Re: Accepted vmelilo-installer 1.8.1 (m68k source)

[Colin Watson]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:48:09AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:46:38AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:13:51PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Approved for sarge.
> > 
> > Thanks :-)
> 
> Hmm, seems it's not going right. update_excuses says
> 
> "Unblock request by cjwatson ignored due to version mismatch: 1.8"

Yeah, that was actually from before I approved it (there was an old
unblock hint lying around). I've fixed that for tomorrow's britney run.

-- 
Colin Watson   [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Accepted vmelilo-installer 1.8.1 (m68k source)

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:13:51PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> Approved for sarge.

Thanks :-)

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Accepted vmelilo-installer 1.8.1 (m68k source)

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:46:38AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:13:51PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Approved for sarge.
> 
> Thanks :-)

Hmm, seems it's not going right. update_excuses says

"Unblock request by cjwatson ignored due to version mismatch: 1.8"

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

proftpd: the final issue

[Francesco Paolo Lovergine]

TJ aka castaglia, finally fixed the bug in 

http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2622
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=308313

Currently (1.2.10-13) the only workaround for that is disabling 
the mod_delay module. This of course potentially impacts prevention of
the timing attack that module solves. 

http://security.lss.hr/index.php?page=details&ID=LSS-2004-10-02

I'm inclined to consider
that bug a RC (security) one, so if you RMs would allow the incoming 
fixed -14 release entering sarge before release, that would be 
great and allow me (poor maintainer) to sleep as a child in the 
next years...

-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Please accept blosxom

[Gerfried Fuchs]

Hi!

 Please accept the blosxom update. See the interdiff of the .diff.gz
files and the debdiff of the .deb files attached. It contains only
japanese debconf translation update.

 If you like you can bump the urgency, though it's not too bad if it
wouldn't flow in, the message is only displayed for upgrades in older
packages from sarge, there was no version in woody anyway.

 So long,
Alfie
-- 
To err is human,
To purr feline.
-- Robert Byrne
File lists identical (after any substitutions)

The following lines in the control files differ (wdiff output format):
--
Version: [-2.0-12-] {+2.0-13+}
diff -u blosxom-2.0/debian/po/ja.po blosxom-2.0/debian/po/ja.po
--- blosxom-2.0/debian/po/ja.po
+++ blosxom-2.0/debian/po/ja.po
@@ -14,10 +14,10 @@
 #
 msgid ""
 msgstr ""
-"Project-Id-Version: blosxom 2.0-8\n"
+"Project-Id-Version: blosxom 2.0-12\n"
 "Report-Msgid-Bugs-To: \n"
 "POT-Creation-Date: 2005-03-22 09:58+0100\n"
-"PO-Revision-Date: 2004-09-01 00:53+0900\n"
+"PO-Revision-Date: 2005-05-29 00:53+0900\n"
 "Last-Translator: Hideki Yamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>\n"
 "Language-Team: Japanese \n"
 "MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
@@ -51,14 +51,14 @@
 "Going forward, this will not be necessary as the configuration in the file /"
 "etc/blosxom/blosxom.conf is preserved during upgrades."
 msgstr ""
-"¤µ¤é¤Ë¡¢ÀßÄê¤Ï¥¢¥Ã¥×¥°¥ì¡¼¥É¤Î´Ö¤Ë /etc/blosxom/blosxom.conf ¥Õ¥¡¥¤¥ë¤ËÊݸ¤µ"
-"¤ì¤ë¤Î¤Ç¡¢¤³¤ì¤ÏɬÍפˤϤʤé¤Ê¤¤¤Ç¤·¤ç¤¦¡£"
+"ÉÕ¤±²Ã¤¨¤ë¤È¡¢ÀßÄê¤Ï¥¢¥Ã¥×¥°¥ì¡¼¥É¤Î´Ö¤Ë /etc/blosxom/blosxom.conf ¥Õ¥¡¥¤¥ë¤Ë"
+"Êݸ¤µ¤ì¤ë¤Î¤Ç¡¢¤³¤ì¤ÏɬÍפˤϤʤé¤Ê¤¤¤È»×¤ï¤ì¤Þ¤¹¡£"
 
 #. Type: note
 #. Description
 #: ../templates:15
 msgid "This update of blosxom will most propably break your setup"
-msgstr ""
+msgstr "blosxom ¤Îº£²ó¤Î¹¹¿·¤Ï¡¢¤ª¤½¤é¤¯¤Û¤È¤ó¤É¤ÎÀßÄê¤ò²õ¤·¤Þ¤¹¡£"
 
