Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 21:17:47 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Hi Julien, On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 07:42:13PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: So this is going pretty badly. gmp has a *lot* of reverse dependencies. [ ... ] I'm not sure what to do at this point. I'm working my way through the dependent packages shown at http://release.debian.org/transitions/gmp5.html uploading new versions with the build-dep changed. Most of them shouldn't need any build-dep changes since they're not versioned. So no NMUs necessary for those. If there's a better way to accomplish this, I'm eager to learn it. Well I tried to mention some ways this was suboptimal in my previous mail. Probably too late to do anything about it right now though, other than decide if we want to revert. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318092415.gi12...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
Re: [php-maint] Updates to gmp dependent packages
Funny thing... you also already NMUed botan1.8 without any prior warning. Please exclude php5 from your NMUs, it would only result in unnecessary building, we'll update it when the time is right for us (aka couple either with new upstream or bunch of other fixes). O. On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 03:56, Raphael Geissert geiss...@debian.org wrote: On Thursday 17 March 2011 20:25:29 Steve M. Robbins wrote: Hello, Since uploading the new GMP package a couple weeks ago, I know that some folks have uploaded new packages. Thanks! I expect that many others are preoccupied with other tasks, so I have started going through the list of gmp dependent packages at http://release.debian.org/transitions/gmp5.html and uploading with the build-dep changed from libgmp3-dev -- libgmp-dev. If you receive a notice of an NMU upload, this is why. Huh, so you make an uncoordinated upload and want to start an uncoordinated NMU campaign? Why don't you actually ship the libgmp-dev package instead of using a virtual package? Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org http://blog.rfc1925.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTi=PTcUqZNftf0PQMdc9h1sUyTkVipEZKz=++y...@mail.gmail.com
Release team cronjobs to be disabled for squeeze upgrade
Hi,
As you may already know, tomorrow (Saturday 19th) has been earmarked for
the upgrade to Squeeze of franck, aka {ftp-master,release}.debian.org.
In order to avoid any unexpected surprises during the upgrade I'm planning
on decronning all of the release team's cronjobs (at least those running
as release) either tonight or first thing tomorrow morning.
The 6.0.1 point release is scheduled to begin around 1000UTC tomorrow, so
there wouldn't have been a morning britney run in any case. There may be a
run later in the day, depending on the status of the upgrade.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/34e7f597729f50c8fdd70aa73a2748b0.squir...@adsl.funky-badger.org
Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:24:15 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: Well I tried to mention some ways this was suboptimal in my previous mail. Probably too late to do anything about it right now though, other than decide if we want to revert. OK, I might see another way out. As far as I can tell, the incompatibilities introduced in gmp 5 are the removal of mpn_bdivmod and mpn_neg_n, and the rest of the functions should stay compatible between gmp 4 and gmp 5. If that's not true, please do tell me, as the below is based on that assumption. So it *looks* like having libgmp.so.3 and libgmp.so.10 coexist in an address space should be safe (although it'd probably make sense to have both libraries linked with -Bsymbolic to be extra careful). We can then re-introduce gmp 4.3.2 as a separate source package (e.g. gmp4), building *only* the libgmp3c2 binary package. Then get both libgmp3c2 and libgmp10 in testing for a while, to avoid a massive transition of all reverse deps at once. Then at a later point once everything's rebuilt and transitioned to testing, we can get rid of 4.3.2. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318143045.gm12...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
Bug#618672: marked as done (pu: package debian-reference/2.46)
Your message dated Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:34:01 +0900 with message-id 20110318143401.ga5...@debian.org and subject line Re: Bug#618672: pu: package debian-reference/2.46 has caused the Debian Bug report #618672, regarding pu: package debian-reference/2.46 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 618672: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=618672 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu As reported to debian-release ML with debdiff, I have uploaded debian-reference/2.46 to stable. It is document content only change. http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2011/02/msg00425.html ... http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2011/02/msg00483.html (I was not sure if I needed this after posting to ML. But since it has not been seen squeeze-updates, I am posting as pu) -- System Information: Debian Release: 6.0 APT prefers squeeze-updates APT policy: (500, 'squeeze-updates'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Hi, On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 05:35:40PM -, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Thu, March 17, 2011 14:04, Osamu Aoki wrote: As reported to debian-release ML with debdiff, I have uploaded debian-reference/2.46 to stable. It is document content only change. http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2011/02/msg00425.html ... http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2011/02/msg00483.html and it was part of the announcement of packages which were to be included in the point release. [1] Hmmm... I did not know. Thanks. I was subscribed only to the folowings. debian-annou...