Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:48:54AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:34:21PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>> But setting up autobuilders doesn't require a new infrastructure
>>> (and shouldn't require more than half a year).
>>> Wasn't
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:21:45AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > That's still requiring /manual intervention/, and lying about the true
> > state of the bug to the BTS. Ideally the BTS should understand that the
> > bug was closed by a particular versi
I noticed that Adrian moved a bug report for a kernel in sid (2.6.10
(BIIRC) to the 2.6.8 kernel so it appeared as a Sarge RC Bug? I didn't
(Bsee anything that showed that it was a 2.6.8 problem, maybe it is, but
(Bit looked like second guessing to me...
(B
(BHow is this helping Sarge? If it
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 06:36:42PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:40:33AM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > Of course, "voila" may actually take a significant amount of time... but
> > could
> > it be slower than the two hours it takes a human to do it?
> It seems you
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
(B> Actually I am glad somebody is working public visible on the release issues
(B> and would not critisize him for that.
(B
(BPointing out a problem is nice, but doing so in an obnoxious manner
(Bhurts.
(B
(B-Miles
(B--
$B<+$i$r6u$K$7$F!"?4$r3+
> Well, I did not talk about regular snapshots, but about direct exports.
> Some tools in Debian (like "darcs-buildpackage", thank you John for
> this) make it possible to make such SCM builds. However the Autotools
> output is not versioned, so not included in the tarball.
It is possible to run a
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:41:38PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Uh, no. The old binary package should either be removed completely from
> > the archive (in which case all packages that depend on it are instantly
> > uninstallable), or be moved to a separate source package
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 06:02:52PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> That's still requiring /manual intervention/, and lying about the true
> state of the bug to the BTS. Ideally the BTS should understand that
> the bug was closed by a particular version of the package (the one
> which had Closes: in
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:54:53PM +0200, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> I do not dare to initialize another bug in libldap or pam-ldap. :-(
> But with the newest sarge if I configure nss-ldap and pam-ldap to use
> tls to connect the server mozilla will dump core.
> Now the problem:
> Which package is the
Eric Dorland wrote:
> Why? Just run auto* on the unpacked tarball and ship them in the
> .diff.gz? What makes it more legitimate in that case? That the
> upstream developers didn't run the autotools? They would have, if it
> were a proper release.
Well, I did not talk about regular snapshots, but
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I do not dare to initialize another bug in libldap or pam-ldap. :-(
>
> But with the newest sarge if I configure nss-ldap and pam-ldap to use
> tls to connect the server mozilla will dump core.
>
> Now the problem:
> Which package is the bug
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I do not dare to initialize another bug in libldap or pam-ldap. :-(
But with the newest sarge if I configure nss-ldap and pam-ldap to use
tls to connect the server mozilla will dump core.
Now the problem:
Which package is the buggy one?
- - m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Uh, no. The old binary package should either be removed completely from
> the archive (in which case all packages that depend on it are instantly
> uninstallable), or be moved to a separate source package in section
> oldlibs.
* Philipp Kern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> > Yes, they are necessary tools for developers. But nearly ever project
> > I've ever seen ships the files generated from the auto* tools.
>
> However I feel the use of a build-d
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:18:03PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I got some questions to library packaging. If the ABI of a library
> breaks, the SONAME of it gets updated and thus the binary package's
> name. As soon as the new revision gets uploaded the old binary package
> should get NBS (Not Bui
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:18:03PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I got some questions to library packaging. If the ABI of a library
> breaks, the SONAME of it gets updated and thus the binary package's
> name. As soon as the new revision gets uploaded the old binary package
> should get NBS (Not Bui
* Turbo Fredriksson [Mon, 30 May 2005 12:52:54 +0200]:
> Oki, I forgot that I already uploaded a -2 version. Now, in testing
> (which this was intended for) I have -1...
> I haven't done an update like this in years, but could someone
> verify that I should take the '-1' version, do the modificat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear list readers,
I got some questions to library packaging. If the ABI of a library
breaks, the SONAME of it gets updated and thus the binary package's
name. As soon as the new revision gets uploaded the old binary package
should get NBS (Not Built
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eric Dorland wrote:
> Yes, they are necessary tools for developers. But nearly ever project
> I've ever seen ships the files generated from the auto* tools.