 #. Type: note
 #. Description
@@ -69,6 +69,11 @@
 "fixed in this package, unfortunately it wasn't possible to support a clean "
 "upgrade path for it.  That means you have to move the files yourself:"
 msgstr ""
+"¤³¤Î¥Ñ¥Ã¥±¡¼¥¸¤Î°ÊÁ°¤Î¥Ð¡¼¥¸¥ç¥ó¤Ï¡¢ËÜÅö¤ËÎɤ¯¤Ê¤¤¾õÂ֤ʥե¡¥¤¥ëÀßÄê¤Î¥µ¥Ý¡¼"
+"¥È¤ò¹Ô¤Ã¤Æ¤¤¤Þ¤·¤¿¡£¤³¤Î¥Ñ¥Ã¥±¡¼¥¸¤ò¥ê¥ê¡¼¥¹¤Ë´Ö¤Ë¹ç¤ï¤»¤ë¤¿¤á¤Ë½¤Àµ¤µ¤ì¤Þ¤·"
+"¤¿¤¬¡¢ÉÔ¹¬¤Ê¤³¤È¤ËÌäÂ꤬Á´¤¯Ìµ¤¤¤è¤¦¤Ê¥¢¥Ã¥×¥°¥ì¡¼¥ÉÊýË¡¤ò¥µ¥Ý¡¼¥È¤¹¤ë¤³¤È¤Ï"
+"¤Ç¤­¤Þ¤»¤ó¤Ç¤·¤¿¡£¤³¤ì¤Ï¡¢¥Õ¥¡¥¤¥ë¤ò¼«Ê¬¤Ç°ÜÆ°¤¹¤ëɬÍפ¬¤¢¤ë¤³¤È¤ò°ÕÌ£¤·¤Æ¤¤"
+"¤Þ¤¹:"
 
 #. Type: note
 #. Description
@@ -84,6 +89,12 @@
+"datadir ¤Ï /var/lib/blosxom/data ¤Ë¤Ê¤ê (°ÊÁ°¤Ï /var/www/blosxom)¡¢"
+"plugin_dir ¤Ï /etc/blosxom/plugins ¤Ë¤Ê¤ê¤Þ¤·¤¿ (°ÊÁ°¤Ï /var/lib/blosxom)¡£Å¬"
+"Àڤ˥ǡ¼¥¿¤ò°ÜÆ°¤·¤Æ¤¯¤À¤µ¤¤¡£°ÊÁ°¤Ë¥¤¥ó¥¹¥È¡¼¥ë¤µ¤ì¤¿ plugins ¤È flavours ¤Ï"
+"¥Ç¡¼¥¿¤Î»¼º¤òÈò¤±¤ë¤¿¤á¤Ë /root/blosxom.XX ¥Ç¥£¥ì¥¯¥È¥ê¤ËÊݸ¤µ¤ì¤Þ¤¹¡£"
+"¤½¤³¤Ë¤¢¤ëƱ¤¸¤è¤¦¤Ê̾Á°¤Î¤â¤Î¤È¤Î¾×ÆͤòÈò¤±¤ë¤¿¤á¡¢XX ¤Ï¥é¥ó¥À¥à¤Êʸ»úÎó"
+"¤¬Æþ¤ê¤Þ¤¹¡£"
 
 #. Type: note
 #. Description
 #: ../templates:15
 msgid "Sorry for the inconvenience."
-msgstr ""
+msgstr "¤ª¼ê´Ö¤ò¼è¤é¤»¤Æ¿½¤·Ìõ¤¢¤ê¤Þ¤»¤ó¡£"
diff -u blosxom-2.0/debian/changelog blosxom-2.0/debian/changelog
--- blosxom-2.0/debian/changelog
+++ blosxom-2.0/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+blosxom (2.0-13) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+  * The "last minute flight to sarge" release
+  alfie:
+  * Updated ja debconf translation from Hideki Yamane (closes: #311173)
+
+ -- Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Tue, 31 May 2005 14:49:17 +0200
+
 blosxom (2.0-12) unstable; urgency=high
 
   * The "... and some other parts" release


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Please approve from t-p-u: Accepted bittorrent 3.4.2-3sarge0.1 (all source)

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:07:35AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>   Please accept bittorrent 3.4.2-3sarge0.1 into sarge, which fixes the
>   issue I brought up yesterday in #debian-release: alternatives don't
>   get deregistered upon removal, and that affects the instalation of
>   other packages.

