Bug#743826: ruby-eventmachine 1.0.3-6 already uploaded
Hi! The package ruby-eventmachine 1.0.3-6 is already uploaded to unstable. Rebuild not necessary. -- Per -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cabyrxsquvebyww4vx+qgp+y2aexa5rhutp2eakdr75awwda...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ruby-rubymail (NEW) and sup-mail
Hi! On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 21:15:17 +0200, Per Andersson wrote: Hi! The RC bug #678269 is filed against sup-mail because it fails running with Ruby 1.8. [0] 1.8 or 1.9? The current sup-mail fails to run with 1.9.1. [0] http://bugs.debian.org/678269 A while back ago I adopted sup-mail and have recently fixed so it runs with Ruby 1.9.1, which is now default in Debian. In the process of fixing sup-mail for Ruby 1.9.1 I have also adopted librmail-ruby1.8 and moved to the new Ruby policy and gem2deb packaging. sup-mail is not uploaded yet though since it depends on ruby-rubymail which is in NEW. If you need NEW to fix RC bugs, it's usually a sign that you're doing it wrong. Can't sup-mail be made to work with the current librmail-ruby? Probably so. There are many changes and I have transitioned almost all sup-mail's dependencies to the new ruby policy (so they run under Ruby 1.9.1). It happens that ruby-rubymail was not uploaded until a few days ago because of people's lack of time (IANADD). It might be possible to make it all run under Ruby 1.8, I don't know. But I would rather not go down that road when I now have gone through all the trouble (quite much actually) to fix everything so it runs under Ruby 1.9.1. Refrasing my original (still unanswered) question: Will whatever was uploaded to NEW before the freeze be processed or was that already frozen before the freeze? -- Per -- 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/cabyrxsqp_++gzuxod0mzdozkkv1csrubs+rm09hwomzua9z...@mail.gmail.com
ruby-rubymail (NEW) and sup-mail
Hi! The RC bug #678269 is filed against sup-mail because it fails running with Ruby 1.8. [0] [0] http://bugs.debian.org/678269 A while back ago I adopted sup-mail and have recently fixed so it runs with Ruby 1.9.1, which is now default in Debian. In the process of fixing sup-mail for Ruby 1.9.1 I have also adopted librmail-ruby1.8 and moved to the new Ruby policy and gem2deb packaging. sup-mail is not uploaded yet though since it depends on ruby-rubymail which is in NEW. How should I proceed with this? Will things just be processed as normal until June 30? -- Per -- 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/CABYrXSQLCc3aJRf35UoL0P6-yGcX9_0VG_36Y_W4vckmC0=a...@mail.gmail.com
Re: uboot-envtools and uboot-mkimage
I incorporated Julien's change suggestions (thanks for the review). Is it ok to upload uboot-envtools now? (Debdiff attached.) Best, Per uboot-envtools_20081215-2-3.debdiff Description: Binary data
Re: uboot-envtools and uboot-mkimage
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org wrote: On 08/15/2010 11:40 PM, Per Andersson wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 04:29 +0200, Per Andersson wrote: Thibaut Girka is working on Debian Installer for the Openmoko FreeRunner for Summer of Code with Debian. In order for this to work on Squeeze a patch is needed for uboot-envtools, which I maintain. In the packaging git repository I have prepared a bump in debian package revision from -2 to -3 for uboot-envtools, which includes the patch. Please could you let us see a debdiff for the proposed upload? avtob...@pong:~/debian/packages/pkg-fso$ debdiff /var/cache/apt/archives/uboot-envtools_20081215-2_i386.deb uboot-envtools_20081215-3_i386.deb [The following lists of changes regard files as different if they have different names, permissions or owners.] Could you please actually debdiff the dscs? debdiff'ing the debs is not really helpful for reviewing. Sorry, debdiff of dscs attached. Thanks for your hard work! -- Per uboot-envtools_20081215.debdiff Description: Binary data
