Package: general
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
Recently, I have upgrade packages xorg, xserver-xorg, xserver-xorg-input-all
and
x11-common from 7.6+12 to 7.6+13.
After that, my desktop environment was always dead that cpu of X became 70% and
cpu of gnome-shell occupy the other 30%.
A
Charles Plessy writes:
> How about integrating it with the Policy's chapter 5 (thus enlarging its
> scope) instead of having it as a separate document ? That would help to
> underline when a field is used in the same way or differently as in the
> package control data files.
The primary reason
Hi, List,
One of my packages [1] failed to build on armel, kfreebsd and hurd,
But I don't have such a machine to test my packages. Is it possible
to use debian porterbox to build the package and dig into this
problem ?
[1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=spice-vdagent
Thanks and
]] Roger Leigh
> I think this is a key point. The aim of the git format should not be
> provide the entire history, any more than the other formats do (not).
>
> What should be provided needs to be
> - sufficient to build the package
> - sufficient to determine the changes made between the Upst
Le Fri, May 18, 2012 at 06:49:10PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode a écrit :
>
> In a few months, I'd like to rework this in DocBook form, and submit it to
> debian-policy for inclusion into official Policy, as a sub-policy like
> copyright-format.
Dear Julian and everybody,
thank you for this docume
Le Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:56:07AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>
> In the case of the initial copryight review, which is if I understand well the
> strongest objection, wouldn't it be solved if the first upload to Debian would
> contain as few history as possible ? Then the quantity of histor
Le Wed, May 16, 2012 at 07:45:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > Also, it is very sad that, as a project, we can not decide whether we go
> > for 3.0 (git) or not, or have a concrete list of resolvable objections
> > from the people whose work is direclty impacted b
Hi Peter,
Thanks for bringing up this issue again. Admittedly, there hasn't been much
progress since it was discussed last year.
Hopefully, the discussion has focused on a solution to completely avoid the
problem during upgrades.
For the general issue, the only progress I made was in the form o
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> What's the opinion about the flat repository format, where you
> just have one directory with Release, Packages, Sources, and
> friends and no sub-directories?
>
> Should they be documented as well then? We would then have two
> kind o
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:27:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Only as long as the debian/control information matches the one from
> > the archive override.
>
> I checked, and currently the only base package with an overridden priority
> is libsigc++-2.0-0c2a
So, would it b
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
> When it is time to release/upload, the branch gets git format-patch'd,
> and makes its way to debian/patches for 3.0(quilt) to handle. That
> branch is never published. git-pq can automate this stuff in an even
> better way that is rebase-less if you want,
Hi!
On 18.05.2012 10:50, Paul Wise wrote:
Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist. What
should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them for the
case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a few
packages. Most of th
Excerpts from Julian Andres Klode's message of Fri May 18 18:49:10 +0200 2012:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > FWIW
> >
> > posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Michal
>
> I have now documented the Contents ind
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 08:12:16PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> The formatting is not consistent but that will have to be changed for
> docbook anyway.
Yes, and it will also be more readable then, than the current wiki
version.
>
> Also would need some proof-reading. If nothing else somebody
+++ Julian Andres Klode [2012-05-18 13:38 +0200]:
> We currently have three independent implementations of the repository
> format in the archive: APT, cupt, smartpm.
I think reprepro is another?
/usr/share/doc/reprepro/manual.html contains a 'repository basics'
section which includes useful la
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 06:45:00PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Julian Andres Klode [2012-05-18 13:38 +0200]:
>
> > We currently have three independent implementations of the repository
> > format in the archive: APT, cupt, smartpm.
>
> I think reprepro is another?
Of course, I was just only talk
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> FWIW
>
> posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
What's the opinion about the flat repository format, where you
just have one directory with Release, Packages, Sources, and
friends and no sub-directories?
Shou
While this has been an interesting thread, it may be predicated on a
false premise. I examined the latest weekly CD build, and the reason no
desktop tasks at all (even lxde or xfce) appear on their respective CDs
is because debian-cd is simply not including tasksel's new task-*
packages, at all.