Approved.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Please, accept mozilla-firefox-locale-all 1.0.4lang20050515-1 for Sarge

[Christian Perrier]

> Now some facts that might downgrade the severity of the bug:
> 
> - There is an easy work-around: run update-mozilla-firefox-chrome by hand 
> after installing and after removing the package.
> 
> - 99% of people will install mozilla-firefox-theme-rtlclassic together with 
> mozilla-firefox-locale-he-il (or mozilla-firefox-locale-ar). In this case, 
> the -he-il or -ar packages will execute update-firefox-theme-rtlclassic, so 
> the problem will not be present on installation.
>  However, on removal the theme is removed after the -he-il package, so the 
> problem is still there.


Actually, I think that the lack of postinst scripts makes the issue an
"important" bug. Gien the nature of Firefox (very end-user oriented
software), its target probably includes a lot of low-skilled end/home
users for who just running "update-mozilla-firefox-chrome" is just out
of scopeand who will just think the package doesn't work.

So, if the change is only adding the scripts (and the two new
languages), I would vote for this release to go in sarge.




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Failure to upgrade mdadm when using udev is RC bug, I think...

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:55:22PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I believe a failure to upgrade while udev is installed is serious.

> Please lower again (and sorry for bothering the busy release team then)
> if I  am for some reason mistaken.

I agree that this is an RC bug, and I've just uploaded an NMU that includes
your patch.  The full diff for this NMU is attached.

-release, please approve mdadm 1.9.0-4.1 for sarge (and, when you're
comfortable with it, bump the urgency, since it won't make it in before
Friday otherwise).

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
diff -u mdadm-1.9.0/debian/changelog mdadm-1.9.0/debian/changelog
--- mdadm-1.9.0/debian/changelog
+++ mdadm-1.9.0/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,14 @@
+mdadm (1.9.0-4.1) unstable; urgency=high
+
+  * Non-maintainer upload.
+  * High-urgency upload for sarge-targetted RC bugfix
+  * Make sure error output from MAKEDEV is sent to stderr, to avoid
+interfering with debconf; this avoids installation problems on
+udev-using systems.  Thanks to Jonas Smedegaard for the patch.
+Closes: #299623.
+
+ -- Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Wed,  1 Jun 2005 03:36:42 -0700
+
 mdadm (1.9.0-4) unstable; urgency=high
 
   * High-urgency upload for sarge targeted RC bugfix.
diff -u mdadm-1.9.0/debian/mdadm.postinst mdadm-1.9.0/debian/mdadm.postinst
--- mdadm-1.9.0/debian/mdadm.postinst
+++ mdadm-1.9.0/debian/mdadm.postinst
@@ -4,9 +4,9 @@
 
 set -e
 
-if [ ! -e /dev/.devfsd ] && [ ! -e /dev/md0 ] ; then
+if [ ! -e /dev/md0 ] ; then
 cd /dev
-/sbin/MAKEDEV md
+/sbin/MAKEDEV md 1>&2
 fi
 
 if [ "$1" = "configure" ]; then


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Please approve pdns 2.9.17-13

[Jeroen van Wolffelaar]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 03:43:59PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> Please approve pdns 2.9.17-13 to Sarge.
> 
> A serious bug regarding the handling of user changes in the
> configuration files (ucf) has been fixed. Please approve the new version
> for Sarge (that has just been uploaded).
> 
> Changelog:
> 
> * Fixed serious policy violation. (Closes: #310782, #310742)

It's not really descriptive to note that a serious bug was fixed,
rather, please do note in changelogs briefly what bug you actually fixed
(in this case, something like "Fixed modifying of conffile /etc/foo/baz
by maintainer scripts [by making it an ucf-managed configuration file]")

This very changelog entry does not stand on itself and requires one to
look up the bug reports to find what the actual change was -- unlike the
intention of a *change*-log.

Thank you for fixing those RC bugs!
--Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Please, accept mozilla-firefox-locale-all 1.0.4lang20050515-1 for Sarge

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:05:36PM +0300, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
> El Martes 31 Mayo 2005 16:50, Steve Langasek escribió:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 01:50:43PM +0300, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
> > > I know that the release team is very overloaded, so I'm sorry about
> > > making a second call to accept this package in Sarge, but I want to be
> > > sure that you don't forget about it.

> > > The version in Sid fixes a RC bug (the version in sarge lacks of postinst
> > > and postrm for the binary package mozilla-firefox-theme-rtlclassic). It
> > > is not in the BTS because nobody reported it and the new version was
> > > uploaded as soon as I realized about it.

> > This makes it very difficult to evaluate *why* this bug is RC, because your
> > changelog only says that the maintainer scripts were missing without
> > explaining why the package is broken without them.  Please explain.

> Sorry about that. I explain now:

> postint and postrm just call the script update-mozilla-firefox-chrome.

> This script updates the Firefox chrome, which is a kind of database about 
> installed themes extensions (including translations).

