Re: Future of /usr/bin/which in Debian?

On Fri, 2021-08-20 at 11:03 +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: > Paul Wise 于2021年8月20日周五 上午10:50写道： > > > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 9:17 PM Boyuan Yang wrote: > > > > > So we will have https://salsa.debian.org/debian/which-gnu providing > > > a binary > > > package with name "which". I will upload it to

Re: Future of /usr/bin/which in Debian?

Paul Wise 于2021年8月20日周五 上午10:50写道： > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 9:17 PM Boyuan Yang wrote: > > > So we will have https://salsa.debian.org/debian/which-gnu providing a binary > > package with name "which". I will upload it to the NEW queue soon. > > Some folks on IRC wanted to package the FreeBSD wh

Re: Future of /usr/bin/which in Debian?

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 9:17 PM Boyuan Yang wrote: > So we will have https://salsa.debian.org/debian/which-gnu providing a binary > package with name "which". I will upload it to the NEW queue soon. Some folks on IRC wanted to package the FreeBSD which too, so I suggest using which-gnu as the bin

Work-needing packages report for Aug 20, 2021

The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the last week. Total number of orphaned packages: 1229 (new: 4) Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 205 (new: 1) Total number of packages reques

Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 09:56, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > P.S. I had a vague memory that there was some update in the long > distant past where we did require a manual upgrade of dpkg first. Or > is my memory playing tricks on me? I do know that a manual update of > dpkg is the first step in a cros

Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 10:39:45PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote: > > I think no one likes that idea, but it's the only solution that doesn't > immediately fail because it requires a dpkg update that hasn't shipped with > the current stable release, breaks local packages (kernel modules, firmware, >

Re: Q: Use https for {deb,security}.debian.org by default

On 2021-08-19 16:37:13 -0400 (-0400), Kyle Edwards wrote: > On 8/19/21 3:46 PM, Simon Richter wrote: > > For the most part, users would configure https if they are behind a > > corporate firewall that disallows http, or modifies data in-flight so > > signature verification fails, everyone else is b

Re: Future of /usr/bin/which in Debian?

在 2021-08-18星期三的 22:59 +0200，Geert Stappers写道： > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 07:56:05PM +, Clint Adams wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 09:48:29PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: > > } } I'm happy to transition /usr/bin/which to alternatives > > > Which alternatives would that be? > > > > I meant >

Bug#992539: ITP: which-gnu -- Utility to show the full path of commands

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Boyuan Yang X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name: which-gnu Version : 2.21 Upstream Author : Carlo Wood * URL : https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/which * License : GPL-3+ Programming Lang: C Des

Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms

Hi, On 8/19/21 4:45 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: FWIW, from following the discussion, I've become more and more convinced that a symlink farm is *not* the right answer, regardless of whether it is done centrally or via individual packages moving files and created symlinks if necessary in individual

Re: Q: Use https for {deb,security}.debian.org by default

On 8/19/21 3:46 PM, Simon Richter wrote: For the most part, users would configure https if they are behind a corporate firewall that disallows http, or modifies data in-flight so signature verification fails, everyone else is better off using plain http. Or they might configure https on the s

Re: Q: Use https for {deb,security}.debian.org by default

On 19.08.21 21:48, Paul Gevers wrote: On 19-08-2021 21:46, Simon Richter wrote: For the most part, users would configure https if they are behind a corporate firewall that disallows http, or modifies data in-flight so signature verification fails, everyone else is better off using plain http. E

Re: Q: Use https for {deb,security}.debian.org by default

Hi, On 19-08-2021 21:46, Simon Richter wrote: > For the most part, users would configure https if they are behind a > corporate firewall that disallows http, or modifies data in-flight so > signature verification fails, everyone else is better off using plain http. Except for the security archive

Re: Q: Use https for {deb,security}.debian.org by default

Hi, On 8/19/21 3:38 PM, Hideki Yamane wrote: Now deb.debian.org and security.debian.org provide https access but created sources.list file use http for those. Is there any reason to use http instead of https for them? (traffic, policy, etc...) If not, how about to change it? There is

Re: WARNING: dh_installsystemd is moving unit files to /usr/lib/systemd/system

Am 19.08.21 um 16:28 schrieb Theodore Ts'o: OK, thanks for confirming this. What really worried me was this text in lintian: N: Systemd in Debian searches for unit files in /lib/systemd/system/ and N: /etc/systemd/system. Notably, it does *not* look in N: /usr/lib/systemd/system/ for serv

Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:17:17AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > In this specific case, I think the thing you're having a problem with is > the gradual, file-by-file migration of executables into /usr by individual > packages and individual packages' maintainers. That's not merged-/usr: > merged-/