@lists.debian.org debian-devel-annou...@lists.debian.org debian-infrastructure-annou...@lists.debian.org Now I am subscribed to the followings too. debian-backports-annou...@lists.debian.org debian-stable-annou...@lists.debian.org ** debian-security-annou...@lists.debian.org (I recovered this again) debian-testing-security-annou...@lists.debian.org (I was not sure if I needed this after posting to ML. But since it has not been seen squeeze-updates, I am posting as pu) I'm confused by the mention of squeeze-updates, as the package was never targetted there so far as I'm aware. I see stable goes to proposed-updates. (I meant for squeeze-updates but now it is the same thing) The package was uploaded targetted at proposed-updates a while ago, was accepted and is simply waiting for the point release at the weekend in order to enter stable. All of that has already happened, and there was indeed no need for this bug unless I have missed something. Thanks. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-stable-announce/2011/03/msg2.html ---End Message---
Bug#618677: pu: package im-config/0.3+squeeze1
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 05:40:33PM -, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Thu, March 17, 2011 14:14, Osamu Aoki wrote: This is stable update which fix #618021 only as shown in debdiff. This bug is a grave bug since GUI environment fails to start after removal ( not purge) of im-config package. (The package in unstable is 0.4 and its has more changes than this.) The window for acceptance in to 6.0.1 closed last weekend in preparation for the point release on Saturday, so this will be processed after the point release has occurred. Regards, Adam Thanks. I understand. I should have spent a bit more time on Friday evening but I was stranded in a Tokyo train station after the big earthquake on Friday afternoon. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318143903.gb5...@debian.org
Processed: block 616702 with 618799
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: block 616702 with 618799 Bug #616702 [release.debian.org] transition: libvigraimpex Was not blocked by any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 616702: 618799 thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 616702: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=616702 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.130046108228160.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#618805: britney2: wrong uninstallable count in some cases? (libebml+libmatroska transition)
Package: release.debian.org User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: britney Filing in the bts so we don't forget... This was from the March 16 morning run. On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:37:57 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:23:35 +, Release Managers wrote: --- HeidiResult_b1 2011-03-16 10:10:09.0 + +++ HeidiResult_b2 2011-03-16 10:23:29.0 + @@ -121224,29 +121224,29 @@ -libebml 1.2.0-2 source libs +libebml 0.7.7-3.1 source libs Looks like we got ourselves yet another b2 bug... b1 does: Trying hint from jcristau: libmatroska/1.1.0-2 libebml/1.2.0-2 leading: libmatroska,libebml start: 113+0: i-7:a-2:a-2:i-2:k-45:k-45:m-3:m-2:p-2:s-2:s-1 orig: 113+0: i-7:a-2:a-2:i-2:k-45:k-45:m-3:m-2:p-2:s-2:s-1 recur: [] libmatroska,libebml 403/0 trying: -boost-jam skipped: -boost-jam (0 - 402) got: 31+0: i-31 * i386: boost-build [...] trying: grass skipped: grass (360 - 42) got: 35+0: i-35 * i386: grass, grass-dev, libgdal1-1.6.0-grass, libqgis-dev, qgis-plugin-grass b2: Trying hint from jcristau: libmatroska/1.1.0-2 libebml/1.2.0-2 leading: libmatroska,libebml start: 113+0: i-7:a-2:a-2:i-2:k-45:k-45:m-3:m-2:p-2:s-2:s-1 orig: 113+0: i-7:a-2:a-2:i-2:k-45:k-45:m-3:m-2:p-2:s-2:s-1 recur: [] libmatroska,libebml 403/0 b2 believes grass, grass-dev, libgdal1-1.6.0-grass, libqgis-dev, qgis-plugin-grass are already uninstallable by that point. trying: -boost-jam skipped: -boost-jam (0 - 402) got: 36+0: i-36 * i386: boost-build [...] trying: grass accepted: grass ori: 113+0: i-7:a-2:a-2:i-2:k-45:k-45:m-3:m-2:p-2:s-2:s-1 pre: 382+0: i-35:a-27:a-26:i-26:k-69:k-69:m-27:m-26:p-26:s-26:s-25 now: 382+0: i-35:a-27:a-26:i-26:k-69:k-69:m-27:m-26:p-26:s-26:s-25 all: libmatroska libebml grass i.e. it seems to have a different (broken?) uninstallable count at the start of the hint already... Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318155348.gp12...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
Bug#617828: gdal 1.7 transition
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 14:42:01 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 00:07:08 +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: Hi I already uploaded the 1.7.3 version of the library in sid. Looks like you also uploaded a SONAME-bumping geos package, which the new mapserver depends on. Please, in the future, coordinate such uploads with us so we can try to avoid wasted time all around. Scheduled binNMUs for osm2pgsql and spatialite. player is still needs-build on mips. I had missed sara from earlier binNMUs, scheduled today and already built on most archs. I expect to push the new gdal through to testing over the week end, removing qgis in the process as that's still unfixed. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318193204.gq12...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
