Re: how to compare versions
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 21:01:12 -0700 Wesley J. Landaker w...@icecavern.net wrote: It adds additional strong restrictions on the order in which packages must be upgraded. Too many such restrictions and there might not be a way to upgrade at all. Somewhere before that you (via apt/aptitutde/...) get the effect that you have to temporarily remove packages to upgrade. The less restrictions there are on the order the easier it is to upgrade. This is true in general, although it's perhaps worth noting that a rare pre- depends on a priority required package like debconf by a priority optional or extra package isn't likely to cause any trouble. Yes, it is true in general but I want to know the example for that :) For example, if I have foobar package and it says Pre-Depends: debconf, what would happen? BTW, I would rename tomoyo-ccstools to tomoyo-ccstools1.7 and not provide upgrade path for that. If I just would upgrade this pacakge, it'll break system that it works with security policies for 1.6.x, so I should leave it and provide README.Debian for upgrade to 1.7. -- Regards, Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/iijmio-mail.jp http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: tacacs+
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 06:30:26PM +0100, Tourneur Henry-Nicolas wrote: I just did so and normally, I should have fixed all of the lintian Errors and Warnings. Could somebody review my package again ? Thanks everybody for taking time to help me. I was wondering why you have put the binaries into /usr/bin and not /usr/sbin. Both are not programs standard users run. tac_plus is the TACACS+ daemon and has a man page in section 8 tac_pwd is used by system administrators to make DES passwords to put into the configuration file. Again it has a section 8 man pages. To me this sort of stuff belongs in /usr/sbin. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Experimental release for IPv6 patched package?
Dear mentors, I have taken to addressing the lack of IPv6-support for tftpd from netkit-tftp-0.17 (see #536509). As far as I can tell it seems to work on my machine, including format 3.0-quilt. Would I be correct in guessing that the experimental release should be the first entry point for alterations like the Debian IPv6 goal? I am asking out of principle, since I will try to find the official maintainer before I take any actions. -- Mats Erik Andersson, fil. dr mats.anders...@gisladisker.se Abbonerar på: debian-mentors, debian-devel-games, debian-perl signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: ampache (updated package)
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 3.5.4-1 of my package ampache. uploaded, thanks. -- Andreas Henriksson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Experimental release for IPv6 patched package?
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Mats Erik Andersson wrote: Dear mentors, I have taken to addressing the lack of IPv6-support for tftpd from netkit-tftp-0.17 (see #536509). As far as I can tell it seems to work on my machine, including format 3.0-quilt. Would I be correct in guessing that the experimental release should be the first entry point for alterations like the Debian IPv6 goal? I am asking out of principle, since I will try to find the official maintainer before I take any actions. I don't see why you'd use experimental rather than unstable. I'd suggest setting the release to unstable rather than experimental. Doubly true since IPv6 is a release goal. Others, feel free to say why I'm wrong. Naturally, if this isn't your package, talk to the maintainer. But you already said you would do that. (-: -- Asheesh. -- Anyone who imagines that all fruits ripen at the same time as the strawberries, knows nothing about grapes. -- Philippus Paracelsus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: how to compare versions
On Feb 05 2010, Hideki Yamane wrote:
BTW, I would rename tomoyo-ccstools to tomoyo-ccstools1.7 and not
provide upgrade path for that. If I just would upgrade this pacakge,
it'll break system that it works with security policies for 1.6.x, so
I should leave it and provide README.Debian for upgrade to 1.7.
That seems to be the most sensible solution, since it can allow the
co-installation of both solutions. Is it meaninful to have both of them
installed side-by-side, with the user being able to choose whether one
or the other should be used?
Regards, Rogério Brito.