> Therefore, on installation postint makes Firefox to be aware of the new theme 
> (otherwise will be invisible for Firefox).

> On removal, postrm makes Firefox to realize that the theme is not installed 
> anymore (otherwise, firefox thinks that it is still there, and if you have 
> this theme active, then firefox will start in an totally unusable way: there 
> will be no theme, so only some text from the menus will be displayed, in a 
> totally messy way, and there will be no buttons, etc)

Ok -- approved.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:15:37PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:42:36PM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote:
> > Package: lpr-ppd
> > Severity: grave
> > Justification: causes non-serious data loss
> > 
> > Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng should be a breeze, I read somewhere. But
> > after the change, I was left with no /etc/printcap and a dead link to
> > that location from /etc/lprng/printcap. Clearly, there is an upgrade
> > path missing, even if lprng???s config format may be slightly different.

> /etc/printcap is a "conffile" of lpr-ppd ; if
> lpr-ppd is removed, /etc/printcap will still be there ;
> but if you purge  lpr-ppd  , dpkg will delete /etc/printcap ,
> since it is not a conffile of lprng

> I see no easy way to solve this problem, since lpr-ppd was
> removed from Debian some time ago

> 1) one way would be to have a dummy lpr-ppd package that depends
>  on lprng, and that does not have /etc/printcap as a conffile

>  I dont know if the debian-release time would approve its
>  inclusion in Debian/Sarge , though

>  Moreover this would *force* people that are using lpr-ppd 
>  to switch to lprng, and this is not what I want: I cannot
>  guarantee that the switch would be 100% painless and transparent

> 2) another solution would be to change lprng so that /etc/printcap
>  is a conffile ( I am not sure if this would work, though)

> any suggestions?

I don't see any reason to worry about it; I think it was a bug for lpr-ppd
to ship /etc/printcap as a conffile, but it's a historical bug that I don't
think we should be trying to fix now.  The simple answer is "well, don't
purge packages without looking at the conffile list!".

It would definitely be wrong for lprng to declare /etc/printcap as a
conffile; there are many packages that use /etc/printcap, with no common
package they can depend on which could own this conffile, and /etc/printcap
also doesn't fit policy's description of what a conffile should be.  (If
you're installing a printer daemon, you almost certainly want to print,
which means customizing the printcap...)

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database

[A Mennucc]

hi

I am sending this mail to many recipients since I need help

 -

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:42:36PM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote:
> Package: lpr-ppd
> Severity: grave
> Justification: causes non-serious data loss
> 
> Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng should be a breeze, I read somewhere. But
> after the change, I was left with no /etc/printcap and a dead link to
> that location from /etc/lprng/printcap. Clearly, there is an upgrade
> path missing, even if lprng???s config format may be slightly different.


/etc/printcap is a "conffile" of lpr-ppd ; if
lpr-ppd is removed, /etc/printcap will still be there ;
but if you purge  lpr-ppd  , dpkg will delete /etc/printcap ,
since it is not a conffile of lprng

I see no easy way to solve this problem, since lpr-ppd was
removed from Debian some time ago

1) one way would be to have a dummy lpr-ppd package that depends
 on lprng, and that does not have /etc/printcap as a conffile

 I dont know if the debian-release time would approve its
 inclusion in Debian/Sarge , though

 Moreover this would *force* people that are using lpr-ppd 
 to switch to lprng, and this is not what I want: I cannot
 guarantee that the switch would be 100% painless and transparent

2) another solution would be to change lprng so that /etc/printcap
 is a conffile ( I am not sure if this would work, though)

any suggestions?

a.

-- 
Andrea Mennucc
 "Ukn ow,Ifina llyfixe dmysp acebar.ohwh atthef"


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Failure to upgrade mdadm when using udev is RC bug, I think...

[frans . pop]

(Sending this from work, so sorry for breaking thread and I have now idea
how formatting will turn out...)

-if [ ! -e /dev/.devfsd ] && [ ! -e /dev/md0 ] ; then
+if [ ! -e /dev/md0 ] ; then

I wonder if this change is correct for a udev fix.

IIRC "-e /dev/.devfsd" checks for _devfsd_, not udev.
IIRC udev has a /dev/.udev and a /dev/.static (or similar, can't check
now).

Cheers,
Frans



* DISCLAIMER *
De informatie in dit e-mail bericht is uitsluitend
bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Verstrekking aan
en gebruik door anderen is niet toegestaan.
Door de electronische verzending van het bericht
kunnen er geen rechten worden ontleend aan de
informatie.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database

[A Mennucc]

maybe this problem may be mentioned in the Sarge release notes ?

