Bug#990693: RFS: fonts-gemunu-libre/1.100+ds-1 -- new interpretation to FM Gamunu font
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "fonts-gemunu-libre": * Package name: fonts-gemunu-libre Version : 1.100+ds-1 Upstream Author : mooniak Pvt. Ltd * URL : http://mooniak.com/gemunu-libre-font/tests/ * License : OFL-1.1 * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-gemunu-libre Section : fonts It builds those binary packages: fonts-gemunu-libre - new interpretation to FM Gamunu font To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/fonts-gemunu-libre/ Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fonts-gemunu-libre/fonts-gemunu-libre_1.100+ds-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: fonts-gemunu-libre (1.100+ds-1) experimental; urgency=medium . * New upstream version. * d/copyright: updated years, added Files-Exluded and Upstream-Contact. * d/upstream/metadata: added. * d/control: added Rules-Requires-Root. * Bump debhelper version to 13, drop d/compat. * d/rules: build from glyphs file. * d/install: update source. * d/watch: added filemangle for repacking. Regards, -- Gürkan Myczko
Re: Missing Hardening Flags (freefem++)
Hi Andrey, > Anyway, some (I guess all) of those libs are compiled with ff-c++ > which > just doesn't pass LDFLAGS from the environment. Indeed! Patching ff-c++ removed almost all hardening lintian warnings. I'll track the remaining ones. > Unrelated to this, the package uses -mmmx -avx, is this an RC bug or > is > all code compiled with those flags only enabled at the run time on > CPUs > supporting them? As stated in #924009, the --enable-generic configure option should fix it. I'll check before releasing the new package. Thanks a lot for your help! Best Regards, François signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#981702: RFS: privacybadger/2021.2.2-1 -- browser extension automatically learns to block invisible trackers
On Wed, 2021-06-09 at 17:07 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote: > > * Friendly takeover back into the WebExt team. > > I can't find any documentation about that have been ACKed by the > current maintainer. (CCing Jonas so that he can response/confirm, to > put it on record that this is not an hijack…) I've attached a digitally signed message from him asserting it's okay. I've applied for an unblock request with the release team to see about uploading it to unstable. Re:_Privacy_Badger_WebExtension_package.mbox Description: application/mbox signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Missing Hardening Flags (freefem++)
On Sun, Jul 04, 2021 at 10:42:06PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > Unrelated to this, the package uses -mmmx -avx, is this an RC bug or is > all code compiled with those flags only enabled at the run time on CPUs > supporting them? I see this is already filed as #924009. I'll fix the severity. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Missing Hardening Flags (freefem++)
On Sun, Jul 04, 2021 at 01:28:05PM +0200, François Mazen wrote: > > Can you publish the build log or at least make the repo buildable? > > Unless I'm mistaken, the repo is buildable. See salsa CI [1] and > associated build-log [2]. Not sure how does that work, as gbp requires the upstream/4.9+dfsg.1 tag which is not pushed. Anyway, some (I guess all) of those libs are compiled with ff-c++ which just doesn't pass LDFLAGS from the environment. The sid version was at least compiled with -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed, because as, I presume, a workaround for that ff-c++ problem these flags were passed in $CC (which of course is not *that* sane) in debian/patches/gmm_cxxflags.patch, which is deleted in this version. Though even for the sid version blhc still reports lots of missing flags. Unrelated to this, the package uses -mmmx -avx, is this an RC bug or is all code compiled with those flags only enabled at the run time on CPUs supporting them? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Missing Hardening Flags (freefem++)
Hello Andrey, > Can you publish the build log or at least make the repo buildable? Unless I'm mistaken, the repo is buildable. See salsa CI [1] and associated build-log [2]. I hope this help to point me in the right direction. Thanks, François [1] https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/freefempp/-/pipelines/264090 [2] https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/freefempp/-/jobs/1721112/raw signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Missing Hardening Flags (freefem++)
On Sat, Jul 03, 2021 at 09:59:30PM +0200, François Mazen wrote: > Dear Mentors, > > I'm updating the freefem++ package to 4.9 release [1] and I get > hardening-no-bindnow lintian warnings on several binary outputs [2]. > > Of course the appropriate variable is set in debian/rules (export > DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS = hardening=+all), see [3]. According to [4] it > means that some flags like CPPFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS are overridden > somewhere in the configuration. > > I can't find where these flags are overridden. Could you please help? Can you publish the build log or at least make the repo buildable? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