Re: WARNING: dh_installsystemd is moving unit files to /usr/lib/systemd/system

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:46:21AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 19.08.21 um 08:27 schrieb Michael Biebl: > > I'll check later today, if i-s-h (init-system-helpers) does properly > > handle this new path. If so, I'd say the bug should be reassigned to > > lintian and we should start transitionin

Re: Q: Use https for {deb,security}.debian.org by default

Is there any way to estimate what proportion of clients are behind a proxy? security.debian.org in particular could possibly see a lot more traffic when there are things like kernel updates. (Clearly it's not possible to determine how many clients a caching proxy might be serving) Are there any p

Bug#992511: ITP: python-pathos -- parallel graph management and execution in heterogeneous computing

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Romain Porte X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, deb...@microjoe.org * Package name: python-pathos Version : 0.2.8 Upstream Author : Mike McKerns * URL : https://github.com/uqfoundation/pathos * License : BSD-3-c

Bug#992509: ITP: python-pox -- utilities for filesystem exploration and automated builds

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Romain Porte X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,, deb...@microjoe.org * Package name: python-pox Version : 0.3.0 Upstream Author : Mike McKerns * URL : //github.com/uqfoundation/pox * License : BSD-3-clause Pro

Q: Use https for {deb,security}.debian.org by default

Hi, Now deb.debian.org and security.debian.org provide https access but created sources.list file use http for those. Is there any reason to use http instead of https for them? (traffic, policy, etc...) If not, how about to change it? -- Hideki Yamane

Bug#992504: ITP: python-ppft -- distributed and parallel Python

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Romain Porte X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, deb...@microjoe.org * Package name: python-ppft Version : 1.6.6.4 Upstream Author : Mike McKerns * URL : https://github.com/uqfoundation/ppft * License : BSD-like

Bug#992503: [RFC] [meta][WiP] URL specification with IPv6 zone identifiers

Package: general Severity: minor Tags: upstream ipv6 Forwarded: https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/392 Dear all, They are some push to change the RFC in order to support browsing to IPV6 address with zone identifier. It will help some of us to get configuration of industrial appliance. Link L

Re: testing for rootfs vs. /usr reproducibility regressions

On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 at 10:06:27 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 05:19:06PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > If we want to make buildd chroots merged-/usr any time soon, then I > > think we need to say this class of bugs is RC for bookworm. > > For a moment, let us assume perf

Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms

On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 at 10:06:27 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > You keep proposing adding /bin/foo -> /usr/bin/foo symbolic links via > maintainer scripts. I'm not proposing this! I'm trying to *not* need to do that in any more packages, and instead do usrmerge or equivalent, so that individual pack

Re: WARNING: dh_installsystemd is moving unit files to /usr/lib/systemd/system

Am 19.08.21 um 08:27 schrieb Michael Biebl: I'll check later today, if i-s-h (init-system-helpers) does properly handle this new path. If so, I'd say the bug should be reassigned to lintian and we should start transitioning the files to /usr/lib/systemd/system. I now remember updating i-s-h [

Re: WARNING: dh_installsystemd is moving unit files to /usr/lib/systemd/system

On Thu, 2021-08-19 at 08:27 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 19.08.2021 um 06:18 schrieb Theodore Ts'o: > > There appears to be a rather major regression in debhelper 1.13.4 and > > 1.13.4nmu1, which is forcing unit files to go in > > /usr/lib/systemd/system, instead of /lib/systemd/systemd (where

Re: Debian choice of upstream tarballs for packaging

Quoting Marc Haber (2021-08-19 09:12:27) > On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 19:16:05 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard > wrote: > >Quoting Marc Haber (2021-08-17 18:56:59) > >> There is, for example, one distribution that is based on Ubuntu > >> (maybe they thought that ubuntu would be too hard to install) and > >> do

Re: A summary of where I think we are on the technical side of the merged /usr discussion

Hi Simon, On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 05:19:06PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > If we want to make buildd chroots merged-/usr any time soon, then I > think we need to say this class of bugs is RC for bookworm. I fear there might be a logic trap here. For a moment, let us assume perfection of this pl

Re: Debian 11 Bullseye Setup Problems Error Report

Hello all valuable and constructive contributors :) 1) so thanks again for Debian it is just a lovely distro 2) forgot to mention: was using the net install ISOs for the test (hardware used server hp proliant g6 (amd64) (the raid is detected fine!)

Re: Debian choice of upstream tarballs for packaging

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 19:16:05 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >Quoting Marc Haber (2021-08-17 18:56:59) >> There is, for example, one distribution that is based on Ubuntu (maybe >> they thought that ubuntu would be too hard to install) and does not >> support upgrades. Their FAQ says "we cannot su