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:46:14AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:15:37PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote:

> > any suggestions?
> 
> I don't see any reason to worry about it; I think it was a bug for lpr-ppd
> to ship /etc/printcap as a conffile, but it's a historical bug that I don't
> think we should be trying to fix now.  The simple answer is "well, don't
> purge packages without looking at the conffile list!".
> 
> It would definitely be wrong for lprng to declare /etc/printcap as a
> conffile; there are many packages that use /etc/printcap, with no common
> package they can depend on which could own this conffile, and /etc/printcap
> also doesn't fit policy's description of what a conffile should be.  (If
> you're installing a printer daemon, you almost certainly want to print,
> which means customizing the printcap...)
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer



-- 
Andrea Mennucc
 "Ukn ow,Ifina llyfixe dmysp acebar.ohwh atthef"


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:20:09PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote:
> maybe this problem may be mentioned in the Sarge release notes ?

Please contact debian-doc@lists.debian.org about adding it to the release
notes if you think it should be mentioned.

IMHO, it seems like a minor issue; I don't think the release notes should be
a substitute for documentation that explains the Debian packaging system to
users, and too much detail in the release notes just reduces the number of
users who will read it.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:46:14AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:15:37PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote:
> 
> > > any suggestions?
> > 
> > I don't see any reason to worry about it; I think it was a bug for lpr-ppd
> > to ship /etc/printcap as a conffile, but it's a historical bug that I don't
> > think we should be trying to fix now.  The simple answer is "well, don't
> > purge packages without looking at the conffile list!".
> > 
> > It would definitely be wrong for lprng to declare /etc/printcap as a
> > conffile; there are many packages that use /etc/printcap, with no common
> > package they can depend on which could own this conffile, and /etc/printcap
> > also doesn't fit policy's description of what a conffile should be.  (If
> > you're installing a printer daemon, you almost certainly want to print,
> > which means customizing the printcap...)
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > -- 
> > Steve Langasek
> > postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database

[Andreas Barth]

* A Mennucc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050601 13:38]:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:42:36PM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote:
> > Package: lpr-ppd
> > Severity: grave
> > Justification: causes non-serious data loss
> > 
> > Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng should be a breeze, I read somewhere. But
> > after the change, I was left with no /etc/printcap and a dead link to
> > that location from /etc/lprng/printcap. Clearly, there is an upgrade
> > path missing, even if lprng???s config format may be slightly different.
> 
> 
> /etc/printcap is a "conffile" of lpr-ppd ; if
> lpr-ppd is removed, /etc/printcap will still be there ;
> but if you purge  lpr-ppd  , dpkg will delete /etc/printcap ,
> since it is not a conffile of lprng
> 
> I see no easy way to solve this problem, since lpr-ppd was
> removed from Debian some time ago
> 
> 1) one way would be to have a dummy lpr-ppd package that depends
>  on lprng, and that does not have /etc/printcap as a conffile

If you drop the conffile, it won't be deleted. So, e.g. adding an
updated lpr-ppd in the next point release would work - just, that there
won't be another woody point release :(

Also, just an empty dummy package w/o marking that file as conffile (and
w/o shipping it at all) works.


Cheers,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Please approve Gedit 2.8.3-4

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:07:52PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
>  Gedit 2.8.3-4 is being uploaded to sid and is available at:
> 
> (I made sure it's buildable under Sarge.)

>  I attach the interdiff with the previous package.

>  I'd like the release team to consider hinting it for Sarge because the
>  current Gedit misses some crucial files: gedit plugins and the bonobo
>  server, meaning that you can't embed gedit in anything nor reuse gedit
>  windows for instance.  This bug has slipped in a couple of versions
>  ago with major changes, and a report today proved to be caused by this.

Diff looks ok, I've approved it, but this is likely going to miss sarge by a
day due to the timing.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Please approve asterisk-spandsp-plugins 0.0.20050203-4

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:10:37PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
>  I have uploaded a new version of asterisk-spandsp-plugins to t-p-u,
> fixing a wrong build-dependency in Sarge version of spandsp.

Approved.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

thuyas mais WindowsXPro and Office eq 80dolrs

[Collects U. Smolders]

coucous frissonneras devant destination.

www.kr6h512qodk9z32.stagedcn.com
:-)
nuiront sur mais altesse, pour. jerez tigrée saoulassent les branles cela les 
apuraient devant désherbassiez.
sur resservant devant détachés sous contente cuivrèrent le vers monnayions 
battante pour trameras.
mais rapatrieront vers sur régionalisme sous balaiera gemment corvidés 
surégorgeriez abîmées cartes-lettres.
rengagiez rechangeai sans capuchons

boutent cuverons, typologiques
cela immuniserait.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:19:33PM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 04:46 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> > The simple answer is "well, don't
> > purge packages without looking at the conffile list!".