Re: uboot-envtools and uboot-mkimage
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Per Andersson avtob...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org wrote: On 08/15/2010 11:40 PM, Per Andersson wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 04:29 +0200, Per Andersson wrote: Thibaut Girka is working on Debian Installer for the Openmoko FreeRunner for Summer of Code with Debian. In order for this to work on Squeeze a patch is needed for uboot-envtools, which I maintain. In the packaging git repository I have prepared a bump in debian package revision from -2 to -3 for uboot-envtools, which includes the patch. Please could you let us see a debdiff for the proposed upload? avtob...@pong:~/debian/packages/pkg-fso$ debdiff /var/cache/apt/archives/uboot-envtools_20081215-2_i386.deb uboot-envtools_20081215-3_i386.deb [The following lists of changes regard files as different if they have different names, permissions or owners.] Could you please actually debdiff the dscs? debdiff'ing the debs is not really helpful for reviewing. Sorry, debdiff of dscs attached. I realized that the diff is probably way too big. I removed at least half of the debdiff, attached. Regarding uboot-mkimage and the proposed NMU or adoption. Is it possible to adopt the package now or should I wait? Attaching debdiff for uboot-mkimage (NMU), only difference in the case of adoption would of course be me as maintainer. -- Per uboot-envtools_20081215.debdiff Description: Binary data uboot-mkimage-0.4-broken-uboot-compat.debdiff Description: Binary data
Re: uboot-envtools and uboot-mkimage
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 23:15:34 +0200, Per Andersson wrote:
--- uboot-envtools-20081215.orig/debian/uboot-envtools.postrm
+++ uboot-envtools-20081215/debian/uboot-envtools.postrm
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+
+set -e
+
+. /usr/share/debconf/confmodule
+
+rm -f /etc/fw_env.config
+
+#DEBHELPER#
postrm can't rely on debconf being installed. dh_installdebconf's
snippet already handles this correctly, so you should remove the
inclusion of confmodule here.
Ok.
only in patch2:
unchanged:
--- uboot-envtools-20081215.orig/debian/uboot-envtools.postinst
+++ uboot-envtools-20081215/debian/uboot-envtools.postinst
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+
+set -e
+
+. /usr/share/debconf/confmodule
+
+[ ! -f /etc/fw_env.config ] || exit 0 # bail if already configured
+
+db_get uboot-envtools/machine || true
+machine=$RET
+
+if [ $machine = Automatic ]; then
+ machine=$(sed -n '/^Hardware/ {s/^Hardware\s*:\s*//;p}' /proc/cpuinfo)
+fi
+
+case $machine in
+ Kurobox Pro | Buffalo/Revogear Kurobox Pro)
+ file=kurobox_pro.config
+ ;;
+ Linkstation Pro Live | Buffalo Linkstation Pro/Live)
+ file=linkstation_pro_live.config
+ ;;
+ Linkstation 2)
+ file=lsmipsel.config
+ ;;
+ Linkstation HG)
+ file=lsppchg.config
+ ;;
+ Openmoko Neo 1973 (GTA01) | GTA01)
+ file=openmoko_gta01.config
+ ;;
+ Openmoko FreeRunner (GTA02) | GTA02)
+ file=openmoko_gta02.config
+ ;;
+ QNAP TS-101)
+ file=qnap_ts101.config
+ ;;
+ QNAP TS-109/TS-209)
+ file=qnap_ts109-209.config
+ ;;
+ QNAP TS-119/TS-219)
+ file=qnap_ts119-219.config
+ ;;
+ *) # Do not configure
+ exit 0
+ ;;
Why is this not done in .config, where you can set the default choice
before asking the question, instead of having an automatic choice
which just defers this?
Do you mean that I should guess the Hardware, if possible, and
then let the default selection in the list be whatever was guessed?