Processed: tagging 618403
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 618403 + pending Bug #618403 [release.debian.org] VTK 5.6 transition Added tag(s) pending. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 618403: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=618403 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.130047811326376.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#617828: gdal 1.7 transition
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 08:32:04PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 14:42:01 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 00:07:08 +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: Hi I already uploaded the 1.7.3 version of the library in sid. Looks like you also uploaded a SONAME-bumping geos package, which the new mapserver depends on. Please, in the future, coordinate such uploads with us so we can try to avoid wasted time all around. Scheduled binNMUs for osm2pgsql and spatialite. player is still needs-build on mips. I had missed sara from earlier binNMUs, scheduled today and already built on most archs. I expect to push the new gdal through to testing over the week end, removing qgis in the process as that's still unfixed. Thanks, qgis needs an upgrade to a recent upstream version anyway. -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318200956.ga2...@frankie.is-a-geek.org
Bug#617828: gdal 1.7 transition
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 20:32:04 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: I had missed sara from earlier binNMUs, scheduled today and already saga... Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318201531.gr12...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
Re: Openssl 1.0.0
Hi, I'm still waiting for a reply to my questions. If I don't hear from you I will upload it to unstable a week from now. Kurt On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 03:07:47PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: Hi, I'm still waiting for a reply. Kurt On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:27:51AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: Hi, I would like to upload version 1.0.0(d) to unstable soon. It changes soname, but as far as I know the API is still compatible with the old one, and you should be able to rebuild everything against the new version. I wonder if I need to upload an openssl098 source package at the same time to provide the current soname. I would really like to avoid having the old soname in wheezy, so I would like to get rid of it as soon as possible and don't plan to keep a -dev package for it in any case. Please let me know what I should do, and when you think it's a good time to do that. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110212232751.gb9...@roeckx.be -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110306140747.ga17...@roeckx.be -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318202211.ga2...@roeckx.be
Re: Openssl 1.0.0
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 00:27:51 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: Hi, I would like to upload version 1.0.0(d) to unstable soon. It changes soname, but as far as I know the API is still compatible with the old one, and you should be able to rebuild everything against the new version. I wonder if I need to upload an openssl098 source package at the same time to provide the current soname. I would really like to avoid having the old soname in wheezy, so I would like to get rid of it as soon as possible and don't plan to keep a -dev package for it in any case. We should keep both SONAMES in sid and wheezy for now, IMO. So I think that means first upload openssl 1.0.0 as a new source package without the -dev (this can probably happen now). Then when that's in testing and you get an ack, switch the -dev from 0.9.8 to 1.0.0. Please let me know what I should do, and when you think it's a good time to do that. We'll let you know. Thanks for your patience. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318203023.gs12...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
Re: Openssl 1.0.0
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:30:23PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: We should keep both SONAMES in sid and wheezy for now, IMO. So I think that means first upload openssl 1.0.0 as a new source package without the -dev (this can probably happen now). Then when that's in testing and you get an ack, switch the -dev from 0.9.8 to 1.0.0. If all you want to do is to have both libssl0.9.8 and libssl1.0.0 both in testing at the same time, I don't see why you want to do it like that. I could just upload a openssl098 source package just containing libssl0.9.8(-dbg), and have the openssl source package provide libssl1.0.0 and libssl-dev. It shouldn't take that long for the openssl098 pacakge to migrate to testing. I could also upload an openssl098 source package that provides the libssl0.9.8(-dbg) and libssl-dev binary package. And I would upload an openssl source package that provides libssl1.0.0(-dbg), openssl, and libcrypto1.0.0-udeb, so without -dev package. And once openssl098 is migrated to testing I could change the -dev package. But it seems to be more work, and I don't see the what that would gain us. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110318223217.ga3...@roeckx.be
Re: Release team cronjobs to be disabled for squeeze upgrade
On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 13:56 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
As you may already know, tomorrow (Saturday 19th) has been earmarked for
the upgrade to Squeeze of franck, aka {ftp-master,release}.debian.org.