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> FWIW
>
> posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
>
> Thanks
>
> Michal
I have now documented the Contents indices and the diffs
as well, mostly (sans the exact format we use for the
patches), and Translation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/18/2012 11:37 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 09:24:04AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> On 05/17/2012 04:52 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
I'm confused concerning the above; the point of a VCS in this context
is to track c
Guillem Jover wrote:
> Only as long as the debian/control information matches the one from
> the archive override.
I checked, and currently the only base package with an overridden priority
is libsigc++-2.0-0c2a
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:41:55 +0100
"Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" wrote:
> Another question, perhaps unrelated is, what happens with the bugs
> closed from egroupware or salome (removed from unstable/testing but
> still present in stable releases) when their users look for them in
> the BTS? Th
2012/5/18 Thomas Preud'homme :
> According to [1] salome is not part of any debian release now. Did I miss
> something? IIRW, for package still in stable, if the -done mail contains the
> right version then the bug will still be visible as long as it affects stable.
Oh yes, egroupware only in olds
Le vendredi 18 mai 2012 17:41:55, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo a écrit :
> 2012/5/18 Neil Williams :
> > There's a big difference between these bugs and the rest - here there
> > are clear migration paths to later packages which can be used to triage
> > the bug reports in order not to lose report
2012/5/18 Neil Williams :
> There's a big difference between these bugs and the rest - here there
> are clear migration paths to later packages which can be used to triage
> the bug reports in order not to lose reports. A lot of the rest *can*
> be closed without more triage work because the packag
On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:34:40 +0100
"Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2012/5/18 Daniel Leidert :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist.
> > What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep
> > them for the
* Adam Borowski [120518 11:37]:
> You complain about forcing people to use git, while you push quilt onto
> everyone else.
> [...]
>
> I really wish there was a "3.0" format besides "3.0 (quilt)", so people are
> not mislead into thinking they have to (or even, would gain anything) from
> writing
FWIW
posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
Thanks
Michal
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1337349939-sup-8...@virtual.ruk.cuni.
On Fri, 18 May 2012, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:16:40PM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 May 2012 11:37:08 +0200
> > Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > Quilt is a kind of really primitive VCS. It does not make sense to
> > > use both it and a modern one, and when someone
On Thu, 17 May 2012, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 07:23 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Well, FWIW postfix allows you to override all MTA notifications, not just
> > bounce messages, but the full set. We do that at work.
> >
> Interesting. Can you post an example here?
man
Hi,
2012/5/18 Daniel Leidert :
> Hi,
>
> Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist.
> What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them
> for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a
> few packages. Most of
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 01:38:40PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> I do not think that APT is responsible for the repository format. The
> repository format is defined by ftpmaster, not by APT. APT has to my
> knowledge not defined anything new, but only implemented changes to
> the repository
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
>> James McCoy writes:
>>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:23:05PM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
Unpatching the sources *before* the build process was cleaned up makes
no sense to me at all. Could you provide a
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 01:27:50PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 07:45:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Charles Plessy writes:
> >
> > > Also, it is very sad that, as a project, we can not decide whether we go
> > > for 3.0 (git) or not, or have a concrete list of resol
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 01:38:40PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:02:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > CC'ing the apt list de...@lists.debian.org.
> >
> > Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Bug#481129: Bug#671503: general: APT
> > repository format is not documente
Hi,
Le 18/05/12 13:46, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
>> This works only for the special case that "build" does not change any
>> source file. Otherwise you would also commit the changed source files.
>
> And it better not. There is no excuse for changing source files during
> build. If you need
+++ Mehdi Dogguy [2012-05-16 16:24 +0200]:
> On 16/05/12 13:41, Wookey wrote:
> >is there any reason not to just upload this to Debian?
>
> There are ITPs filed for it:
> - http://bugs.debian.org/582884
> - http://bugs.debian.org/576359
Yes. I discovered that when I went to file an ITP :-)
It tu
"Daniel Leidert" writes:
> Hi,
>
> Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist.
> What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them
> for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a
> few packages. Most of them
Roger Leigh writes:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 02:38:14PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> That just leaves the question of wether dpkg uses uid/gid or symbolic
>> names when unpacking debs.
>
> I think this one is clear: it must be symbolic since the uids/gids
> aren't static. Unless you wa
debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
> James McCoy writes:
>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:23:05PM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
>>> Unpatching the sources *before* the build process was cleaned up makes
>>> no sense to me at all. Could you provide a use case for that?
>> As was descri
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:16:40PM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 11:37:08 +0200
> Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Quilt is a kind of really primitive VCS. It does not make sense to
> > use both it and a modern one, and when someone tries,
>
> I'm sorry to disappoint you, but quilt
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:02:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> CC'ing the apt list de...@lists.debian.org.
>
> Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Bug#481129: Bug#671503: general: APT
> repository format is not documented"):
> > Michal Suchanek writes:
> > > [ discussions regarding documenting the
Chris Knadle writes:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 06:38:49, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:10:28AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 03:17:17PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
>> > > No, I hereby start saying good by to 3.0
>> >
>> > I'm hoping we can revi
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 07:45:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > Also, it is very sad that, as a project, we can not decide whether we go
> > for 3.0 (git) or not, or have a concrete list of resolvable objections
> > from the people whose work is direclty impacted by t
Jon Dowland writes:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:38:49PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> It is true that 3.0 (quilt) does have a great downside, quilt, but it also
>> has a number of upsides. And working around quilt is simple:
>>
>> echo "single-debian-patch" >debian/source/options
>> echo "/.p
CC'ing the apt list de...@lists.debian.org.
Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Bug#481129: Bug#671503: general: APT
repository format is not documented"):
> Michal Suchanek writes:
> > [ discussions regarding documenting the apt repository format ]
>
> I would suggest you look at existing reposi
"Daniel Leidert" writes:
> Hi,
>
> Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer)
> exist. What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea
> to keep them for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might
> happen only for a few packages. Most of them got
Michal Suchanek writes:
> Excerpts from Ian Jackson's message of Thu May 17 14:53:30 +0200 2012:
>> Michal Suchanek writes ("Re: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is
>> not documented"):
>> > Excerpts from Filipus Klutiero's message of Wed May 16 18:44:21 +0200 2012:
>> > > Could you cl
Excerpts from David Kalnischkies's message of Thu May 17 18:21:59 +0200 2012:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Michal Suchanek
> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Ian Jackson's message of Thu May 17 14:53:30 +0200 2012:
> >> Michal Suchanek writes ("Re: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is
> >>
Hello,
On Fri, 18 May 2012 11:37:08 +0200
Adam Borowski wrote:
> Quilt is a kind of really primitive VCS. It does not make sense to
> use both it and a modern one, and when someone tries, this ends up
> with no end of woe. Quilt sprinkles its modifications around the
> source, breaks timestamp
]] Igor Pashev
> What about stable release? Git branches?
Sure. Branches are cheap.
> What about users who want rebuild a package (probably with new patches)?
They'll then just grab the git tree, apply their patches, build their
package.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just p
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 09:24:04AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 05/17/2012 04:52 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> >> I'm confused concerning the above; the point of a VCS in this context is
> >> to
> >> track changes to the source package, and the patches are themselves
> >> important
> >> changes
Daniel Leidert (18/05/2012):
> Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer)
> exist. What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea
> to keep them for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might
> happen only for a few packages. Most of them got remo
On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:50:12 +0800
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Leidert wrote:
>
> > Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist.
> > What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep
> > them for the case, a pack
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 06:23:49PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> Another thing I've seen with another package I'm working on in collaboration
> is using a Git repo in which the only contents are the debian/ files and not
> the original source tarball nor source files at all. To do a built the
>
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist.
> What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them
> for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a
> few pa
Hi,
Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist. What
should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them for the
case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a few
packages. Most of them got removed because newer versions wer
18.05.2012 00:11, Russ Allbery пишет:
> Tollef Fog Heen writes:
>> ]] Russ Allbery
>
>>> If I were to pick between the enhancements to Debian in this area, none
>>> of which I have time to work on and therefore can't vote on via
>>> implementation, I'd be way more interested in avoiding the enti
Hi there!
On Tue, 15 May 2012 01:10:19 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 14 Mai 2012, Clint Adams wrote:
>> dpkg-source is more intolerant of fuzz than quilt itself.
>> Run quilt refresh on the patch and it should be happier.
>
> Ar ... is this on purpose? Or by chance? Or to drive
> d
On 05/17/2012 04:52 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Chris Knadle writes:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 06:38:49, Adam Borowski wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:10:28AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 03:17:17PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> No, I hereby start saying
60 matches
Mail list logo
