C098 9ED0 3085 ECA9 9FB0 DB32 C024 40B8 GNU GPL: The source will be with you... always.
Re: Packages not making it into testing
Quoting Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au: + roxen-fonts-iso8859-2 uploaded 399 days ago, out of date by + roxen-fonts-iso8859-1 uploaded 399 days ago, out of date by These are fonts. Why should they be 'out of date'?! Reason why these haven't made it into testing is the same as for: + libroxen-templatecreator uploaded 399 days ago, out of date + libroxen-randomfile uploaded 397 days ago, out of date by 387 + libroxen-gdbmuserauth uploaded 397 days ago, out of date by + libroxen-form uploaded 397 days ago, out of date by 387 days! + libroxen-roxpoll-doc uploaded 396 days ago, out of date by + libroxen-kiwilogger uploaded 396 days ago, out of date by 386 + libroxen-floatingcode uploaded 396 days ago, out of date by + libroxen-webmail uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-watchdog uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-trimpath uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-tokenfs uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-thumbnail uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-tex uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 days! + libroxen-telnetproxy uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by + libroxen-switch uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-swarm uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-sqlextras uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-smbauth uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-simplenews uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-sexybody uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-secureinsert uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by + libroxen-roxpoll uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-remoteuser uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-referrerdeny uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by + libroxen-programcache uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by + libroxen-pretoggle uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-presentit uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-pop3 uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 days! + libroxen-photoalbum uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-path uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 days! + libroxen-outline uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-ntuserauth uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-meta uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 days! + libroxen-mailit uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-mail uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 days! + libroxen-logsql uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-linkif uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-layout uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-jsredirect uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-ics uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 days! + libroxen-guestbook uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-graphicalcounter uploaded 243 days ago, out of date + libroxen-footnote uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-flash2 uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-finder uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-faq uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 days! + libroxen-explaindir uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-expires uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-errormessage uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by + libroxen-discussit uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-disclaimer uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-diary uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-columnify uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-cloakingdevice uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by + libroxen-calendar uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-calculator uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-asis uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 days! + libroxen-123session uploaded 243 days ago, out of date by 233 + libroxen-adbanner uploaded 222 days ago, out of date by 212 + libroxen-thumbview uploaded 130 days ago, out of date by 120 + libroxen-sqlcounter uploaded 130 days ago, out of date by 120 + libroxen-pressrelease uploaded 130 days ago, out of date by + libroxen-mailform uploaded 130 days ago, out of date by 120 + libroxen-hubbethrottle uploaded 130 days ago, out of date by + libroxen-deepleap uploaded 130 days ago, out of date by 120 roxen isn't up to date on poweprc, and needs the source patched as described in 81648 [...] + imho uploaded 370 days ago, out of date by 360 days! imho depends on roxen, which needs fixing as above There are NO problems with ANY of these packages... The problem is that they depend on 'roxen|roxen2' and roxen2 can't be built on SPARC/PPC. Also there is some problems with the administration interface (bugs #71682, #71689 and #93170). I just can't figure it out... -- Turbo __ _ Debian GNU Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just ^/ /(_)_ __
