Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline

On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 09:25:52AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hi, > Am 06.01.24 um 06:51 schrieb Steve Langasek: > > > > - dpkg will be uploaded to experimental with 64-bit time_t in the > > > > default > > > > flags > > [...] > > What about the suggestion to not push changes to experimen

Transitioning one package's Debconf to a new one

Hi, I currently maintain two packages that use Debconf to decide whether to conduct some additional cleanup on uninstall, osk-sdl[0] and unl0kr[1]. Osk-sdl is deprecated upstream, so I'm trying to transition users of it to Unl0kr as part of the Trixie upgrade. This upgrade process is working

Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline

On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 09:07:15AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Am 06.01.24 um 06:51 schrieb Steve Langasek: > > > > - dpkg will be uploaded to experimental with 64-bit time_t in the > > > > default > > > > flags > > > I  think at that point in time one should know what breaks and whatnot. >

Bug#1060184: ITP: python-django-guid -- Identify Django request logs

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Jérémy Lal X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Debian Python Team * Package name: python-django-guid Version : 3.4.1 Upstream Contact: Jonas Krüger Svensson * URL : https://github.com/snok/django-guid * License

Bug#1060183: ITP: python3-django-crum -- Current request user capture middleware for Django

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Jérémy Lal X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Debian Python Team * Package name: python3-django-crum Version : 0.7.9 Upstream Contact: ch...@ninemoreminutes.com * URL : https://github.com/ninemoreminutes/django-crum/

Re: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline

On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 10:01:30AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes: > >> At one level, krb5-multidev only has an rdep of 5, but I suspect > >> the rdep count for libkrb5-dev is somewhat larger:-) I don't know > >> how many packages would be removed f

Bug#1060170: ITP: sirit -- library for runtime SPIR-V assembly

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: David James X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, davidjamescastor...@proton.me * Package name: sirit Version : 0.0~git20230509 Upstream Contact: Yuzu-emu team * URL : https://github.com/yuzu-e

Bug#1060168: ITP: python-json-log-formatter -- JSON formatter logging for Python

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Jérémy Lal X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Debian Python Team * Package name: python-json-log-formatter Version : 0.5.2 Upstream Contact: https://github.com/marselester/json-log-formatter/issues/new * URL : https:/

Re: Drawbacks of lack of mandated packaging workflow (Was: Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline)

On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 02:23:32AM +0900, Simon Richter wrote: > > Aren't all these problems just inherent in Debian's lack of a mandated > > packaging tooling and workflow [1,2]? > > We have a mandated tooling and workflow. > > The tooling follows an interface that is defined in Policy. The inte

Re: Drawbacks of lack of mandated packaging workflow (Was: Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline)

Hi, On 06.01.24 22:15, Gioele Barabucci wrote: Aren't all these problems just inherent in Debian's lack of a mandated packaging tooling and workflow [1,2]? We have a mandated tooling and workflow. The tooling follows an interface that is defined in Policy. The interface is deliberately desi

Re: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline

> "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes: >> At one level, krb5-multidev only has an rdep of 5, but I suspect >> the rdep count for libkrb5-dev is somewhat larger:-) I don't know >> how many packages would be removed from the transition if we >> decide most of the krb5 libraries do

Re: Drawbacks of lack of mandated packaging workflow (Was: Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline)

Oops, should have waited sending... On 06-01-2024 14:30, Paul Gevers wrote: On 06-01-2024 14:15, Gioele Barabucci wrote: Aren't all these problems just inherent in Debian's lack of a mandated packaging tooling and workflow [1,2]? Might be, but that doesn't mean that problem goes away. I was

Re: Drawbacks of lack of mandated packaging workflow (Was: Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline)

Hi Gioele, On 06-01-2024 14:15, Gioele Barabucci wrote: Aren't all these problems just inherent in Debian's lack of a mandated packaging tooling and workflow [1,2]? Might be, but that doesn't mean that problem goes away. Paul OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Drawbacks of lack of mandated packaging workflow (Was: Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline)

On 05/01/24 21:17, Paul Gevers wrote: Another worry, how will you provide the required changes to the maintainers of the packages? Via BTS? For those working on salsa: MR? Both? Something else? Obviously we should not end in the situation that a new upload goes back to the old name (or are the

Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline

Hi, Am 06.01.24 um 06:51 schrieb Steve Langasek: - dpkg will be uploaded to experimental with 64-bit time_t in the default flags [...] What about the suggestion to not push changes to experimental for packages that already have new versions in experimental, and do the binary package renames

Re: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline

On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 12:23:00AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > I am also attaching here the dd-list output for the packages that will need > to be sourcefully NMUed for the transition, for your review. I could readily identify a number of packages (incomplete) also affected by DEP17. Whenever y

Re: Bug#1036884: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline

Hi Steve, Am 06.01.24 um 06:51 schrieb Steve Langasek: - dpkg will be uploaded to experimental with 64-bit time_t in the default flags I  think at that point in time one should know what breaks and whatnot. Archive rebuild? (Probably in stages) What kind of breakage are you looking to