> Are you serious? You want the users to always look at the conffile list,
> just in case the package has declared the wrong file at its conffile?
> And you don’t even consider this an issue?

Why were you purging the package instead of removing it?  If you don't even
know what files are marked as conffiles by the package, why did it need to
be purged anyway?

As I said, this is a bug in a historical package, not a current one.  It's
certainly a bug, but for me, working around historical breakage is of a
lower priority than, say, guarding against breakage of current packages.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#299623: Failure to upgrade mdadm when using udev is RC bug, I think...

[martin f krafft]

also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.01.1317 +0200]:
> -if [ ! -e /dev/.devfsd ] && [ ! -e /dev/md0 ] ; then
> +if [ ! -e /dev/md0 ] ; then
> 
> I wonder if this change is correct for a udev fix.

I do not have the mental capacity after this day to judge it, but
vorlon took care of it, and I do trust his judgement. From a cursory
look, it seems that the only downside of the fix is a stray error
message for devfs users.

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 
 .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :'  :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
 
#define emacs eighty megabytes and constantly swapping.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database

[Michael Piefel]

Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 04:46 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> The simple answer is "well, don't
> purge packages without looking at the conffile list!".

Are you serious? You want the users to always look at the conffile list,
just in case the package has declared the wrong file at its conffile?
And you don’t even consider this an issue?

I do. I lost a printcap. Of course, using unstable, I expect things to
break and I have restored the file already. But I still consider this a
bug. A dummy package would be the nice way. Perhaps even depending on
lpr-ng; users do not have to update, they can put lpr-ppd on hold.

Bye,
   Mike

-- 
|=| Michael Piefel
|=| Member of the Debian project

gnupg-doc 2003.04.06-4 to fix #310763

[James Troup]

Hi,

I've uploaded gnupg-doc 2003.04.06-4 to unstable to fix #310763 (FTBFS
RC).  The changelog is:

  * gph/db2any: search for 'TeX' anywhere in the output of 'jadetex -v',
not just the beginning of the line as jadetex recently started talking
about the version 'e-TeX' rather than 'TeX'.  Thanks to Kurt Roeckx
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for the report.  Closes: #310763

  * debian/rules (binary-indep): install '*.htm' as well as '*.html' when
installing files for the GNU Privacy Handbook as jadetex defaults to
that now.  Create 'index.html' -> 'book1.htm' convenience symlinks to
compensate.

Please consider it for sarge.

-- 
James


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

gnome-system-monitor 2.8.1-2 for sarge?

[Sebastien Bacher]

Hi,

I've just uploaded gnome-system-monitor 2.8.1-2. The previous version of
the package includes some scrollkeeper generated files and should not,
this package fixes the issue.

The interdiff is attached to this mail if you want to consider the
change for sarge.


Cheers,

Sebastien Bacher
diff -u gnome-system-monitor-2.8.1/debian/control gnome-system-monitor-2.8.1/debian/control
--- gnome-system-monitor-2.8.1/debian/control
+++ gnome-system-monitor-2.8.1/debian/control
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 Section: gnome
 Priority: optional
 Maintainer: Sebastien Bacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-Uploaders: Debian GNOME Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Akira TAGOH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrew Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Carlos Perelló Marín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edd Dumbill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Emil Soleyman-Zomalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Johannes Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jordi Mallach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, OndÅ?ej SurÃœ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Bradford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert McQueen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ross Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Takuo KITAME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+Uploaders: Debian GNOME Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Akira TAGOH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrew Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Carlos Perelló Marín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ed Boraas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edd Dumbill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Emil Soleyman-Zomalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Johannes Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jordi Mallach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, OndÅ?ej SurÃœ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Bradford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert McQueen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ross Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sjoerd Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Takuo KITAME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Build-Depends: cdbs (>= 0.4.0), debhelper (>> 4.0.0), docbook-to-man, libgconf2-dev (>= 2.6.0), libwnck-dev (>= 2.6.1-3), libxml2-dev, libgnome2-dev (>= 2.6.1-2), libgnomeui-dev (>= 2.6.1.1-2), libgtop2-dev (>= 2.6.0-4), gettext, scrollkeeper, gnome-pkg-tools, libxml-parser-perl
 Standards-Version: 3.6.1.0
 