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 02:35:03PM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: Quoting Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au: + roxen-fonts-iso8859-2 uploaded 399 days ago, out of date by + roxen-fonts-iso8859-1 uploaded 399 days ago, out of date by These are fonts. Why should they be 'out of date'?! Because they're not installable. Reason why these haven't made it into testing is the same as for: [...] Indeed. roxen isn't up to date on poweprc, and needs the source patched as described in 81648 [...] + imho uploaded 370 days ago, out of date by 360 days! imho depends on roxen, which needs fixing as above There are NO problems with ANY of these packages... The problem is that they depend on 'roxen|roxen2' and roxen2 can't be built on SPARC/PPC. The problem is that roxen doesn't build on powerpc, and that all the other packages are arch:all and depend on roxen (or roxen2, which also doesn't build on powerpc). Accepting any of them means adding packages that are uninstallable on powerpc. The fix to get roxen to build on powerpc is (or at least was when I looked at it) quite trivial. It's just a matter of using varargs as ANSI specifies rather than as i386 and a lot of other architectures allow. It's described in bug 81648 which has been open for over 100 days... Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net) pgpjrNnhsVgZQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:33:46AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote: any news one getting php4 into testing? pretty please :)) And here was me thinking you already knew all about this... Okay. First, php3 and apache. The apache in testing is old, old, old. Getting the apache from unstable into testing, without breaking anything, means also: getting most of the apache modules in (since they tend to be specific to an apache major version, and 1.3.9 - 1.3.19 is quite a jump) getting the php3 from unstable in (similar reasons) getting imagemagick, postgresql and ucb-snmp from unstable in (since some php3 module or another depends on them) getting php3-dbase in (since it depends on a specific version of php3) getting python2 in, since the new libapache-mod-python depends on python2, not python Those are problematic because: python2 isn't built on m68k, and has some strict dependencies so that being slightly out of date on m68k breaks some packages php3-dbase (being non-free) is out of date on every architecture but alpha and i386 postgresql has had a brand new upstream release (7.1) There are other broken things here too. (Gotta love complicated dependency sets and software that's not backwards or forwards compatible...) php4's another matter entirely, which I'm not inclined to look into yet :) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Re: Packages not making it into testing
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
+ mpg123 uploaded 125 days ago, out of date by 115 days!
mpg123-alsa is uninstallable (needs alsa-base 0.4, which is no
longer available?)
mpg123 won't work with the newer ALSA, and there seems to be
no real mpg123 activity. I'll drop ALSA support when I get time
to update the package (not very soon).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED],havoc,gaeshido}.fi,{debian,wanderer}.org,stonesoft.com}
unix, linux, debian, networks, security, | First snow, then silence.
kernel, TCP/IP, C, perl, free software, | This thousand dollar screen dies
mail, www, sw devel, unix admin, hacks. | so beautifully.
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 09:41:46PM +0300, Tommi Virtanen wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: + mpg123 uploaded 125 days ago, out of date by 115 days! mpg123-alsa is uninstallable (needs alsa-base 0.4, which is no longer available?) mpg123 won't work with the newer ALSA, and there seems to be no real mpg123 activity. I'll drop ALSA support when I get time to update the package (not very soon). Current mix of alsa-headers and -libs doesn't allow you to build anything on unstable anyway. If you want some help on that package drop me a note. I've hacked on mpg123 before, and we're in the process of getting ALSA 0.9 support into Glame at the moment. Regards, Daniel. pgpbdbgZNr5wT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 05:49:24PM -0500, Rahul Jain wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:57:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Doesn't the user have to belong to the relevant group anyway? We already control access to things like floppy drives, sound cards etc through groups, so cd burning is another good example. I don't see how sgid cdrom will help here. Just make it non-sgid, and if they're a member of group cdrom, they can burn a cd, period. That's what I was saying we should do. That's what we do with other special hardware like audio and floppy drives. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:53:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Hello world, ciao + gdb uploaded 250 days ago, out of date by 240 days! doesn't build on sparc, see 86882 i'd like to adopt this, i'll mail to the maintainer. -[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50
Re: Packages not making it into testing
Domenico Andreoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:53:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: + gdb uploaded 250 days ago, out of date by 240 days! doesn't build on sparc, see 86882 i'd like to adopt this, i'll mail to the maintainer. Do you have the resources to try and follow it on non-intel architectures as well? Gdb is a hairy package... Ciao, -- David N. Welton Free Software: http://people.debian.org/~davidw/ Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/ Personal: http://www.efn.org/~davidw/ Work: http://www.innominate.com/
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 12:52:39PM +0200, David N. Welton wrote: Domenico Andreoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:53:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: + gdb uploaded 250 days ago, out of date by 240 days! doesn't build on sparc, see 86882 i'd like to adopt this, i'll mail to the maintainer. Do you have the resources to try and follow it on non-intel architectures as well? Gdb is a hairy package... mmmh, i cannot follow other arches, i have access to i386 only :( talking about resource to dig into it, i'm not so sure. if i never try i never can figure this out. i don't want to rewrite it all now, i'm *sure* i have not enough skills. -[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50
Re: Packages not making it into testing
+ libch uploaded 288 days ago, out of date by 278 days! m68k package depends on libmysqlclient9, needs to be rebuilt against libmysqlclient10, presumably It needs the build dependencies updating too, see #93850 (which has been closed but I think is still applicable). p.