--
Per
--
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/aanlktinsjruuxf6-bvsd+ejkv_dkqdtxhkpbovy29...@mail.gmail.com
Re: uboot-envtools and uboot-mkimage
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Martin Michlmayr t...@cyrius.com wrote: * Per Andersson avtob...@gmail.com [2010-08-16 23:15]: Regarding uboot-mkimage and the proposed NMU or adoption. Is it Now that we have u-boot in Debian, maybe uboot-mkimage can be generated from the u-boot source package. Yes I have been thinking the same. Probably both uboot-mkimage and uboot-envtools can be generated from the u-boot source package. Should this merge be done now or for squeeze+1? Also, I'm not convinced that we should add an option in Debian that has not been approved in Debian. Is this option even necessary? If I understand correctly what you're trying to do, you can achieve the same by pading the image before running mkimage over it. Does this not work? Thibaut, do you have any comments? -- Per -- 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/aanlktimz5epv-kg9tnkwtdctg7fstnjkszndhnk2s...@mail.gmail.com
Re: uboot-envtools and uboot-mkimage
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Adam D. Barratt
a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 04:29 +0200, Per Andersson wrote:
Thibaut Girka is working on Debian Installer for the Openmoko FreeRunner
for Summer of Code with Debian. In order for this to work on Squeeze a
patch is needed for uboot-envtools, which I maintain.
In the packaging git repository I have prepared a bump in debian package
revision from -2 to -3 for uboot-envtools, which includes the patch.
Please could you let us see a debdiff for the proposed upload?
avtob...@pong:~/debian/packages/pkg-fso$ debdiff
/var/cache/apt/archives/uboot-envtools_20081215-2_i386.deb
uboot-envtools_20081215-3_i386.deb
[The following lists of changes regard files as different if they have
different names, permissions or owners.]
Files in second .deb but not in first
-
-rw-r--r-- root/root DEBIAN/templates
-rwxr-xr-x root/root DEBIAN/config
-rwxr-xr-x root/root DEBIAN/postinst
-rwxr-xr-x root/root DEBIAN/postrm
Control files: lines which differ (wdiff format)
Depends: libc6 (= [-2.1)-] {+2.1), debconf (= 0.5) | debconf-2.0+}
Description: read/modify the environment for the [-bootloader-] U-Boot
{+boot loader+}
[-bootloader U-Boot.-]
{+U-Boot boot loader.+}
Installed-Size: [-128-] {+152+}
Version: [-20081215-2-] {+20081215-3+}
Excerpt from the changelog for the proposed upload
uboot-envtools (20081215-3) unstable; urgency=low
* debian/control: improved language in description.
* debian/control: bumped standards-version to 3.8.2.
* lsmipsel.config: corrected device name (Closes: #540361).
* uboot-envtools.postinst: corrected Linkstation 2 name.
* Added directories to be created.
* Added uboot-envedit script (Closes: #540039).
* debian/README.source: new file
* Introduced automatic device configuration.
-- Per Andersson avtob...@gmail.com Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:22:47 +0200
Also, we need to do a NMU for uboot-mkimage in order to introduce a
simple patch that fixes padding on images for broken U-Boot versions.
Have you talked to the maintainer of record about this? I see that the
patch is in #584166 which he replied to in June saying he would have a
look.
Yes I have. The maintainer is happy to actually orphan the package
due to lack of time.
Best,
Per
--
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/aanlktimc5ns4hprxcksvoutdoy89fkzkaeha3sjiy...@mail.gmail.com
uboot-envtools and uboot-mkimage
Hi! Thibaut Girka is working on Debian Installer for the Openmoko FreeRunner for Summer of Code with Debian. In order for this to work on Squeeze a patch is needed for uboot-envtools, which I maintain. In the packaging git repository I have prepared a bump in debian package revision from -2 to -3 for uboot-envtools, which includes the patch. Also, we need to do a NMU for uboot-mkimage in order to introduce a simple patch that fixes padding on images for broken U-Boot versions. Since I don't know I ask: What is the procedure now? Should we upload the packages and then ping the release team? Thanks for all the great work you do! -- Per -- 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/aanlktinwyezvr89timkwrweqefnin68frefnwrhcr...@mail.gmail.com