diff -u gnome-system-monitor-2.8.1/debian/changelog gnome-system-monitor-2.8.1/debian/changelog
--- gnome-system-monitor-2.8.1/debian/changelog
+++ gnome-system-monitor-2.8.1/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+gnome-system-monitor (2.8.1-2) unstable; urgency=low
+
+  * debian/rules:
+- don't install scrollkeeper files.
+
+ -- Sebastien Bacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Wed,  1 Jun 2005 15:55:56 +0200
+
 gnome-system-monitor (2.8.1-1) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * GNOME team upload.
diff -u gnome-system-monitor-2.8.1/debian/rules gnome-system-monitor-2.8.1/debian/rules
--- gnome-system-monitor-2.8.1/debian/rules
+++ gnome-system-monitor-2.8.1/debian/rules
@@ -14,6 +14,9 @@
 build/gnome-system-monitor::
 	/usr/bin/docbook-to-man debian/gnome-system-monitor.sgml > debian/gnome-system-monitor.1
 
+binary-post-install/gnome-system-monitor::
+	rm -rf debian/gnome-system-monitor/var
+
 clean::
 	-rm -f debian/gnome-system-monitor.1
 	-rm -f intltool-{update,merge,extract} po/.intltool-merge-cache

Re: [Pkg-nagios-devel] Bug#311526: nagios-common: purging package removed configuration files from another package

[sean finney]

tags 311526 confirmed sarge sid
thanks

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 05:06:24PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> Package: nagios-common
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
> 
> From nagios-common's postrm:
> 
> | rm -Rf {/var/cache,/var/run,/var/log,/etc}/nagios
> 
> Removing /etc/nagios is a _bad_ idea, especially when you still have
> other nagios related packages like nagios-nrpe-server installed.

yeah, this is definitely a bad idea.  i think this particular line
predates our management of the package, which is probably how it
slipped under our radar.  

i'm cc'ing debian-release on this one... coming up with a fix for this
shouldn't be too complicated or take too long and i can probably get it
done very late this evening (EDT).  is this too late for sarge?  if so,
i'll put the update in for the first sarge update.


sean

-- 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Package without a versioned dependency on libmad0/libid3tag0

[Kurt Roeckx]

Hi,

Because of #310311, some packages do not have a version
dependency on libmad0 and/or libid3tag0 which could break partial
upgrading.

missing libmad0 in sarge this seems to be:
kdelibs4
kwifimanager
libsds0
libsomaplayer0
somaplayer

In unstable:
graveman
kdelibs4
kwifimanager
libsds0
libsomaplayer0
libswfdec0.3
somaplayer
swf-player

The following packages also don't have a version dependency on
libid3tag0:
sarge:
libsds0
libsomaplayer0
somaplayer

unstable:
graveman
libsds0
libsomaplayer0
somaplayer


Should I file bugs against the relevant packages?  (somaplayer is
already filed, the rest probably not.)

Source packages affected in sarge:
somaplayer (somaplayer, libsomaplayer0, libsds0)
kdelibs (kdelibs4)
kdenetwork (kwifimanager)


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Tagging with 'patch'

[Recai Oktas]

tag 307103 + patch
thanks

Hi,

Thank you very much for your feedback.  Since we have a working patch
for this bug, I'm tagging it.  CCing to -release as they may want to
consider a fixed 'clara' for Sarge.  I've prepared an NMUed package for
their convenience:

http://l10n-turkish.alioth.debian.org/debian/clara_20031214-1.1_i386.deb

Regards,

-- 
roktas


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

please bump urgency for autossh

[Filippo Giunchedi]

[shame on me, I should have uploaded with urgency=high]
Hi -release,
please bump urgency for autossh 1.2g-3, it was uploaded 24/5 and it won't go in
by friday :(

filippo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Release Notes - Proposed last minute changes

[Eduard Bloch]

#include 
* Frans Pop [Tue, May 31 2005, 07:05:42PM]:
> I propose to make the following last changes to the release notes.
> 
> The first change (in [a]) is in reaction to [1].
> The second change (in [b]) is in reaction to upgrade reports #309548 [2]
> and #310490 [3].
> The third change (in [c]) improves the description of udev somewhat.

There is also a time bomb for people that installed Sarge/Testing in the
last months. apt-setup has created sources.list lines with "testing"
distribution in them. I imagine that now few people will will run into
this trap and get Etch in few weeks though they definitely wanted to run
Sarge (and installed Sarge from "official pre-release SARGE!! CDs").

Regards,
Eduard.
-- 
The Great Maker has gifted us with great big eyes, and great big
scanners, and great big ah ... well that is no concern of yours.
(Londo Mollari, Babylon 5)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

flow-tools bashism

[Radu Spineanu]

Hello

Would a fix for #311568 still be accepted for sarge ?