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: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:33:46AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote: + 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 Why does xcdroast need to be setgid? I think it's terrible to have any user able to burn or screw up a burn... why can't they use sudo or su? -- - -/- - Rahul Jain - -\- - - -\- http://linux.rice.edu/~rahul -=- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -/- - - -/- I never could get the hang of Thursdays. - HHGTTG by DNA -\- - |--||--||-|--|-|-|-| Version 11.423.999.220020101.23.50110101.042 (c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
Re: Packages not making it into testing
Previously Petr Cech wrote: that's new change in gtk 1.2.9 to disallow suid applications, which I find silly It's not silly, it is an extremely good idea. I'm very pleasantly surprised to hear that they did that. It is basically not possible to write safe suid X programs. Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:03:41AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: It's not silly, it is an extremely good idea. I'm very pleasantly surprised to hear that they did that. It is basically not possible to write safe suid X programs. IIRC it also disallows SGID, which breaks some games that only want to write to hi-score files.
Re: Packages not making it into testing
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: The following packages haven't been uploaded this year, and also haven't made it into testing for a while. If people could go through and make sure the maintainer knows about the issues, or do NMUs as appropriate, or work out what the problem actually is, or similar, that'd be pretty cool. There's a fair few doesn't build on sparc bugs (compared to any other architecture). This is for two reasons: one, alpha and i386 have a lot fewer such problems; and two, I'm ignoring arm, m68k and powerpc problems of that nature, although arm's actually doing pretty well too. Also because sparc and others don't autobuild contrib/non-free. I'm willing to bet that a fair amount of manual attention might be needed there, as problems in non-free can sometimes cause problems in main (see libdnd not being removable from testing because xzx depends on it on alpha, for example - possibly just a bad build environment). + lgrind uploaded 125 days ago, out of date by 115 days! doesn't build on sparc, no bug filed When I tried to build it it had an ugly build process that caused a file to be installed outside the build tree, so I didn't upload it (#90767). Incidentally, could I request one change to the format of update_output.txt that would make problems in testing easier to debug (unless there's some other set of information I don't know about)? I'd like to see the reports of uninstallability for each package mention all architectures, to help distinguish between problems on one or two architectures and problems on everything. The last time I looked they just showed the lexically first architecture that was causing problems, so for a while I was scratching my head and wondering why does alpha have so many problems?. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:24:38AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: Incidentally, could I request one change to the format of update_output.txt that would make problems in testing easier to debug (unless there's some other set of information I don't know about)? I'd like to see the reports of uninstallability for each package mention all architectures, to help distinguish between problems on one or two architectures and problems on everything. The problem with that is it'd take a copious amount of time, and a copious amount of memory, and testing already takes too much of both. Generally, if the problem doesn't occur on alpha, it's specific to one or two arches. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Re: Packages not making it into testing
* Anthony Towns | + xitalk uploaded 397 days ago, out of date by 387 days! | xitalk on arm needs to be rebuilt against X4 Also missing standards-version !? (bug filed) Anyhow, rebuilt and uploaded on arm. | + xacc uploaded 397 days ago, out of date by 387 days! | xacc on arm, powerpc and sparc needs to be rebuilt against | X4 doesn't build and missing build-depends and ancient standards-version. (84538 was only normal, I made it serious). Anyhow, the maintainer wonders whether it should be removed in favor of gnucash. | + nighthawk uploaded 397 days ago, out of date by 387 days! | nighthawk on arm needs to be rebuilt against X4 Nighthawk is bitten by sys/time.h vs time.h. - bug filed. (Except for this, it builds quite nicely.) | + freeciv uploaded 242 days ago, out of date by 232 days! | freeciv on arm needs to be rebuilt against X4 europa.armlinux.org didn't have the xaw3dg-dev package installed, so I couldn't rebuild. :/ -- Tollef Fog Heen Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.
