Re: reason for removal of zeroc-ice on armhf and arm64.
Greetings. I'd like to know the status of mumble-server on armhf and arm64 and whether it can be restored for those architectures, because mumble server is commonly run on that hardware and is one one of the base expected programs for the FreedomBox project which has a number of hardware targets for armhf and arm64. https://freedombox.org/ If there's a way I can help let me know, and please keep me in the loop if feasible. Thanks -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us (maintainer of mumble in Debian) Adrian Bunk: On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:56:40AM +, Peter Green wrote: I recently became aware that mumble's build-dependencies were no longer satisfiable on armhf due to a missing zeroc-ice. I looked at the build logs for zeroc-ice and all were green. So I looked at the removal log and found the following. [Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2023 17:56:51 -] [ftpmaster: Scott Kitterman] Removed the following packages from unstable: libzeroc-ice-dev | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf libzeroc-ice3.7 | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf libzeroc-icestorm3.7 | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf mumble-server |1.3.4-4 | arm64, armhf php-zeroc-ice | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf python3-zeroc-ice | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf zeroc-glacier2 | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf zeroc-ice-compilers | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf zeroc-ice-utils | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf zeroc-icebox | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf zeroc-icebridge | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf zeroc-icegrid | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf zeroc-icepatch2 | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf Closed bugs: 1031160 --- Reason --- RoQA; openjfx no longer builds on arm64 and armhf, build-depends not available This strikes me as strange in a couple of ways. 1. The only relationships of zeroc-ice to openjfx are in build-depends-indep and in the binary dependencies of an arch all package. Afaict it is perfectly normal for build-depends-indep and the binary dependencies of arch all packages to only be satisfiable on a subset of the architectures where 2. Only one of the two binaries from the mumble source package was removed. Was this removal just a mistake? or was there a reason behind it that I am not seeing? As requestor of #1031160 I would say this was a mistake, perhaps due to https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/openjfx Issues preventing migration: ∙ ∙ removing openjfx/11.0.11+0-1.1/arm64 from testing makes beast2-mcmc/2.7.3+dfsg-1/arm64 uninstallable ∙ ∙ removing openjfx/11.0.11+0-1.1/arm64 from testing makes josm/0.0.svn18646+dfsg-1/arm64 uninstallable ∙ ∙ removing openjfx/11.0.11+0-1.1/arm64 from testing makes pdfsam/4.3.4-1/arm64 uninstallable This will require a hint from the release team I have not yet requested, since installability of binary-all packages is tested on amd64 and arm64 but there is no requirement that a binary-all package is installable on arm64 and several are not.[1] cu Adrian [1] https://release.debian.org/britney/testing_uninst.txt
Bug#1031325: e2fsprogs 1.47.0 introduces a breaking change into Bookworm, breaking grub and making installations of Ubuntu and Debian releases via debootstrap impossible
Dear Ted, On 16-02-2023 23:24, Theodore Ts'o wrote: But, if the Debian Release team would like to override my position, my suggestion would be to just change the default for /etc/mke2fs.conf for *everyone* running Debian bookworm, and with the understanding that this will be reverted in Debian testing after the next stable release, and that moving forward, we make it the image building tools problem if they want to support this highly dubious practice of using Debian N+X's mkfs to build images for Debian N. The Release Team discussed this topic in their IRC meeting of this evening. I would like to affirm your position as a maintainer of e2fsprogs to make this kind of changes in your package and that's up to image builders to cope with that. However, because of the *timing* of the change we ask you to revert the change of the default settings for bookworm and please enable them once trixie opens. For future default changes, consider planning them before the transition freeze. Thanks Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1031756: marked as done (unblock: imagemagick/8:6.9.11.60+dfsg-1.6)
Your message dated Wed, 22 Feb 2023 20:38:17 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#1031756: unblock: imagemagick/8:6.9.11.60+dfsg-1.6 has caused the Debian Bug report #1031756, regarding unblock: imagemagick/8:6.9.11.60+dfsg-1.6 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.) -- 1031756: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1031756 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: release.debian.org Control: affects -1 + src:imagemagick X-Debbugs-Cc: imagemag...@packages.debian.org User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Severity: normal Please unblock package imagemagick [ Reason ] The only change in this update is including the patch from stable-security See https://www.debian.org/security/2023/dsa-5347 and https://bugs.debian.org/1030767 [ Impact ] [ Tests ] The autopkgtests have passed successfully. This package would have migrated by now if not for the Soft Freeze. [ Risks ] [ Checklist ] [X] all changes are documented in the d/changelog [X] I reviewed all changes and I approve them [X] attach debdiff against the package in testing [ Other info ] unblock imagemagick/8:6.9.11.60+dfsg-1.6 Thank you, Jeremy Bicha imagemagick-unblock-20230221.debdiff Description: Binary data --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On 2023-02-21 21:40:05 -0500, Jeremy Bícha wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Control: affects -1 + src:imagemagick > X-Debbugs-Cc: imagemag...@packages.debian.org > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: unblock > Severity: normal > > Please unblock package imagemagick > > [ Reason ] > The only change in this update is including the patch from stable-security > See https://www.debian.org/security/2023/dsa-5347 and > https://bugs.debian.org/1030767 > > [ Impact ] > > [ Tests ] > The autopkgtests have passed successfully. This package would have > migrated by now if not for the Soft Freeze. > > [ Risks ] > > [ Checklist ] > [X] all changes are documented in the d/changelog > [X] I reviewed all changes and I approve them > [X] attach debdiff against the package in testing > > [ Other info ] > > unblock imagemagick/8:6.9.11.60+dfsg-1.6 Thanks, hint added. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher--- End Message ---
Bug#1028472: marked as done (bullseye-pu: package publicsuffix/20221208.1942-0+deb11u1)
Your message dated Wed, 22 Feb 2023 13:54:19 -0500 with message-id <87pma1il9g@fifthhorseman.net> and subject line Re: Bug#1028472: bullseye-pu: package publicsuffix/20221208.1942-0+deb11u1 has caused the Debian Bug report #1028472, regarding bullseye-pu: package publicsuffix/20221208.1942-0+deb11u1 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.) -- 1028472: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1028472 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: bullseye User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu X-Debbugs-Cc: d...@fifthhorseman.net Control: affects -1 src:publicsuffix Please consider an update to publicsuffix in debian bullseye. This package reflects the state of the network, and keeping it current is useful for all the packages that depend on it. The debdiff from the previous version in bullseye is attached. This proposed release is also available at the "publicsuffix_debian/20221208.1942-0+deb11u1" tag on the "debian/bullseye" branch at the git repo for publicsuffix packaging: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/publicsuffix Please followup on this ticket to confirm whether I should upload this revision to bullseye. publicsuffix_20220811.1734-0+deb11u1_20221208.1942-0+deb11u1.debdiff.gz Description: application/gzip --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Sun 2023-02-19 19:45:58 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Wed, 2023-01-11 at 11:07 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> Please consider an update to publicsuffix in debian bullseye. >> >> This package reflects the state of the network, and keeping it >> current >> is useful for all the packages that depend on it. >> >> The debdiff from the previous version in bullseye is attached. >> >> This proposed release is also available at the >> "publicsuffix_debian/20221208.1942-0+deb11u1" tag on the > > It looks like there was a 20230209 update in the meantime - is it worth > rebasing this update on that? Yes, that's probably a good idea. i've opened https://bugs.debian.org/1031788 instead with the updated publicsuffix data. --dkg signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Bug#1028472: bullseye-pu: package publicsuffix/20221208.1942-0+deb11u1
On Sun 2023-02-19 19:45:58 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Wed, 2023-01-11 at 11:07 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> Please consider an update to publicsuffix in debian bullseye. >> >> This package reflects the state of the network, and keeping it >> current >> is useful for all the packages that depend on it. >> >> The debdiff from the previous version in bullseye is attached. >> >> This proposed release is also available at the >> "publicsuffix_debian/20221208.1942-0+deb11u1" tag on the > > It looks like there was a 20230209 update in the meantime - is it worth > rebasing this update on that? Yes, that's probably a good idea. i've opened https://bugs.debian.org/1031788 instead with the updated publicsuffix data. --dkg signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Processed: tagging 1031212
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 1031212 - moreinfo Bug #1031212 [release.debian.org] unblock: util-linux/2.38.1-5 Removed tag(s) moreinfo. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1031212: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1031212 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: bullseye-pu: package publicsuffix/20230209.2326-0+deb11u1
Processing control commands: > affects -1 src:publicsuffix Bug #1031788 [release.debian.org] bullseye-pu: package publicsuffix/20230209.2326-0+deb11u1 Added indication that 1031788 affects src:publicsuffix -- 1031788: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1031788 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1031788: bullseye-pu: package publicsuffix/20230209.2326-0+deb11u1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: bullseye User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu X-Debbugs-Cc: d...@fifthhorseman.net Control: affects -1 src:publicsuffix Please consider an update to publicsuffix in debian bullseye. This package reflects the state of the network, and keeping it current is useful for all the packages that depend on it. The debdiff from the previous version in bullseye is attached. This proposed release is also available at the "publicsuffix_debian/20230209.2326-0+deb11u1" tag on the "debian/bullseye" branch at the git repo for publicsuffix packaging: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/publicsuffix Please followup on this ticket to confirm whether I should upload this revision to bullseye. publicsuffix_20220811.1734-0+deb11u1_20230209.2326-0+deb11u1.debdiff.gz Description: application/gzip
Bug#1031783: bullseye-pu: package command-not-found/20.10.1-1+deb11u1
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: bullseye
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
X-Debbugs-Cc: command-not-fo...@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:command-not-found
[ Reason ]
Bug #1029803: command-not-found in bullseye doesn't know the
non-free-firmware component and will fail during the $(apt update) run
after changing the APT sources lists.
[ Impact ]
Without the fix users have to figure out how to unstuck apt, probably
by uninstalling command-not-found.
[ Tests ]
I have manually upgraded several clean VM's while confirming the
problem and confirming the solution.
The autopkgtest of command-not-found is broken in bullseye, I have
cherry-picked the fix from the unstable branch.
[ Risks ]
The fix is trivial, I consider the risk low.
[ Checklist ]
[x] *all* changes are documented in the d/changelog
[x] I reviewed all changes and I approve them
[x] attach debdiff against the package in (old)stable
[x] the issue is verified as fixed in unstable
[ Changes ]
I added non-free-firmware to the list of known components. I
cherry-picked the fix for the autopkgtest.
I don't expect the fix to be controversial and have uploaded it to
bullseye.
[ Other ]
The maintainer approved the fix.
Paul
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index da6aa89..15f7177 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+command-not-found (20.10.1-1+deb11u1) bullseye; urgency=medium
+
+ * creator.py: add new non-free-firmware component (Closes: #1029803)
+ * debian/tests: Add adduser dependency, fix test to not assume vim-tiny
+matches for vim. (from bookworm branch)
+
+ -- Paul Gevers Wed, 22 Feb 2023 16:09:19 +0100
+
command-not-found (20.10.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium
* Trim trailing whitespace.
diff --git
a/debian/patches/0001-creator.py-add-new-non-free-firmware-component.patch
b/debian/patches/0001-creator.py-add-new-non-free-firmware-component.patch
new file mode 100644
index 000..ad4b3d8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/debian/patches/0001-creator.py-add-new-non-free-firmware-component.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+From 95e94853f4abff33f576e58ebeab795f6cb1a62e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Paul Gevers
+Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2023 21:45:07 +0100
+Subject: [PATCH] creator.py: add new non-free-firmware component
+
+Closes: #1029803
+---
+ CommandNotFound/db/creator.py | 1 +
+ 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
+
+diff --git a/CommandNotFound/db/creator.py b/CommandNotFound/db/creator.py
+index 75d01f1..8f6ef70 100755
+--- a/CommandNotFound/db/creator.py
b/CommandNotFound/db/creator.py
+@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ component_priorities = {
+ 'universe': 100,
+ 'contrib': 80,
+ 'restricted': 60,
++'non-free-firmware': 50,
+ 'non-free': 40,
+ 'multiverse': 20,
+ }
+--
+2.39.1
+
diff --git a/debian/patches/series b/debian/patches/series
index 28cdfac..a459c03 100644
--- a/debian/patches/series
+++ b/debian/patches/series
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
bts.diff
0003-cnf-update-db-Add-support-for-Contents-files.patch
+0001-creator.py-add-new-non-free-firmware-component.patch
diff --git a/debian/tests/control b/debian/tests/control
index 4062764..956933f 100644
--- a/debian/tests/control
+++ b/debian/tests/control
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
Tests: smoke
Restrictions: needs-root
-Depends: command-not-found
+Depends: command-not-found, adduser
diff --git a/debian/tests/smoke b/debian/tests/smoke
index 4f0e5ae..7236ab2 100755
--- a/debian/tests/smoke
+++ b/debian/tests/smoke
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ apt-get update
echo "Ensure we have results from c-n-f"
/usr/lib/command-not-found --ignore-installed vim 2>&1 | grep vim
-/usr/lib/command-not-found --ignore-installed vim 2>&1 | grep vim-tiny
+/usr/lib/command-not-found --ignore-installed vim 2>&1 | grep "command '.*'
from deb "
echo "Add testuser"
Processed: bullseye-pu: package command-not-found/20.10.1-1+deb11u1
Processing control commands: > affects -1 + src:command-not-found Bug #1031783 [release.debian.org] bullseye-pu: package command-not-found/20.10.1-1+deb11u1 Added indication that 1031783 affects src:command-not-found -- 1031783: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1031783 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Re: Bug#1031695: dh_installsystemd doesn't handle files in /usr/lib/systemd/system
On 2023-02-21 15:43:08 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > Hi Niels > > On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 10:47:09 +0100 Niels Thykier wrote: > > > Sorry for being terse, I should be working on something else right now > > but prioritized a short message over nothing. > > > > Duplicate of #995569. > > Sorry, missed that... > > My concerns from back then still applies and I > > will not implement this feature until they are resolved. For the record, > > I do not feel the tech-ctte's resolution back then answered my question. > > > > Additionally, we are in the bookworm freeze where toolchains are frozen > > and have been for a month now. I am also not going to implement this > > change for bookwork unless there is an agreement from the release team > > in place that this is the direction we want to go (I do not have time to > > look at that discussion right now either). > > Looping in the release team. > > Quoting Helmut from IRC: > > helmut > 'I am indeed wondering whether the ctte's acceptance of "usr-is-merged is > pulled by init-system-helpers" would be sufficient to address nthykier's > concerns. That's new compared to his earlier rejection.' > > > I'm currently evaluating what the best course of action is here. > > The patch for dh_installsystemd would be quite simple and then we'd mostly > need a couple of binNMUs. In Trixie we will need that anyway and I assume > for backports it would be beneficial as well. > This all speaks in favor of changing dh_installsystemd. > > The alternative is to basically have 35 RC bugs against affected packages > and fixing those individually by moving the files to /lib Unless I am missing something, having dh_installsystemd look at the service files in /usr/lib is the only viable solution for bullseye -> bookworm. We could fix individual packages that didn't include those files in bullseye, but for all the others we are unable to move the files from /usr/lib to /lib. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
Re: Bug#1031695: dh_installsystemd doesn't handle files in /usr/lib/systemd/system
On 2023-02-21 09:45:34 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Michael" == Michael Biebl writes: > Michael> Excluding packages that only ship overrides/drop-ins, this > Michael> makes 37 affected packages in bookworm. > > If I'm understanding this issue correctly, the concern would be a > package that moved from /lib/systemd/system to /usr/lib/systemd/system. > Under the TC resolution, that should not be happening for bookworm. > > At least some of those packages are new services that have never been in > /lib/systemd/system. I believe for example pam is in that set. > > That's presumably not going to break something in the way that a file > moving between /lib and /usr/lib is. > But we don't want to encourage that movement. > > It seems like knowing how many incorrect moves we've had would also be > valuable--how many things that used to be in /lib/systemd but are now > appearing in /usr/lib. None as far as I can tell. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