However I feel the use of a build-dependency is a legitimate one if the
package is built dire
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:21:45AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That's still requiring /manual intervention/, and lying about the true
> > state of the bug to the BTS. Ideally the BTS should understand that the
> > bug was closed by a particular version
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Or do you _really_ want to release sarge with many dozens of already
> known and fixed bugs?
I'd worry about it more if we hadn't suffered from the same or similar
problems with ever previous Debian release, TBPH. Even back when we froze
unstable, this just pushed certian bug
On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 20:36 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > 1) What's the timeframe? Should it be available for Sarge, so it needs
> > >quick packaging?
[...]
> Uh, I don't care how quickly you package it, we're not promoting a totally
> new package from unstable to stable in the space of a
On Monday 30 May 2005 02.03, Nicolas François wrote:
> Does anybody know where I can find older sources?
[ of shadow ]
- have you tried asking the shadow maintainers
(<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) - perhaps somebody has old CVS
repositories or whatever lying around?
- The Debian changelog goes back to
Joey Hess dijo [Sat, May 28, 2005 at 07:10:35PM -0400]:
> I will not be online between June 2nd and 5th. Don't release without me! ;-)
Hey, this might give some people extra information for getting a free beer[1]!
Anyway, have a good time
[1] http://www.grep.be/blog/2005/05/28/#release_pool
--
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Do you think you could manage to leave your critisms til next week when
> we might have released and turn them into constructive criticisms
> instead of merely demanding pieces of information from the release team?
He is warning about a big number of onr
Russ Allbery wrote:
>Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Or do you _really_ want to release sarge with many dozens of already
>> known and fixed bugs?
>
>Yes. Given the number of packages in Debian, some amount of this is
>inevitable. We'll live.
>
>And you're not just providing constru
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> or, you could always not close it in your changelog, and update the
> bug accordingly.
However last time I asked for this, it was deprecated:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00915.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg0091
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's still requiring /manual intervention/, and lying about the true
> state of the bug to the BTS. Ideally the BTS should understand that the
> bug was closed by a particular version of the package (the one which had
> Closes: in it), and the bug is st
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or do you _really_ want to release sarge with many dozens of already
> known and fixed bugs?
Yes. Given the number of packages in Debian, some amount of this is
inevitable. We'll live.
And you're not just providing constructive feedback. You're also
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: asedrive3e
Version : 2.2
Upstream Author : Athena Smartcard Solutions
* URL : http://www.athena-scs.com
* License : BSDish
Description : PC/SC driver for Athena smart
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> hi,
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 04:07:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> The BTS does not currently support this. For example, if I upload a
>> fix to unstable, I have to manually reopen it and tag it sarge.
>
Hello Developers and Maintainers,
The BUG, described by me, occures if you upgrade from WOODY to SARGE.
I have a WOODY workststion (using backports) and yesterday it was
the first time I have called mozilla as root and "Preferences" was
working.
Now I have created a new profile in my own account
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:30:56AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Robert Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > So either you don't patch the package, or you be willing to require the
> > > relevant auto* be installed.
> >
> > Or you put the patch
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 05:53:31PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
>
> For http://www.wolffelaar.nl/~sarge, there are already diffs in a
> database that are exactly the diffs between sarge & sid changelogs.
> Anyway, this problem is already long time known, and the solution will
> be implement
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:40:33AM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 01:19:48PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:04:51PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
>
> > > http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php?ignore=sid&ignsec=on&fullcomment=on&new=7
> > >
> > > t
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:17:29PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> Adrian, I've noticed lately that almost every post you send is about the
> release; Pointing out problems with some feature or other of it or with
> the actions of the hard working people who are trying to get sarge out
> the door.
>
On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 01:47:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> But it doesn't sound like what you have here is a toolchain bug, it sounds
> like you have a source bug that manifests differently under different
> optimization levels. Could you please try to debug the memory error instead
> of w
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:40:33AM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 01:19:48PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:04:51PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
>
> > > http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php?ignore=sid&ignsec=on&fullcomment=on&new=7
> > >
> > > t
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 01:19:48PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:04:51PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
> > http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php?ignore=sid&ignsec=on&fullcomment=on&new=7
> >
> > thats a decent unoffical count...