Re: Packages not making it into testing
Previously Aaron Lehmann wrote: IIRC it also disallows SGID, which breaks some games that only want to write to hi-score files. Guess that will force them to get a clue and write a sgid helper then. Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Re: Packages not making it into testing
+ atari800 uploaded 125 days ago, out of date by 115 days! depends on svgalibg1 on m68k; svgalib isn't supported on anything but i386 (aiui) I've been working on the newest upstream source for this package for several weeks (actual working time is much smaller ;-) and will have something finished in the next several. I'm not sure what the solution is for m68k... Anyway, there isn't much good can be done with an NMU, so folks should just be patient. Waiting is, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_- _- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _- _- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _- _- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_- _-_- _-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_- available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Petr Cech wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:53:15PM +1000 , Anthony Towns wrote: Hello world, + 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 It is for powerpc - the last powerpc binary released from Netscape AFAIK is 4.7... But packaging changes be needed to make it coexist with the the meta packages from 4.77 which is arch:all (I am downloading the 4.7 packages now to see if they work as is on my sid system - the last couple of days I have survived with an alianised rpm from linuxppc or somewhere...) - Jonas -- Jonas Smedegaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jones.dk/~jonas/ IT-guide dr. Jones[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dr.jones.dk/+45 40843136 Debian GNU/Linux[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ GnuPG(1024D/C02440B8): 9A98 C6EB C098 9ED0 3085 ECA9 9FB0 DB32 C024 40B8
Re: Packages not making it into testing
Previously Dale Scheetz wrote: I'm not sure what the solution is for m68k... Simply use an Architecture line that does not include m68k. Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:53:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The following packages haven't been uploaded this year, and also haven't made it into testing for a while. If people could go through and make sure the maintainer knows about the issues, or do NMUs as appropriate, or work out what the problem actually is, or similar, that'd be pretty cool. On a related note, could somebody tell me what keep python 1.5.2-16 out of testing ? update_excuses says: python 1.5.2-16 (currently 1.5.2-10) (standard) (high) - Maintainer: Gregor Hoffleit [EMAIL PROTECTED] - python uploaded 14 days ago, out of date by 12 days! - valid candidate (will be installed unless it's dependent upon other buggy pkgs) Do I have to check all dependencies in all 54 python packages in the pool (10 architectures, 4 arch-dependent packages, 4 arch-independent packages), to see what's the reason that keeps the packages out of testing ? All I can find about python in update_output.txt are things like tried: python (0) 38 a-38 tried: python (0) 42 a-42 If there's a reason that keeps the package out of testing, it would be nice to have that reason explained as well. Is that being worked on ? If nobody else is working on this, could somebody give me a hint where to start working on improving the status output ? Gregor
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:46:55AM -0500, Rahul Jain wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:33:46AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote: + 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 Why does xcdroast need to be setgid? I think it's terrible to have any user able to burn or screw up a burn... why can't they use sudo or su? Doesn't the user have to belong to the relevant group anyway? We already control access to things like floppy drives, sound cards etc through groups, so cd burning is another good example. Why not su/sudo? Well, that would let the user access files they can't normally read. Eg burn other users' home directories on to a CD. Also, X authority stuff is messy to transfer between users. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Apr 25, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: + diablo uploaded 125 days ago, out of date by 115 days! doesn't build on sparc, no bug filed It's an obsolete version which should be removed anyway. -- ciao, Marco
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:57:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:46:55AM -0500, Rahul Jain wrote: Why does xcdroast need to be setgid? I think it's terrible to have any user able to burn or screw up a burn... why can't they use sudo or su? Doesn't the user have to belong to the relevant group anyway? We already control access to things like floppy drives, sound cards etc through groups, so cd burning is another good example. Isn't the xcdroast/cdrecord suid/sgid stuff about grabbing realtime scheduling priority? You can't control this via group ownership. Capabilities on the other hand might help... Regards, Daniel. -- GNU/Linux Audio Mechanics - http://www.glame.de Cutting Edge Office - http://www.c10a02.de GPG Key ID 89BF7E2B - http://www.keyserver.net
Re: Packages not making it into testing
Previously Daniel Kobras wrote: Isn't the xcdroast/cdrecord suid/sgid stuff about grabbing realtime scheduling priority? You can't control this via group ownership. You could start a suid helper that passes you a new capability though. Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:22:36PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: Do I have to check all dependencies in all 54 python packages in the pool (10 architectures, 4 arch-dependent packages, 4 arch-independent packages), to see what's the reason that keeps the packages out of testing ? All I can find about python in update_output.txt are things like tried: python (0) 38 a-38 tried: python (0) 42 a-42 That means I tried adding python, but that ended up breaking some stuff on alpha. If you look somewhat later you'll find the interesting output (which is just as incomprehensible): python: alpha: palm-doctoolkit python-imaging-tk task-python-dev Which means When I tried installing python and said it failed due to something on alpha, the particular packages that became uninstallable are palm-doctoolkit, python-imaging-tk and task-python-dev. If you look at palm-doctoolkit in testing, you'll see it depends on python-base (= 1.5.2-4) and python-zlib (= 1.5.2-4). If you look at the new python-base, you'll see it Conflicts: with python-zlib. There's a new palm-doctoolkit that fixes these dependencies, but doesn't work with the old python-base. (The testing scripts have trouble detecting situations like this automatically) Similarly, the new python-tk (which -imaging-tk depends on) has a versioned conflict with the python-imaging-tk in testing, and the new -imaging-tk has a dependency that's not satisfied by the version of -tk in testing. task-python-dev just depends on -imaging-tk. So this means python can't be updated without also updating palm-doctoolkit and python-imaging, and those can't be updated without updating python. Further some of the binary packages from python-imaging in sid depend on python2, which isn't in testing yet. So they can't go in until python2 does. Python2 at the moment isn't going in because the last upload was only 8 days ago, and looks like it has strict enough dependencies that it won't go in until it's built on m68k. There may be other things involved too, but I suspect not. If there's a reason that keeps the package out of testing, it would be nice to have that reason explained as well. Is that being worked on ? If nobody else is working on this, could somebody give me a hint where to start working on improving the status output ? http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/ says where the code is and so forth. Hacking on the code isn't very straightforward; if you like you can write some sort of filter for the various output that's already there to make it more comprehensible. Arm does this to get a list of out of date packages for arm that don't have RC bugs against them already, eg. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net) pgpxo2Rs8sfJB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 01:07:58AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [...] task-python-dev just depends on -imaging-tk. So this means python can't be updated without also updating palm-doctoolkit and python-imaging, and those can't be updated without updating python. Further some of the binary packages from python-imaging in sid depend on python2, which isn't in testing yet. So they can't go in until python2 does. Python2 at the moment isn't going in because the last upload was only 8 days ago, and looks like it has strict enough dependencies that it won't go in until it's built on m68k. There may be other things involved too, but I suspect not. I see. So that means the python, palm-doctoolkit and python-imaging packages in unstable are somehow 'grouped' together, and since python-imaging also depends on python2, they all depend on python2 being moved into testing ? Hmm, does this mean that although update_excuses.html says '(but m68k isn't keeping up, so ignoring this problem)', the lack of m68k packages will hold back the move of python2 into testing ? Is this because some python-imaging packages depend on python2-tk, and because it would not be available in testing ? Hmm, I'm starting to understand... If there's a reason that keeps the package out of testing, it would be nice to have that reason explained as well. Is that being worked on ? If nobody else is working on this, could somebody give me a hint where to start working on improving the status output ? http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/ says where the code is and so forth. Hacking on the code isn't very straightforward; if you like you can write some sort of filter for the various output that's already there to make it more comprehensible. Arm does this to get a list of out of date packages for arm that don't have RC bugs against them already, eg. I see. Well, after you explained the lines in update_output.txt, I think I see better what's going on. Gregor
Re: Packages not making it into testing
Anthony Towns schrieb: + libvoxel uploaded 357 days ago, out of date by 347 days! has a year old doesn't build bug, 60985 I hacked at it at BSP#3, nothing depends on it, and the bug is _really_ obscure (that's not only me saying this). I asked the maintainer wheter it would be OK to remove it, he said it's fine with him. Do I have to bug ftp.debian.org? + locale-vi uploaded 202 days ago, out of date by 192 days! + locale-zh uploaded 190 days ago, out of date by 188 days! probably should be removed from the archive as of glibc 2.2.x (conflicts with glibc 2.1.94, except on alpha) I thought they where obsolete with newer glibc packages. + sdl-net1.1 uploaded 154 days ago, out of date by 144 days! I uploaded sdl-net1.2 this weekend, packages won't change to 1.2 automatically though (seperate -dev), but there won't be any new releases and there are no bugs on it. Rationale: I won't upload it again. ciao, 2ri -- locate sunny|grep place|xargs cat|paste ~/me sleep 4h
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On 25-Apr-2001 Aaron Lehmann wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:03:41AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: It's not silly, it is an extremely good idea. I'm very pleasantly surprised to hear that they did that. It is basically not possible to write safe suid X programs. IIRC it also disallows SGID, which breaks some games that only want to write to hi-score files. gnomehack, for instance. -- carlos laviola - icq #55799523 $ chown us:us /your_base -R chown: what you say!!