--
Rogério Brito : rbr...@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: how to compare versions
On Friday 05 February 2010 04:43:05 Hideki Yamane wrote: This is true in general, although it's perhaps worth noting that a rare pre- depends on a priority required package like debconf by a priority optional or extra package isn't likely to cause any trouble. Yes, it is true in general but I want to know the example for that :) For example, if I have foobar package and it says Pre-Depends: debconf, what would happen? Short answer: nothing, it would work fine in practice. Long answer: Debconf would be required to be fully unpacked and configured before foobar could even be unpacked. But, since debconf is priority required, and is already depended on by so many other packages that it's infeasible that it won't already be completely installed, the pre-depends would be a no-op. In the rare case that debconf wasn't already installed, it would simply be unpacked and configured first, which might slow down the resolver (and hence installation) but otherwise would be no problem. However, it is possible that you can dream up a bizarre corner case where you are pre-depending on a specific version, your doing a big dist-upgrade, the foobar package has a pre-depends and so do a bunch of other packages that are intertwined in foobar's dependency graph, and the whole thing explodes in a big unresolvable mess. The last paragraph is incredibly unlikely for just foobar pre-depending on debconf that's you'd have to come up with some silly scenerio to show it breaking, but if pre-depends were used all over the place on lots of packages, that kind of scenerio could happen really quickly, which is why they are generally to be avoided. I think the general idea is: 1) Don't use pre-depends. 2) No, really, don't use pre-depends. 2) Don't use pre-depends unless it's the best technical solution. =) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: gnurobbo (updated package)
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 21:36:55 +0100, Christoph Egger christ...@debian.org wrote: On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:11:57AM +0100, Stephen Kitt wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.65.6+dfsg-1 of my package gnurobbo. Uploaded, looks fine. Thanks! Stephen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: how to compare versions
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:00:47 -0200 Rogério Brito rbr...@ime.usp.br wrote: BTW, I would rename tomoyo-ccstools to tomoyo-ccstools1.7 and not provide upgrade path for that. If I just would upgrade this pacakge, it'll break system that it works with security policies for 1.6.x, so I should leave it and provide README.Debian for upgrade to 1.7. That seems to be the most sensible solution, since it can allow the co-installation of both solutions. Is it meaninful to have both of them installed side-by-side, with the user being able to choose whether one or the other should be used? Surely tomoyo-ccstools1.7 conflicts with tomoyo-ccstool. -- Regards, Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/iijmio-mail.jp http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane
RFS: ceph
Hello, I am looking for a sponsor for ceph. Ceph is a distributed object store and file system designed for scalability, reliability, and performance. The kernel module for mounting the file system is planned for inclusion in 2.6.34. * Package name: ceph Version : 0.18-1 (*) Upstream Author : Sage Weil s...@newdream.net * URL : http://ceph.newdream.net * License : LGPL-2 Section : admin and libdevel The following binary packages are built: ceph: distributed storage and file system ceph-dbg: debugging symbols for ceph ceph-fuse: FUSE-based client for the Ceph distributed file system ceph-fuse-dbg: debugging symbols for ceph-fuse libcrush1: CRUSH placement algorithm libcrush1-dbg: debugging symbols for libcrush1 libcrush1-dev: CRUSH mapping algorithm (development files) librados1: RADOS distributed object store client library librados1-dbg: debugging symbols for librados1 librados1-dev: RADOS distributed object store client library (development files) libceph1: Ceph distributed file system client library libceph1-dbg: debugging symbols for libceph1 libceph1-dev: Ceph distributed file system client library (development files) radosgw: REST gateway for RADOS distributed object store radosgw-dbg: debugging symbols for radosgw The packages are lintian clean. The upload would fix the LTP bug 506040. The package can be found at: - URL: http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/dists/unstable/main/ - Binary repository: deb http://ceph.newdream.net/debian unstable main - Source repository: deb-src http://ceph.newdream.net/debian unstable main Thanks, sage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: ceph
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Sage Weil wrote: Hello, I am looking for a sponsor for ceph. Ceph is a distributed object store and file system designed for scalability, reliability, and performance. The kernel module for mounting the file system is planned for inclusion in 2.6.34. Hi! That's one awesome package. I'm very busy of late, but I hope you're looking into DebianMaintainer status -- have you read http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer ? It'd be perfect for your situation as you're the upstream as well. It's most helpful for this list if you post a link to a .dsc file you want us to review. -- Asheesh. -- Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