> ... that doesn't (and can't) in any way addr
hi,
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 04:07:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> The BTS does not currently support this. For example, if I upload a
> fix to unstable, I have to manually reopen it and tag it sarge.
or, you could always not close it in your changelog, and update the
bug accordingly.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:59:26PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>
>> Finding these issues is one of the prices for freezing testing
>> instead of unstable [1].
>
> CMIIW, but isn't unstable a place wh
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:30:56AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Robert Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > So either you don't patch the package, or you be willing to require the
> > relevant auto* be installed.
>
> Or you put the patch in the .diff.gz. I think that's the best option.
Uh, i
* Robert Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 03:33 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > > Because we want to test for buildability. We want to make it possible
> > > to change any part of the program and barring real errors, i
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 09:16:15AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Have you actually got a specific problem with the changes I did, or
> really, the results of them? There were a couple problems where people
> had old libldap2's hanging around (which is a rather serious mistake
> anywa
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 11:40:12PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Nicolas François]
> > I'm looking for really old sources of the shadow package.
> > With http://snapshot.debian.net, the latest I can find is 2902-12
> > (2002/06/04).
> >
> > Does anybody know where I can find older sources?
* Simon Richter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost schrieb:
> > Completely breaks dlopen()'ings of libldap2. Don't know if there are
> > any in sarge but don't see any reason to break them if there are.
>
> dlopen() should handle dependency libs just fine, I think. If dlsym()
> fails beca
Hi,
Stephen Frost schrieb:
> Completely breaks dlopen()'ings of libldap2. Don't know if there are
> any in sarge but don't see any reason to break them if there are.
dlopen() should handle dependency libs just fine, I think. If dlsym()
fails because the symbol is actually in another lib, maybe
* Torsten Landschoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> At first sight this looked (for me) like making sense and having no
> negative implications. Of course reality was different - ldconfig had
> problems setting the right symbolic links.
setting the right symbolic links? It's not being used to set
* Nigel Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Unless there is a related RC bug there, I don't think it's gonna
> matter when the change is to get it in sarge (i personally have not
> seen any RC bugs though...)
There's RC bugs all over this.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signa
* Simon Richter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Torsten Landschoff schrieb:
>
> > Suggestions how to fix that for real before getting sarge out of the
> > door with this risk that I don't feel I can estimate?
>
> Build a dumy libldap.so.2 with the same SONAME that consists of a NEEDED
> entry for li
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:48:38PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:48:54AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It turned out that the central part of the existing infrastructure
> > didn't scale up well enough to cope with the new architectures in sarge.
> There are no new arch
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:48:54AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:34:21PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > But setting up autobuilders doesn't require a new infrastructure
> > (and shouldn't require more than half a year).
> > Wasn't the infrastructure a prerequisite for wood
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:19:11PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I'd expect maintainers drop patches which are orphaned by the upstream
> > or whose maintainance would be a problem...
>
> The number of patches that do not apply shown in the initial message of
> this thread shows that your expect
On 2005-05-21, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can anyone point me to an example where testing-security has actually
> been used?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/debian-security-announce-2005/msg00111.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/debian-security-
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:47:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:34:21PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > But setting up autobuilders doesn't require a new infrastructure
> > (and shouldn't require more than half a year).
>
> In this case, it did because of scalability is
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:04:51PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
> http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php?ignore=sid&ignsec=on&fullcomment=on&new=7
>
> thats a decent unoffical count...
... that doesn't (and can't) in any way address the problem I described
in my email.
> N Jones
cu
Adrian
--
Adrian, I've noticed lately that almost every post you send is about the
release; Pointing out problems with some feature or other of it or with
the actions of the hard working people who are trying to get sarge out
the door.