Radu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Please allow drupal 4.5.3-1

[Hilko Bengen]

Just a few hours ago, the Drupal project has released version 4.5.3, a
bugfix release which fixes a serious security bug. I have created and
just uploaded a 4.5.3-1 package to unstable. Updated Debconf
translations are the only additional changes over 4.5.2-3 which is
the version in sarge.

The corresponding advisory from upstream can be found here:
http://drupal.org/files/sa-2005-001/advisory.txt.

Cheers,
-Hilko


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Package without a versioned dependency on libmad0/libid3tag0

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 08:40:12PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Because of #310311, some packages do not have a version
> dependency on libmad0 and/or libid3tag0 which could break partial
> upgrading.

> missing libmad0 in sarge this seems to be:
> kdelibs4
> kwifimanager
> libsds0
> libsomaplayer0
> somaplayer

Since all the other packages which depend on both kdelibs4 and libmad0 do
have a versioned dependency, this is unlikely to be a problem in practice;
I'm willing to live with this for release rather than pushing back the
schedule (which would seem to be inevitable if we made this RC).

I currently have somaplayer hinted out of testing because of the filed bug,
anyway, as it's a new package that was only just let back into testing
during the freeze.

> Should I file bugs against the relevant packages?  (somaplayer is
> already filed, the rest probably not.)

Yes, I think so.  Please tag the KDE bugs sarge-ignore, and the ones for
unstable sid, when you do so.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: please bump urgency for autossh

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:34:12AM +0200, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> [shame on me, I should have uploaded with urgency=high]
> Hi -release,
> please bump urgency for autossh 1.2g-3, it was uploaded 24/5 and it won't go 
> in
> by friday :(

Done.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: gnupg-doc 2003.04.06-4 to fix #310763

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:58:51PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> I've uploaded gnupg-doc 2003.04.06-4 to unstable to fix #310763 (FTBFS
> RC).  The changelog is:

>   * gph/db2any: search for 'TeX' anywhere in the output of 'jadetex -v',
> not just the beginning of the line as jadetex recently started talking
> about the version 'e-TeX' rather than 'TeX'.  Thanks to Kurt Roeckx
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for the report.  Closes: #310763

>   * debian/rules (binary-indep): install '*.htm' as well as '*.html' when
> installing files for the GNU Privacy Handbook as jadetex defaults to
> that now.  Create 'index.html' -> 'book1.htm' convenience symlinks to
> compensate.

> Please consider it for sarge.

Accepted.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: flow-tools bashism

[Colin Watson]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:43:19AM +0300, Radu Spineanu wrote:
> Would a fix for #311568 still be accepted for sarge ?

At this point, I don't think a bashism is sufficiently important; sorry.
You can and should upload a fix to unstable anyway.

By the way, I think the portable solution is not IFS='\n', but:

IFS='
'

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson   [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database

[Craig Small]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:15:37PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote:
> /etc/printcap is a "conffile" of lpr-ppd ; if
> lpr-ppd is removed, /etc/printcap will still be there ;
> but if you purge  lpr-ppd  , dpkg will delete /etc/printcap ,
> since it is not a conffile of lprng

lprng used to have /etc/printcap but for very good reasons I can no
longer remember (perhaps that conffiles need to be only for a single
package) it no longer has a printcap.

  - Craig
-- 
Craig Small  GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE  95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5
Eye-Net Consulting http://www.enc.com.au/   MIEE Debian developer
csmall at : enc.com.au  ieee.org   debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#311526: [Pkg-nagios-devel] Bug#311526: nagios-common: purging package removed configuration files from another package

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:19:26PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> tags 311526 confirmed sarge sid
> thanks

> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 05:06:24PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > Package: nagios-common
> > Severity: grave
> > Justification: renders package unusable
> > 
> > From nagios-common's postrm:
> > 
> > | rm -Rf {/var/cache,/var/run,/var/log,/etc}/nagios
> > 
> > Removing /etc/nagios is a _bad_ idea, especially when you still have
> > other nagios related packages like nagios-nrpe-server installed.

> yeah, this is definitely a bad idea.  i think this particular line
> predates our management of the package, which is probably how it
> slipped under our radar.  

> i'm cc'ing debian-release on this one... coming up with a fix for this
> shouldn't be too complicated or take too long and i can probably get it
> done very late this evening (EDT).  is this too late for sarge?  if so,
> i'll put the update in for the first sarge update.

I would very much like to see this fixed for sarge, but it seems to now be
quie late in the evening EDT.  Is this something that still has a chance of
being uploaded before tomorrow's dinstall?

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature