stable update webpage talks about Debian 4.1r3
(Yes, 4.*1*r3.) I think there is either a pair of typos in the recent stable update web pages, or our RM team has unlocked the secret of time travel. (If the latter, I urge them to share that secret with our security team.) > Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 4.1r3 > > • Accepted Packages > • Requires further Investigation > • Rejected Packages > • Removed Packages > • Changelog > • Full listing > • plain text > > • proposed timeline > > • ftpmaster commands > > An up-to-date version is at http://release.debian.org/stable/4.0/4.1r3/. The title heading is incorrect and that URL 404s. -- G. Branden Robinson| The Rehnquist Court has never Debian GNU/Linux | encountered a criminal statute it [EMAIL PROTECTED] | did not like. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John Dean signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: read-edid
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:47:35AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > the description of read-edid in stable says: "get-edid uses > architecture-specific methods for querying the video hardware > (real-mode x86 instructions on i386, Open Firmware device tree parsing on > PowerMac) and is therefore only available for i386 and powerpc architectures." > > Unfortunatly powerpc support was added in the last NMU, where the description > was also changed to what it is now, but > http://unstable.buildd.net/buildd/Packages-arch-specific was not updated to > reflect that. > > I wonder if+how this should be fixed in stable. Fix the description or > Packages-arch-specific? I think it would be better for our users if we modified P-a-s (and added read-edid for PowerPC in the next stable release), but I don't know what the arguments against doing so might be. -- G. Branden Robinson| Organized religion is a sham and a Debian GNU/Linux | crutch for weak-minded people who [EMAIL PROTECTED] | need strength in numbers. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Jesse Ventura signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Resignation as Debian Release Manager
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 12:10:00AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > I hereby tender my resignation as Debian Release Manager. Thanks for your outstanding service, Colin. Reinventing the team mid-release was not easy, but you and Steve didn't flinch from it and did a great job. I hope you will look back on your tenure as a Debian Release Manager with pride; you've earned the right. (Selfishly, though, I now look forward to your authorship of some more nefarious GNU Roff improvements... ;-) ) -- G. Branden Robinson Debian Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~branden/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: wanna-build only knows about older versions?
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:46:09PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > Michael Stone wrote: > > [3] What is the proper contact procedure? debian-admin seems to be a > > black hole at the moment--who should [EMAIL PROTECTED] contact > > about buildd problems if not d-a? > > d-a is wrong, James and Ryan are the people to contact. They are on > d-a as well, though. Do we have a role address for James and Ryan when they serve in this capacity? I suspect a lot of people, including many of our developers, don't know what to call this function if it's not "Debian Administration". -- G. Branden Robinson Debian Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~branden/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
congratulations on the Sarge release
I'd like to extend my thanks and congratulations to everyone affiliated with the Debian Project for making the long-awaited Sarge release a reality. My first inclination was to advise taking a moment to pat ourselves on the back, but you don't need my encouragement to do so. Furthermore, I know that many changes we've been anxious to make are already in preparation for experimental or unstable -- the freedom to make disruptive changes again may be the best refreshment of all. Still, if you've been neglecting your significant other or circle of friends, pouring heart and soul into creating the most impressive Debian GNU/Linux release yet, I *do* recommend taking an evening to celebrate with them. Even if they don't really know what Debian is, you can raise a glass (or a pint) with the satisfaction of a job well done. Again, my humblest thanks to everyone who helped make Sarge happen. I look forward to us changing the world again with our next release. -- G. Branden Robinson Debian Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~branden/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
xfree86 SVN trunk ready for branch merge and release
I've tested all the xfree86 packages built from the current SVN trunk in my chroots. Upgrade/downgrade and install/purge tests pass. Fabio, build at will and upload unless the RM team says not to. Remember to ask the RMs to force -14 into sarge. Now I've got to pack for Brazil. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| When dogma enters the brain, all Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual activity ceases. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Anton Wilson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#257062: xserver-xfree86: please backport new Intel i910 driver
[CCing debian-release; please follow-up to both lists.] On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 08:57:33AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: > On balance (and not just because I have a lab full of machines with i915 > chipsets to look after), I think that we really ought to try to get this > into sarge. It won't be long before there are a hell of a lot of those > chips out there. Even if we release Etch a year after Sarge, that's still > a significant lag for a significant number of (potential) users -- and > hands up who thinks we actually *will* release then... > > So, count me in favour, and let me know if you want any testing done > (on i810 or i915). Someone's got to do the work. The xfree86 SVN repository trunk is available for checkout as it has been for about 2 years now. If an i915 patch is prepared, works, and has been signed off on by i810/i830/i845/i855/i865 as well as i915 users, then the patch submitter and these testers can join me in making a case to the Release Managers for pushing this into testing-proposed-updates (if xfree86 is frozen by then). But before those things happen, there's no case to make. So, please -- if you want to see this in sarge, be part of the solution. I have absolutely no problem with interested parties coordinating their efforts on this mailing list (debian-x) -- that's what it's here for, and I'll offer as much advice as a PowerMac user can on such things. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | De minimis non curat lex. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#278417: libxt6 4.3.0.dfsg.1-8 pre-installation script fails