Do you think you could manage to leave your critisms til next week when
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dmitry Borodaenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: samizdat
Version : 0.5.5
Upstream Author : Dmitry Borodaenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.nongnu.org/samizdat/
* License : GPL
Description : Collaborat
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dmitry Borodaenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libtidy-ruby
Version : 1.1.2
Upstream Author : Kevin Howe
* URL : http://rubyforge.org/projects/tidy/
* License : Ruby license (dual GPL and BSD-like)
Description
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:59:26PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> Finding these issues is one of the prices for freezing testing
> instead of unstable [1].
>
CMIIW, but isn't unstable a place where architectures can be out of
sync? To get into a testing, a package has to pass the cooling off
pe
http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php?ignore=sid&ignsec=on&fullcomment=on&new=7
thats a decent unoffical count...
On 30/05/05, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 11:57:52PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >...
> > Timeline
> >
> >...
> > 1 June 2005
> > ~1
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 11:57:52PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>...
> Timeline
>
>...
> 1 June 2005
> ~15 RC bugs (excluding security bugs)
> 0 RC bugs not tagged "sarge"
>...
How do you measure RC bugs?
If you only look at the output of the BTS - that's horribly wrong.
Why?
Becau
Quoting Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Rejected: roxen4_4.0.325-2_i386.changes: a file with this name already exists
> in the Done directory.
> Rejected: md5sum and/or size mismatch on existing copy of
> roxen4_4.0.325-2.diff.gz.
> Rejected: roxen4-doc_4.0.325-2_all.deb: old version (4.
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:34:21PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> But setting up autobuilders doesn't require a new infrastructure
> (and shouldn't require more than half a year).
> Wasn't the infrastructure a prerequisite for woody and is working?
It turned out that the central part of the existing
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:34:21PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> But setting up autobuilders doesn't require a new infrastructure
> (and shouldn't require more than half a year).
In this case, it did because of scalability issues. This was known and
publicised for quite a while; so either you're bei
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:21:04PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 11:11:09AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 07:39:30AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > What it means: the Ubuntu maintainer for tla-load-dirs (sorry, don't know
> > > who) managed to send
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 08:10:35PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:46:09AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > As far as I understood it, the missing infrastructure for
> > testing-security was the reason why the release of sarge was delayed by
> > more than half a year.
>
>
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 11:11:09AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 07:39:30AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 03:56:35PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Can anyone tell me what this means, and who is trying to upload this to
> > > Debian without even s
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 10:02:06PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:35:59AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> >
> > > The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patch
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 02:13:56PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> the right thing to do would be to switch from sections, to keywords, so
> that kmplayer could live in sound + video + kde, instead of multimedia
> that is not very informative.
I want to stress what Adrian and Benjamin said a bi
On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 02:06:03PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Is it already used in any package management tools? Or is the debedit
> GUI currently the only program using the preliminary database?
There is a library being implemented (libapt-front.alioth.debian.org) to
wrap libapt and also inc
U can get like-debian CDs at http://shipit.ubuntulinux.org/ at not cost
El dom, 29-05-2005 a las 15:41 +0100, ratikanta rath escribió:
> Note- I began liking debian after i heard of it.
> Please help this poor student by mailing me the CDs if
> you have
> [...]
>
> My address:
> Ratikanta Rath
>
Unless there is a related RC bug there, I don't think it's gonna
matter when the change is to get it in sarge (i personally have not
seen any RC bugs though...)
On 30/05/05, Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> People following the OpenLDAP packages might remember this change
Hi,
Torsten Landschoff schrieb:
> Suggestions how to fix that for real before getting sarge out of the
> door with this risk that I don't feel I can estimate?
Build a dumy libldap.so.2 with the same SONAME that consists of a NEEDED
entry for libldap_r.so.2 only.
Simon
signature.asc
Descrip
Hi *,
People following the OpenLDAP packages might remember this change:
openldap2 (2.1.30-7) unstable; urgency=high
* Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+ debian/move_files: make libldap a symlink to libldap_r, as carrying
two versions of this library around is more trouble
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 03:33 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > Because we want to test for buildability. We want to make it possible
> > to change any part of the program and barring real errors, it should
> > still build. That upstream writes crap c
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Eric Dorland
>
> [Substituting your fixed sentence in the text below]
>
> | I think a build-dependency on automake and autoconf is almost always
> | a bad idea. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is
> | generally a bad thing. You should
77 matches
Mail list logo