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:53:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
+ locale-vi uploaded 202 days ago, out of date by 192 days!
+ locale-zh uploaded 190 days ago, out of date by 188 days!
probably should be removed from the archive as of glibc 2.2.x
(conflicts with glibc 2.1.94, except on alpha)
Yes, I believe that both can be safely removed from testing/unstable.
:-)
+ task-chinese uploaded 189 days ago, out of date by 179 days!
claims to not be uninstallable on an alpha running testing :-/
can't see why easily though
task-chinese is due for an update soon, as Yu Guanghui and I discussed
briefly a week ago. We'll just need to contact Anthony Wong and get
the updates in. (There are a few new Chinese packages to be added
to task-chinese). As for being uninstallable on Alpha, it may have
something to do with the fact that a few packages that task-chinese-{s,t}
depends on are i386-only. Hmm... we'll see how we fix that... probably by
changing task-chinese's Architecture: field from all to any?
Hmm... more debian/control trickery. We'll see. :-)
Thanks for the update about the problems with these packages. :-)
Cheers,
Anthony
--
Anthony Fok Tung-LingCivil and Environmental Engineering
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]University of Alberta, Canada
Debian GNU/Linux Chinese Project -- http://www.debian.org/intl/zh/
Come visit Our Lady of Victory Camp -- http://www.olvc.ab.ca/
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 12:52:24PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Aaron Lehmann wrote: IIRC it also disallows SGID, which breaks some games that only want to write to hi-score files. Guess that will force them to get a clue and write a sgid helper then. ... and over time we will have a distribution consisting mainly of setgid helper applications ;) cu Torsten pgpNbq9G6tZCg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:46:55AM -0500, Rahul Jain wrote: + 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 Why does xcdroast need to be setgid? I think it's terrible to have any user able to burn or screw up a burn... why can't they use sudo or su? Actually it is using cdrecord anyway to burn the CDs so I don't see the need for a user interface running as root. Am I missing something? Thanks Torsten pgpEXSgeauPJW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Packages not making it into testing
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:57:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Doesn't the user have to belong to the relevant group anyway? We already control access to things like floppy drives, sound cards etc through groups, so cd burning is another good example. -rwxr-sr-x1 root cdrom 498300 Nov 23 04:37 /usr/bin/xcdrgtk* The user does not need to be in group cdrom to use it. This _gives_ any user access to the raw device. Why not su/sudo? Well, that would let the user access files they can't normally read. Eg burn other users' home directories on to a CD. Also, X authority stuff is messy to transfer between users. I don't see how sgid cdrom will help here. Just make it non-sgid, and if they're a member of group cdrom, they can burn a cd, period. X authority is easy, just su, don't su -. -- - -/- - Rahul Jain - -\- - - -\- http://linux.rice.edu/~rahul -=- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -/- - - -/- I never could get the hang of Thursdays. - HHGTTG by DNA -\- - |--||--||-|--|-|-|-| Version 11.423.999.220020101.23.50110101.042 (c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