prefers unstable > APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') > Architecture: powerpc (ppc) > Kernel: Linux 2.6.7 > Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Versions of packages libxt6 depends on: > ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-12 GNU C Library: Shared libraries > an > ii libice6 4.3.0.dfsg.1-4 Inter-Client Exchange library > ii libsm64.3.0.dfsg.1-4 X Window System Session > Management > ii xlibs 4.3.0.dfsg.1-1 X Window System client libraries > m > > -- no debconf information -- G. Branden Robinson| If the jury can count higher than Debian GNU/Linux | two, the case will fail. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Tom Lane, on Forgent's claim of http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |a patent on JPEG signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Upgrade report: woody->sarge
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 03:52:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > It seems that our perl upgrade from woody to sarge is not robust if it > dies in the middle. The X problem below caused the first apt run to fail > with various parts of perl unpacked and not configured. Then it looks > like debconf (which uses Iconv) was unable to run. Probably a dpkg > --configure -a would have cleared this up; reinstalling perl manually > had the same result. [...] > Preparing to replace x-dev 4.3.0.dfsg.1-0.woody.1 (using > .../x-dev_4.3.0.dfsg.1-4_all.deb) ... > Unpacking replacement x-dev ... > dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/x-dev_4.3.0.dfsg.1-4_all.deb > (--unpack): > trying to overwrite `/usr/X11R6/include/X11/DECkeysym.h', which is also in > package xlibs-dev > dpkg-deb: subprocess paste killed by signal (Broken pipe) Please note that version number. "4.3.0.dfsg.1-0.woody.1" is some sort of unofficial backport. My versioned conflicts/replaces/provides/etc. cannot be expected to take into account the crazy things backporters do. I will support upgrades from woody systems. I don't think it's reasonable to expect any Debian developer to support upgrades from loony hybrid installations using all manner of unofficial packages we've never even shipped. -- G. Branden Robinson|If a man ate a pound of pasta and a Debian GNU/Linux |pound of antipasto, would they [EMAIL PROTECTED] |cancel out, leaving him still http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |hungry? -- Scott Adams signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: status of non-US?
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 08:01:16AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > On 2004-06-23 Frederik Schueler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Since sarge will release with "crypto in main", what is the current > > status of the remaining packages in non-US? Can't all packages be > > migrated into main so sarge can release without non-US? > > > According to the Sources.gz files on non-us.debian.org we have 16 > > source packages left in non-us/main > [...] > > 15 soon. links-ssl will be replaced by a dummy-package depending on > elinks if the ftp-master's approve the respective upload.[1] I found no footnote [1] in your message... -- G. Branden Robinson|Judging developers by the number of Debian GNU/Linux |changes they make is like judging a [EMAIL PROTECTED] |legislature by the number of laws http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |it passes.-- Karl Fogel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 11:12:45AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > Re-reading the bug log and the thread I still cannot understand why you > downgraded the bug in the first place. For context, we're talking about #239991. I would probably have made the same call, given that lost keystrokes are not what I consider "data loss", even "non-serious data loss". I could be convinced otherwise by the bug submitter, but it is true that the justification for downgrading the bug's severity should have been explicitly called out. Particularly since the bug submitter *did* go to the trouble of using the Justification: header, which I wish more people would do. I think the specific point is largely moot, as there's a patch, and the fix is on the TODO list. Whether this fix goes into the next release is a decision for the XFree86 4.3.0-8 release manager to make. :) But to summarize: yes, when downgrading the severity of any bug, we should explain why. I'll try to do better on this score myself. -- G. Branden Robinson|Any man who does not realize that Debian GNU/Linux |he is half an animal is only half a [EMAIL PROTECTED] |man. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Thornton Wilder signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:48:15PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote: > important, at best. I'm not suggesting that the patch shouldn't be > applied for 4.3.0-8, which, given Branden's lack of response, I assume I > am release-managing. However, it is most certainly not RC. Fabio volunteered as well. Why doesn't he get to make the same assumption? -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | "Bother," said Pooh, as he was [EMAIL PROTECTED] | assimilated by the Borg. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:06:21PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 06:39:47AM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > >... > > > > Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which > > > > I promptly downgraded; if it didn't go in today, I expect that will be > > > > because of the new sppc upload, making it a transitive problem. > > > > > > Please don't forget to upgrade the bug again later. > > > > > > Downgrading RC bugs for getting a package into testing sometimes has the > > > effect that the then non-RC bug gets forgotten later [1]. > > > > I downgraded it because it is NOT A VALID RC BUG IN THE FIRST PLACE. > > I'd say a bug in a library that causes segfaults in programs is a good > candidate for being RC. There was little point holding up 4.3.0's progress into sarge because of it; the exact same bug is present in XFree86 4.2.1, already in sarge. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=libx11-6 -- G. Branden Robinson| The more ridiculous a belief Debian GNU/Linux | system, the higher the probability [EMAIL PROTECTED] | of its success. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Wayne R. Bartz signature.asc Description: Digital signature
XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 07:21:10PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > XFree86 4.3 should be in as soon as it builds and is uploaded on s390. > There's no other new upstream version IMHO worth actually delaying the > release for. XFree86 4.3.0 is now only being help up by weird stuff I don't fully understand: Checking xfree86 * trying to update xfree86 from 4.2.1-12.1 to 4.3.0-7 (candidate is 8 days old) * Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed)[1] Checking sppc * trying to update sppc from 1.0.1-6 to 1.0.1-8 (candidate is 0 days old) * sppc is only 0 days old. It must be 10 days to go in. * sppc is waiting for xfree86 o Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed[2] Checking tulip * trying to update tulip from 1.2.5-3 to 1.2.5-4 (candidate is 23 days old) * tulip is waiting for xfree86 o Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed) * Updating tulip makes 1 non-depending packages uninstallable on alpha: tulip[3] If someone who's better at reading these tea leaves can tell me what I can do to help move this along, please let me know. [1] http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=xfree86 [2] http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=sppc [3] http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=tulip -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | "Bother," said Pooh, as he was [EMAIL PROTECTED] | assimilated by the Borg. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Release-critical Bugreport for December 12, 2003
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:32:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 05:00:13PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > There's certainly time to communicate with the Release Manager that > > the package should no longer be considered a removal candidate. > > The way to do that is to fix all the release critical bugs filed against > the package, and upload to unstable. On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:29:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 01:49:29PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > No, this points to a problem with the bug list as seen by the testing > > scripts. update_excuses for gjdoc says > > gjdoc (source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, > > s390, sparc) is buggy! (1 > 0) > > which is clearly not true if the sarge version of the package has two RC > > bugs, no matter how you count. (It should be non-buggy, 1 < 3; and even > > if the bug you describe existed, it would be 3 > 2, not 1 > 0.) > > Uh, no, it's not "non-buggy" if it has RC bugs. If gjdoc has an RC bug, > it's not suitable for testing or release. Fix that now. The "less buggy" > stuff should be considered an optimisation, if it doesn't hit your package > when it should, the solution is to fix the RC bugs in your package. Why are you arguing with one of your release deputies[1] on a public mailing list, instead of working out procedures as a group, and present coherent and consistent recommendations to the rest of the Project? It's been almost four months since Joey H., Colin W., and Steve L. were officially deputized; I would have thought this sort of thing would have been hashed out by now. Also, why aren't the assistant release managers mentioned on Debian's organization page? [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00010.html [2] http://www.debian.org/intro/organization -- G. Branden Robinson| A fundamentalist is someone who Debian GNU/Linux | hates sin more than he loves [EMAIL PROTECTED] | virtue. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John H. Schaar signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#214955: libgc6c102: cannot dist-upgrade from woody (libgc6) to sarge (libgc6c102)
[I am not subscribed to debian-release.] On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 09:22:30AM -0700, Ryan Murray wrote: > On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 10:59:23AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > It's not possible to apt-get dist-upgrade the w3m package from woody to > > sarge because there is no transition path from libgc6 to libgc6c102 that > > apt can figure out. > > This is already fixed by libgc1. ...which doesn't yet exist in testing, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. Also, the bug de-facto still exists. It's still not possible to dist-upgrade w3m or libgc6 from woody to sarge. http://packages.qa.debian.org/libg/libgc.html "The package has not yet entered testing even though the 10-day delay is over. # 53 days old (needed 10 days) # Valid candidate" 43 days of extra delay for no apparent reason is pretty bad. Have you spoken to the Release Manager or his deputies about this? In the event you haven't, I am CCing this message to debian-release; hopefully this problem can be resolved, or the QA site's output improved to reveal the actual reason libgc is being prevented from entering testing. > You filed the original bug on libgc. > Please check for duplicates before you file bugs. I did, thanks to reportbug. Please see: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=libgc and http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=libgc&archived=yes ...and I think you'll agree that there is no evidence of the bug having been previously filed. -- Branden Robinson | GPG signed/encrypted mail welcome [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1024D/9C0BCBFB Progeny Linux Systems | D5F6 D4C9 E25B 3D37 068C | 72E8 0F42 191A 9C0B CBFB
Re: Woody, security and architectures
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 05:04:06PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > I realize that setting up rbuilder is not trivial, but given that > woody won't be released soon there should be plenty of time for > people to set those up. Where do I find out what architectures already have rbuilder support? -- G. Branden Robinson| Never underestimate the power of Debian GNU/Linux | human stupidity. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpfSBlXpuKsn.pgp Description: PGP signature