In order to avoid any unexpected surprises during the upgrade I'm planning
on decronning all of the release team's cronjobs (at least those running
as release) either tonight or first thing tomorrow morning.
That'll teach me not to check first. Apparently the upgrade may be
later in the day, so we should be able to leave most things enabled for
longer; in any case, I'm not disabling things this evening, other
than...
The 6.0.1 point release is scheduled to begin around 1000UTC tomorrow, so
there wouldn't have been a morning britney run in any case. There may be a
run later in the day, depending on the status of the upgrade.
britney, as this is still the case.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/1300488311.15823.789.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#616590: nmu: php5_5.3.5-1
Hi Stefan, Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (15/03/2011): that doesn't appear to be sufficient. Even with that version available, I'm getting auto-give-backs. shall I expect a fix on the build-dep side at some point? Or shall I just mark php5 as failed? I keep on getting those give-back mails and I'm not sure what to do with it… KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:24:15AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 21:17:47 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: I'm working my way through the dependent packages shown at http://release.debian.org/transitions/gmp5.html uploading new versions with the build-dep changed. Most of them shouldn't need any build-dep changes since they're not versioned. So no NMUs necessary for those. The -dev package has changed from libgmp3-dev to libgmp10-dev, which also provides libgmp-dev. (Raphael Geissert has requested that I flip this around and have libgmp-dev be the real package, which seems like a reasonable request.) So I'm changing the build-deps to libgmp-dev. Regards, -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
Dear GMP Developers, Is the following characterization of the changes between 4.3.2 and 5.0.1 accurate? On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 03:30:45PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: As far as I can tell, the incompatibilities introduced in gmp 5 are the removal of mpn_bdivmod and mpn_neg_n, and the rest of the functions should stay compatible between gmp 4 and gmp 5. Thanks, -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [php-maint] Updates to gmp dependent packages
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 08:56:10PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: Why don't you actually ship the libgmp-dev package instead of using a virtual package? I have no issue with doing that. -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SE Linux policy update
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 23:21 +1100, Russell Coker wrote: The user friendly change list is that this makes USB flash storage devices usable by default on the desktop, Iceweasel works correctly, upowerd is run correctly in the devicekit_power_t domain, KDE mysqld access works, fetchmail works as a daemon, Xen starts DomUs on boot, and NetworkManager and similar programs (such as wicd) give more functionality. These are all serious updates that can be considered as a truly critical functionality problem for some users. Truly critical for some users is a fairly large set of issues, particularly for small values of some. Have all of your proposed changes been tested on Squeeze systems to ensure that they operate correctly in that environment and don't introduce any regressions? They have all been tested on multiple systems. Also many of the changes are related to things that didn't work at all previously so there was little scope for regression. I've attached a full diff between the version in Squeeze and my proposed update. Please let me know what else I have to do to get this included. refpolicy (2:0.2.20100524-8) unstable; urgency=low For stable that will want to be -7+squeeze1 (or I suppose -8~squeeze1 if you want and all of the fixes get acked). OK. * Add tunable user_manage_dos_files which defaults to true What's the current behaviour? All users can manage such files, or none