Accept libdbd-pg-perl & libxml-mini-perl
Hello dear release managers, Please accept libdbd-pg-perl 1.41-3 in sarge. It fixes a bad memory leak (#305468). The patch has already been integrated in CVS upstream. Please accept libxml-mini-perl 1.2.8-2 too. It fixes 2 bugs where the module wasn't able to handle correct XML (#292987, #278669). Upstream is more or less dead so I'm mostly on my own for that package. In both cases, packages were uploaded to unstable a few hours/minutes ago... you don't need to approve them directly but at least "unblock" them so that they flow in automatically after the test period if no bugs are discovered. libxml-mini-perl is pure perl (arch: all) and won't be blocked by something else. Libdbd-pg-perl has a good history of quick building on all arches so it will shortly get in sync (I hope). Thanks ! -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Team meeting minutes - 2005-06-18
Le dimanche 19 juin 2005 à 22:16 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit : > I'd be the wrong person to criticize IRC meetings. However we're talking > about a policy which affects hundreds of packages; that's not something > you can discuss in private with a few selected people. Of course you can ! That has always been how things start ... people have ideas, discuss with friends and there we go on. As release managers, it's fine for them to "propose goals". In any case, the last word is in the mouth of the one who will be doing the work. But the release team has the right to propose goals... We have very few "fait accompli" in Debian and you can always discuss things and explain why the goal doesn't make sense and so on. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: shortening release cycles
Le Sun, Jul 11, 1999 at 02:12:48AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo écrivait: First what I want to say, is that I subsribed to this list as an "unofficial" coordinator for the switch to perl-5.005. Now I'm also a member of debian-qa and would like to give it a second life where it could be really useful. > * shut down new-maintainer >problem: don't see how it helps anything It doesn't help but we could add some rules in order to go in the right direction, ie don't allow new maintainer to start with new packages, but only with orphaned packages. They could only make new packages after some month of experience with us. > * more active debian QA group >-- Definately would help a lot, but how to recruite people into QA? Did you read my QA related proposal in -private ? What we need is a new tool (something similar to the BTS) where we could list all tasks that can be done by people volunteering to help in QA. I'm willing to work on that in one or two weeks. I'm currently working on the CD scripts ... And we need QA managers who have some power, like orphaning a package if it's badly maintained and if the maintainer is not able to make it change. They could also propose packages to remove from the already orphaned packages ... Also there are some tasks that could be delegated to this committe like the management of the overrides ... because it's also QA job to guarantee the consistence of the standard system. And it would help the ftpmaster who currently handles this I think. I'll launch a discussion about this in debian-qa once i've written down all my ideas about this. > I think what we should do is have Richard publicly state he'll start > an early freeze once the boot-floppies is in shape. We are seeing > renewed interest in boot-floppies, although I haven't seen that really > turn into code yet. Hey people, potato is in a bad state. If I wanted I could open 50 more important bugs because of packages that are still compiled with libgtk1.1 and many bugs like that. I'm discovering those while I'm checking all dependencies with apt before adding them to the CDs ... and when I've got more time, i'll check each of those package and will raise the severity of already existing bugs or submit new ones. Examples: yagirc, fbrowser ... and all the mysql is broken too ... and the same for perl stuff, the good maintainers have already uploaded corrected packages. I'll submit important bugs for those who still don't have in some days. This is job for QA ! And I'd like to work for this in a more formalized framework. Cheers, -- Hertzog Raphaël >> 0C4CABF1 >> http://prope.insa-lyon.fr/~rhertzog/
Re: Debian 2.1r3
Le Sat, Aug 14, 1999 at 12:10:10PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman écrivait: > package: dpkg > version: 1.4.0.35 > disabling gettext is a nasty surprised for a lot of people.. I think > we are better of with the few bugreport we are getting I did not disable the gettext support, I just compiled it with gettext of the libc6 instead of his own. Please install it as it can avoid core dump with dpkg and locales. Cheers, -- Hertzog Raphaël >> 0C4CABF1 >> http://prope.insa-lyon.fr/~rhertzog/
Agressive strategy for the release process
Hi people, I suggest that we take a more agressive strategy for the release process. What I suggest : - give a freeze date - all non-standard packages (of priority optionnal and extra) that do have RCB at this date will be removed from frozen, and all the packages who does depend on them too ... boot-floppies and debian-cd must be considered standard (even if their package's priorities are not) - once a package has been removed it can be added again within the first (maybe two ?) week of the freeze (if the RCB have been corrected of course!). Note that the package will never completely disappear from Debian, since it will be available in unstable... - after this "recovery" delay, it's a "big" freeze in the traditionnal way. The standard packages with RCB must be corrected anyway and I suppose that the QA team would help us to correct those packages rapidly. In order to achieve this, the RCB list should be splitted between standard packages and the optionnal/extra packages. Can you do this wichert ? Of course, this scheme will require more investment from the ftpmaster during the first week of the freeze and from the person maintaining the RCB list since many packages will be removed. But I think it's worth it if we want to put out potato one day. The big advantages is that if somebody wants a specific package in potato, he will actively work on his package (he has no other choices). Also if a library like libgtk1.2 does have a RCB, many people will be concerned and the bug will be corrected rapidly (of course we must consider not removing the package if the RCB has been filled 2 hours before the freeeze leaving no chances to the maintainter to correct it). What do people think about this ? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -=- http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~raphael/ CDs Debian : http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~raphael/debian/#cd
Re: Please release 2.1r6
Le Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 06:22:26PM +0200, Martin Schulze écrivait: > > What I don't understand is why this makes it impossible to generate > > CD's. Is debian-cd so fragile that it dies on an unmet dependency? > > Yes. No. Debian-cd copes quite well with it, it refuses to include packages with unmet dependency. However slink-cd (used to build slink ISO) was unable to do this kind of thing ... one could generate the new slink ISO image with the new debian-cd ... Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -=- http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~raphael/ CDs Debian : http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~raphael/debian/#cd Formations Linux et logiciels libres : http://www.logidee.com
Re: potato kernels and debian-cd
Le Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 03:42:06AM -0700, Jim Westveer écrivait: > When one runs debian-cd to create potato .iso's, > debian-cd decides: > ># Removing packages from the system : >kernel-image-2.2.14 > > There by removing ALL 2.2.14 images from the resulting .iso No, please check what you're telling... this is output while doing make status. It tries to generate a consistent standard system to decide which packages must go on CD 1. And it looks likes several pakages have standard priority and do conflict... it's not debian-cd fault. I generate a fake status file with all standard packages installed and apt detects this inconsistency and will resolve it by removing one of the package. Anyway this won't break anything since all the packages that are installable in a way or in a other will be on the CDs. The worse that can happen is that it may end up on the second or third CD instead of the first... > 2. Is debian-cd confused by multiple 2.2.14 kernel packages, > or are the packages depends set wrong. The package priorities are wrong. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -=- http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~raphael/ CDs Debian : http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~raphael/debian/#cd Formations Linux et logiciels libres : http://www.logidee.com
Re: file RC bugs for potato uninstallable pkgs (was Re: Pleaserelease 2.1r6)
Le Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 04:40:37PM +0200, Adrian Bunk écrivait: > I would prefer Wichert's suggestion: to file one single bug report against > ftp.debian.org . There's already such bug reports filled against ftp.debian.org, but they aren't RC and they don't need to be. > Where's a reason for the difference between the priorities `optional' > and `extra' if you can't be sure that a CD > excluding all `extra' packages but including all others gives you a Debian > with no missing dependencies? CDs are never built this way. The priority field is not much used. We include standard, important and required packages in the "standard system" aka on the first CD. For the rest, we don't do any differences between optional & extra ... and even if some priorities were broken in the standard system, debian-cd deals well with it ... Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -=- http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~raphael/ CDs Debian : http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~raphael/debian/#cd Formations Linux et logiciels libres : http://www.logidee.com
Re: [dark: READ!] CD images / Re: Formal objection: Changing how the testing of potato works would invalidate the whole test. So please don't change it.
Le Mon, May 15, 2000 at 01:53:52PM +0200, Richard Braakman écrivait: > That's a bit of a Catch-22, because everyone else is WAITING for the CD > images. > > > This is my current WaitingFor list: (comments are welcome!) > > My first comment is that this is the first I've heard of this list. As responsible of the debian-cd package, I hardly see all this is required for the test cycle even it would be good to have them. Let's face it, we're late and there are many fixes waiting in Incoming ... let's include those fixes and start the real testing cycle in one or two days. > > - upgrade-alpha install (see #63890) > > - upgrade-i386 install (see #63890) > > - upgrade-m68k install (see #63890) > > - upgrade-sparc install (see #63890) > > As you have guessed, a signature from a Debian developer is necessary to > get something into the archive. The main exception is stuff the archive > maintainers can review for themselves, such as documentation and small > scripts. Eek... he has taken the time to do this useful work, we certainly should include it. Can someone download, check & rebuild the packages before uploading it ? > > - apt 0.3.19install > ppc > > - libc6 re-upload & re-install > sparc > > - libc6-dev, 2.1.3-10.1 upload & install > > Installing these will invalidate the boot-floppies we already have. > Please get in touch with the boot-floppies team if you think the > current ones are not useful even for the first test cycle. They would differ from those on the boot-floppies but AFAIK it can't do any harm ... they would just be updated at the initial install. > Yes, they are rather late with their boot-floppies. But I see > 2.2.14 ones for ARM in Incoming now. This is still a problem because > it's a binary upload and the boot-floppies source is still at 2.2.13. > There have been a lot of communication problems with the ARM porters; > I hope they can work out this one. Wrt debian-cd, arm will get out with non-bootable CD since ARM don't have any CD reader ... the install is done over the network. The CD can only be used to provide the files that would be exported over the local network. > Perhaps we should find someone else to do that, since you're obviously on > a power trip. I don't see how you got that job without being a Debian > developer in the first place. I feel unconfortable too with the way he reacted, but let's not overreact too. He has done a great job and he's only bored to see that nobody is taking care to include the upgrade stuff he prepared ... Cheers,
Re: Upgrade report: Test Cycle 2
Le Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:42:48AM +0200, Sven Hartrumpf écrivait: > I just want to report a successful upgrade > from slink to potato-test-cycle-2 (i386) following the instructions > in bin1::upgrade/release-notes.en.txt and using bin CDs 1, 2 and 3. > > Removing egcc ... > /var/lib/dpkg/info/egcc.prerm: /usr/sbin/update-alternatives: No such file or > directory > dpkg: error processing egcc (--remove): > subprocess pre-removal script returned error exit status 1 [...] > The reason for this error was: > /usr/sbin/update-alternatives contained > #! /usr/local/bin/perl > but on my slink system, there was no /usr/local/bin/perl, just > /usr/bin/perl. Did you install the static dpkg stuff ? Where did you get it from ? We already had such a problem in the first version of static dpkg that we provided on Anne's page, but I recompiled it and it should be ok now ... unless the bad one has been installed... Anne, can you check if the good dpkg package has been installed by Richard in the upgrade-i386 directory ? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Re: point release versioning
Le Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 01:17:24PM +0200, J.A. Bezemer écrivait: > Oh dear. I see a terrible thing there that I'd classify as a beginners error. > There are no quotes. Not around $DEBVERSION, but that was (until now) no big > problem. $dir isn't quoted. And $dir can be anything, even > "something ; rm -rf ~ ; somethingelse". I've never said that debian-cd was safe ... on the contrary, I always asked that we try to do everything without root rights since running it as root is a risk. Anyway, i just come back from a one week vacation et i'm quite busy. I'm accepting patches and you can commit it yourself if it's trivial. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/ Naviguez sans se fatiguer à chercher : http://www.deenoo.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
Re: Things should be ready for 2.2r2 soon
Le Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 10:20:57PM -0500, Ben Collins écrivait: > IIRC, debian-cd retains symlinks (so things like symlinks from > binary- -> binary-all will remain). Maybe this is a little > different, but I don't think debian-cd knows the difference (or does it > now?). It should manage symlinks correctly since it was already able to build unstable CD when unstable contained links to stable... The only symlinks that are kept (or created) are those for binary-all. Other symlinks are replaced by the real file (at least symlinks for binary packages). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/ Naviguez sans se fatiguer à chercher : http://www.deenoo.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
Re: Stable Release plan
Le Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:16:11AM +0200, Martin Schulze écrivait: > > Also - is there any chance that .iso images or pseudo image > > configurations could be ready _before_ the release is announced - eg > > tonight cdimage.debian.org still has no idea about 2.2r3 - shouldnt .isos > > be part of the release and the release be conditional upon them being done > > ?? > > Please get in touch with the debian-cd list, they should know about > cdimage.d.o No, no, the problem is with you. You install packages in the archive and 4 hours later you make the announcement. You need to let one day so that files propagate to mirrors, send a mail to debian-cd@lists.debian.org asking us to generate the new ISO with the newly installed files and let another day so that ISO images have a chance to propagate too. And only then you should do the announcement. That said, people who usually create the debian-cd images ? What are you doing with 2.2r3 ? Please take care to NOT use the CVS version of debian-cd to generate the images (since I've introduced the new stuff for signed Release file and so on and it's not yet ready for prime time) but rather the last package (or even older ... but not too much). Or you may use the latest debian-cd if you take care to remove manually the rules *-secured in the Makefile. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/ Le bouche à oreille du Net : http://www.beetell.com Naviguez sans se fatiguer à chercher : http://www.deenoo.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
Re: ia64 in woody
Le Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 01:19:12AM -0600, Bdale Garbee écrivait: > We are making some minor adjustments to the way elilo is configured, and > Richard Hirst hopes to commit "final" support for ia64 systems to > boot-floppies CVS shortly. An upload of packages to the archive can > happen quickly using CVS boot-floppies code, or we can wait for a new > release after our changes are committed... and upload quickly then. Don't forget to also take a look at debian-cd. You'll have to add a file /tools/boot/woody/boot-ia64 to make sure that we can also release bootable CDs for ia64. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/ Le bouche à oreille du Net : http://www.beetell.com Naviguer sans se fatiguer à chercher : http://www.deenoo.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
Re: Bits from the SRM
Le Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 09:55:36PM +0200, Martin Schulze écrivait: > liblocale-gettext-perl stable1.01-11 alpha, arm, hppa, i386, > ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc, source > liblocale-gettext-perl updates 1.01-11a.woody alpha, arm, hppa, i386, > ia64, m68k, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc, source > > * The bugs #156381 is also in the stable version of the package. Since > it renders basic packages like debconf unusable when it's installed, > I'm providing this updated package to fix it. > * Added the include in the .xs file this time. > * Really stupid version number to have a version number lower than > 1.01-11bis which is in unstable... > > The bug report demonstrates that this problem may render an > entire installation/upgrade broken. Hence, an update is > required. > > MISSING mips It has been built : http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?&pkg=liblocale-gettext-perl&ver=1.01-11a.woody&arch=mips&file=log The package must be stuck on the buildd waiting for a signature or something. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
Re: release-reminder.txt draft
Le Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 02:29:08AM -0500, David B Harris écrivait: > No need to use it, but aj asked what sort of thing might be useful to > encourage people to fix RC bugs, and I think this would do it for me. > One mail per source package per maintainer (I'd send it to the > Maintainer: as well as all the Uploaders:, just in case the Maintainer: > is AWOL). I think it would be a great idea as well. Another interesting thing could be to send a copy to the PTS so that people subscribed to the package are also encouraged to fix the RC bugs of the package that they're following. > This mail is sent as part of the Sarge release process. Please don't ignore > it. If for some reason you're unable to take action regarding the issues > outlined below, please inform @[EMAIL PROTECTED] debian-qa@lists.debian.org ? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org
