Re: Policy: filing bugs against Ubuntu packages instead of upstream projects
On 29.11.2013 10:11, Michał Sawicz wrote: > I even successfully sent (and received) a test e-mail via "contact this > team". Not sure what else I can try, but we're definitely subscribed to > open/close emails, but we're not getting them :/ That could be https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/797311 -- Andreas Moog, Berliner Str. 29, 36205 Sontra/Germany PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 74DE6624) PGP Fingerprint: 74CD D9FE 5BCB FE0D 13EE 8EEA 61F3 4426 74DE 6624 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
libqt4-opengl-dev: Different dependencies on armhf than on other architectures
Hi there, I have a question about the package libqt4-opengl-dev on the armhf architecture (source: qt4-x11). I was investigating https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/941062, a build failure of the package fracplanet and was wondering why it succeeded on all other arches as well as on armhf in Debian. The difference I found was in the dependencies of libqt4-opengl-dev: On amd64 (and others) it is: Depends: libgl1-mesa-dev | libgl-dev, libglu1-mesa-dev | libglu-dev, libqt4-dev (= 4:4.8.4+dfsg-0ubuntu19), libqt4-opengl (= 4:4.8.4+dfsg-0ubuntu19) But on armhf in Ubuntu (NOT in Debian): Depends: libgles2-mesa-dev | libgles2-dev, libqt4-dev (= 4:4.8.4+dfsg-0ubuntu19), libqt4-opengl (= 4:4.8.4+dfsg-0ubuntu19) Is there a reason for this difference? How would I go to further find out why this is what it is? -- Andreas Moog, Berliner Str. 29, 36205 Sontra/Germany Ubuntu Developer PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 74DE6624) PGP Fingerprint: 74CD D9FE 5BCB FE0D 13EE 8EEA 61F3 4426 74DE 6624 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Introducing sbuild-launchpad-chroot
On 21.10.2013 16:31, Stéphane Graber wrote: > With trusty now open, I uploaded a tool I've been using for a few months now. > > It's called sbuild-launchpad-chroot and pretty much does exactly what > the name says. That sounds like a useful tool. Is there a way to have it use lvm volumes instead of directories? -- Andreas Moog, Berliner Str. 29, 36205 Sontra/Germany Ubuntu Developer PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 74DE6624) PGP Fingerprint: 74CD D9FE 5BCB FE0D 13EE 8EEA 61F3 4426 74DE 6624 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Source packages appropriate by default?
On 23.07.2013 12:09, Robie Basak wrote: > It is provided by software-properties-common in more recent releases, > and is seeded on server now. See bug 439566. That is good to know. Given that my server installs are based on LTS releases I only checked the latest LTS. > All this is true, but you haven't said specifically why this proposal is > a problem, or why. This proposal *will* make source available without > having to manually install anything. And providing easy access to the > source *is* essential, but this proposal doesn't take easy access away. It adds an additional step to enable sources. Now, if the source repository would be automatically enabled when the user is requesting a source package, that would be better than giving an error and asking the user to enable it. > Others have said why the current situation is a problem, and > you haven't addressed that here at all, given that add-apt-repository > *is* available by default now. To be absolutely honest, I don't see the problem. The source index files for precise-updates and precise-security (the only pockets that are expected to change as far as I can tell) are all-together something like 1MB and have a low rate of change. Is downloading that small amount of data once a week really that much of a problem? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Source packages appropriate by default?
On 23.07.2013 09:12, Robie Basak wrote: [...] > E: You must put some 'source' URIs in your sources.list > E: Type "add-apt-repository sources" to do this automatically for you. > $ sudo add-apt-repository sources > deb-src lines have been added to your sources.list. > Now type "apt-get update", and then "apt-get source ..." will work. > $ sudo apt-get update > (...) > $ sudo apt-get source hello > (works) > > To do this, we'd need to patch apt to add the second error line, and > implement "sources" to add-apt-repository. andreas@j3515:~$ sudo add-apt-repository The program 'add-apt-repository' is currently not installed. You can install it by typing: sudo apt-get install python-software-properties andreas@j3515:~$ add-apt-repository is not available on all Ubuntu systems by default. The current solution is easy and is available on virtually all installations, without the need to manually install anything. Providing easy access to the source is essential for a open source distribution. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: [ubuntu/precise] whois 5.0.15ubuntu1 (Accepted)
On 06.03.2012 21:50, Clint Byrum wrote: > + Note: This needs to be kept until the next LTS release > as mkpasswd is a published package in lucid. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but can't this be dropped next regular release already? Lucid -> Precise upgrades will remove mkpasswd package. So in Precise+1 there couldn't ever be the possibility to encounter a system that still has the old mkpasswd from lucid installed? Cheers, Andreas signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
How to tell a arch-all package to build on specific architecture?
Hi there, by default, arch: all packages are built on the i386 buildds. That is fine for most packages, but I found one where it isn't, openbios-ppc. This needs a powerpc to build on, see https://pad.lv/935018. How can one do that in Ubuntu? Cheers, Andreas signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Help needed with building imagevis3d
Hi there, I'm a bit stuck on the buildfailure of imagevis3d in the archive: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/imagevis3d/2.0.1-4ubuntu1 (amd64 build in this log) > ../Tuvok/Build/libTuvok.a(GLFBOTex.o): In function > `tuvok::GLFBOTex::initTextures(unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int, int, > int, unsigned int)': > /build/buildd/imagevis3d-2.0.1/Tuvok/Renderer/GL/GLFBOTex.cpp:187: undefined > reference to `gluErrorString' > /build/buildd/imagevis3d-2.0.1/Tuvok/Renderer/GL/GLFBOTex.cpp:188: undefined > reference to `gluErrorString' > /build/buildd/imagevis3d-2.0.1/Tuvok/Renderer/GL/GLFBOTex.cpp:189: undefined > reference to `gluErrorString' > /build/buildd/imagevis3d-2.0.1/Tuvok/Renderer/GL/GLFBOTex.cpp:190: undefined > reference to `gluErrorString' > /build/buildd/imagevis3d-2.0.1/Tuvok/Renderer/GL/GLFBOTex.cpp:191: undefined > reference to `gluErrorString' > ../Tuvok/Build/libTuvok.a(GLFBOTex.o):/build/buildd/imagevis3d-2.0.1/Tuvok/Renderer/GL/GLFBOTex.cpp:209: > more undefined references to `gluErrorString' follow The error seems to relate to a missing -lGLU for the renderer, so I added a patch to link with -lGLU. This works on my local machine, be it on the live system or a up-to-date chroot with sbuild: http://people.ubuntu.com/~amoog/imagevis3d_2.0.1-4ubuntu1-amd64-20120226-1000.gz What is wrong with my patch? Why does it work in local sbuild but not on the buildd? Any hints for debugging this? Cheers, Andreas signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: second test rebuild of precise pangolin
On 02.02.2012 12:18, Matthias Klose wrote: Hi Matthias and anyone else interested, > Another test rebuild for precise pangolin is currently running on amd64, > armhf and i386. The results will show up at [1]. Half of main is > rebuilt, and the universe packages will start to build around this weekend. I have filed bugs now for most of the build failures, I tagged them with "ftbfs precise". An example search for launchpad would be at [1]. Most of the failures I didn't report are dependency issues caused by archive skew, so are no real bugs in the package. Maybe those can be retried in the test-archive? (I can provide a list of affected packages if necessary.) Happy fixing! ;-) Cheers, Andreas [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=ftbfs+precise&field.tags_combinator=ALL signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Gnutls28 - Main only rebuild results
Hi there! I had a little free time this week and since there is some thought of bringing gnutls28 into PP, I made a ppa to rebuild the main-dependencies, ppa available at https://launchpad.net/~amoog/+archive/gnutls28-test Many packages relied on libgnutls-dev to Depend on libgcrypt11-dev in order to bring in gcrypt. Since libgnutls28-dev does not Depend on gcrypt anymore, this reveals a lot of policy violations. (see list below). Note: Even though some packages built fine, I didn't extensively test them yet. If you happen to notice any odd behaviour, please report! FTBFS: cluster-glue: Fails to build: > dpkg-shlibdeps: error: couldn't find library libpils.so.2 needed by > debian/libplumb2/usr/lib/libplumb.so.2.1.0 (ELF format: 'elf32-i386'; RPATH: > ''). exim4: Fails to build, with patch from upstream it builds, but a lot of format warnings are in the buildlog, I guess security should check them out. libggz: Fails to build with > ggz_tls_gnutls.c:59:73: error: 'GNUTLS_COMP_LZO' undeclared here (not in a > function) openldap: Fails to build, needs porting: > ../../../../libraries/libldap/tls_g.c:374:4: warning: implicit declaration of > function 'gnutls_certificate_get_x509_cas' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] (and the corresponding "couldn't find symbol" later) pacemaker: Fails to build, seems unrelated to gnutls change, needs investigating. BUILD FINE AFTER ADDING libgcrypt11-dev Build-Dep: cups curl freetds (corrected an issue with --as-needed) glib-networking gnome-vfs (corrected an issue with --as-needed) gtk-vnc lftp libgadu libimobiledevice libvirt rsyslog rtmpdump telepathy-gabble telepathy-salut BUILD FINE: empathy heartbeat libvncserver loudmouth lynx-cur mutt neon27 ntfs-3g vino xchat-gnome xen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: [ubuntu/oneiric] sixpack 1:0.68-1ubuntu1 (Accepted)
On 06/25/2011 07:40 PM: > sixpack (1:0.68-1ubuntu1) oneiric; urgency=low > > * Merge from debian unstable. Remaining changes: > - debian/README.Debian: Note about sixpack -> sixpack-bibtex rename. Hmm, is that diff really still necessary? The only remaining release with the sixpack-bibtext package is Hardy Heron (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sixpack-bibtex). I think this diff can safely be dropped. Cheers, Andreas signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: [dpkg-dev] auto-generated patch too easily included (debian/patches/debian-changes-*))
On 06/15/2011 07:40 PM, Dave Walker wrote: > Currently, if the upstream code is changed (anything other than > debian/*).. When dpkg-buildpackage is run, an automated patch is > created. This is a really nice feature, but it is very easy to miss > this. I have seen multiple uploads where these auto-generated patches > have been included accidentally (I have also been guilty of this). There is a lintian tag for this, format-3.0-but-debian-changes-patch. > This can be overridden locally with: > $ cat ~/.devscripts > DEBUILD_DPKG_BUILDPACKAGE_OPTS="--source-option=--abort-on-upstream-changes" > > I think the chance of someone wanting an auto-generated patch is low, > and would like to suggest the default is changed to fail to create the > source package. If that is done, people will run into a problem when they try to change a problematic debian package. That might introduce unnecessary diffs to debian. (because the package will fail on ubuntu) If you want to change the default, it would be better to coordinate with debian. Cheers, Andreas signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Current state of universe wrt multiarch
Hello there, this is a list of packages that currently are considered broken due to referencing non-existing la-files. The list is from http://people.canonical.com/~vorlon/broken-srcs-universe.txt, I removed those that have been rebuilt already. Normally the problem would go away with a rebuild but I don't know how to fix the packages listed here as fail to build. Any help or comment is appreciated. FTBFS: -- libfsobasics, http://pad.lv/u/libfsobasics vala error, http://pad.lv/bld/249 libfsoframework libfsoresource libfsotransport libgsm0710mux These packages depend on libfsobasics to be rebuilt first. emerald, http://pad.lv/u/emerald incompatible to new compiz api, http://pad.lv/bld/2391909 nbtk, http://pad.lv/u/nbtk incompatible with clutter 1.4, http://pad.lv/bld/2405191 In http://bugs.debian.org/555766 it is suggested to not waste time trying to fix it because the package will be replaced. In Ubuntu however, there are still two rdepends, hornsey and bisho. FILED FOR REMOVAL - hk-classes, http://pad.lv/749804 libccc, http://pad.lv/749470 libgda3,http://pad.lv/750926 libpano12, http://pad.lv/751014 nel,http://pad.lv/753941 synfig, http://pad.lv/753956 SYNC REQUESTED -- nufw, http://pad.lv/753950 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