can? None. * Correctly label /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/xulrunner-stub * Allow mozilla to create directories under /tmp * Use correct label for /usr/lib/libgconf2-4/gconfd-2 and load gnome.pp on installation if libgconf2-4 is installed * Use correct label for /usr/lib/upower/upowerd * Dontaudit bind_t write attempts to / for lwresd calling access(., W_OK) Don't audit Stops filling the logs when the daemon is just asking whether the directory is writable. * Allow user domains to execute mysqld_exec_t, for KDE * Allow user_dbusd_t to execute gconfd_exec_t in user_gconfd_t. That's this change? + + optional_policy(` + gnome_role($2, $1_dbusd_t) + ') ') Apologies if I'm missing something, but that doesn't appear to be gconfd-specific at all. Below is the definition of gnome_role, when it is called the first parameter $1 equals the second parameter $2 from the above optional_policy and $2 is the $1_dbusd_t. So it substitutes to domain_auto_trans($1_dbusd_t, gconfd_exec_t, gconfd_t). That matches the description in the changelog. interface(`gnome_role',` gen_require(` type gconfd_t, gconfd_exec_t; type gconf_tmp_t; ') role $1 types gconfd_t; 7+squeeze1 allow gconfd_t $2:fd use; allow gconfd_t $2:fifo_file write; allow gconfd_t $2:unix_stream_socket connectto; ps_process_pattern($2, gconfd_t) #gnome_stream_connect_gconf_template($1, $2) read_files_pattern($2, gconf_tmp_t, gconf_tmp_t) allow $2 gconfd_t:unix_stream_socket connectto; ') diff -ru /tmp/t/refpolicy//policy/modules/kernel/files.fc ./policy/modules/kernel/files.fc --- /tmp/t/refpolicy//policy/modules/kernel/files.fc2011-03-11 23:19:40.372420590 +1100 +++ ./policy/modules/kernel/files.fc 2011-02-10 13:04:15.583492220 +1100 @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ # # Mount points; do not relabel subdirectories, since # we don't want to change any removable media by default. -/media(/[^/]*) -l gen_context(system_u:object_r:mnt_t,s0) +/media/[^/]* -l gen_context(system_u:object_r:mnt_t,s0) Is this part of one of the items mentioned in the changelog? If so, which one? My possibly naive assumption was that the above is a no-op change. You are correct, I've removed that now. diff -ru /tmp/t/refpolicy//policy/modules/services/mysql.te ./policy/modules/services/mysql.te --- /tmp/t/refpolicy//policy/modules/services/mysql.te 2011-03-11 23:19:40.360430274 +1100 +++ ./policy/modules/services/mysql.te 2011-02-09 10:18:33.395481018 +1100 @@ -242,3 +242,4 @@ miscfiles_read_localization(mysqlmanagerd_t) userdom_getattr_user_home_dirs(mysqlmanagerd_t) + Was there supposed to be a change included there, other than the presumably spuriously added newline? Again you are correct, I've removed that too. Now what's the procedure for uploading it? Do I just replace unstable with stable in the changelog, use the version number you requested, and then upload it? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Bloghttp://doc.coker.com.au/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201103191458.29020.russ...@coker.com.au
Re: SE Linux policy update
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Russell Coker russ...@coker.com.au wrote: Below is the definition of gnome_role, when it is called the first parameter $1 equals the second parameter $2 from the above optional_policy and $2 is the $1_dbusd_t. So it substitutes to domain_auto_trans($1_dbusd_t, gconfd_exec_t, gconfd_t). That matches the description in the changelog. interface(`gnome_role',` gen_require(` type gconfd_t, gconfd_exec_t; type gconf_tmp_t; ') role $1 types gconfd_t; domain_auto_trans($1_dbusd_t, gconfd_exec_t, gconfd_t) allow gconfd_t $2:fd use; allow gconfd_t $2:fifo_file write; allow gconfd_t $2:unix_stream_socket connectto; ps_process_pattern($2, gconfd_t) #gnome_stream_connect_gconf_template($1, $2) read_files_pattern($2, gconf_tmp_t, gconf_tmp_t) allow $2 gconfd_t:unix_stream_socket connectto; ') Sorry, in my previous message I somehow managed to paste the version number over the top of the domain_auto_trans in the above. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Bloghttp://doc.coker.com.au/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201103191536.23722.russ...@coker.com.au
