Accepted gpsim-doc 0.22.0-2.1 (source) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:54:01 +0200 Source: gpsim-doc Binary: gpsim-doc Architecture: source Version: 0.22.0-2.1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Armando Segnini <arma...@gmail.com> Changed-By: Adrian B

Accepted gcc-msp430 4.6.3~mspgcc-20120406-7.1 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:04:54 +0200 Source: gcc-msp430 Binary: gcc-msp430 Architecture: source amd64 Version: 4.6.3~mspgcc-20120406-7.1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Luca Bruno <lu...@debian.org> Changed-By:

Accepted hidapi-cffi 0.2.1-1.1 (source) into unstable

hanged-By: Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> Description: python-hidapi - Python bindings for the HID API python3-hidapi - Python bindings for the HID API Closes: 836907 Changes: hidapi-cffi (0.2.1-1.1) unstable; urgency=medium . * Non-maintainer upload. * Add missing dependencies on pyt

Accepted visolate 2.1.6~svn8+dfsg1-1.1 (source) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:43:30 +0200 Source: visolate Binary: visolate Architecture: source Version: 2.1.6~svn8+dfsg1-1.1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Christian M. Amsüss <chr...@fsfe.org> Changed-By: Adria

Accepted sapphire 0.15.8-9.1 (source) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:31:12 +0200 Source: sapphire Binary: sapphire Architecture: source Version: 0.15.8-9.1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Chris Boyle <c...@debian.org> Changed-By: Adrian Bunk <b...@d

Accepted miniupnpd 1.8.20140523-4.1 (source) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 13:52:51 +0200 Source: miniupnpd Binary: miniupnpd Architecture: source Version: 1.8.20140523-4.1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> Changed-By: Adrian B

Accepted clipper 2.1.20130601-2.1 (source) into unstable

Maintainers <debian-science-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org> Changed-By: Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> Description: libclipper-dev - object oriented development kit for crystallographic computing libclipper-doc - doxygen generated documentation for libclipper libclipper2 - obj

Re: contacting all bug reporters for a package?

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 10:15:33PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > > On 19/12/16 21:57, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:11:27AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > >> > >> Is there any easy way to contact everybody who made a bug report against >

Re: contacting all bug reporters for a package?

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:11:27AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > Is there any easy way to contact everybody who made a bug report against > a package and ask them to check if the latest upload fixes it? Or is > there any script for maintainers to do this? I would expect the majority of your

Re: MIA maintainers and RC-buggy packages

On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 01:14:42PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: >... > To add a few criteria, I'd remove a package from sid only if it >... > * has been orphaned for a longer time, say: a year > So again users of that package had a grace period to ask for work on > that package. >... Two

Re: [Letsencrypt-devel] Certbot in Debian Stretch

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 07:08:33PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > > On 24/11/16 17:39, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 05:22:29PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > >> ... > >> For networked services, it is different. > >> > >>

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 02:50:23PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:50:12PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > >... > > >

Re: [Letsencrypt-devel] Certbot in Debian Stretch

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 05:22:29PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: >... > For networked services, it is different. > > Debian has already been carrying updated versions of Firefox and > Chromium in stable including bundled dependencies too. Maybe we need to > have an objective way of deciding which

Re: [Letsencrypt-devel] Certbot in Debian Stretch

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 02:45:26PM +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016, at 13:39, Philipp Kern wrote: > > So if you, as an upstream maintainer, have a change that is needed for > > compatibility with changes in network APIs and the change is reviewable > > by humans, a stable update

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 03:20:06PM +0100, Jan Niehusmann wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 03:59:10PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > If inspection is not easily possible, then adding a dependency on > > libssl1.0-dev to qtbase5-private-dev should be sufficient to > > ensure th

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:50:12PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >... > > > So, if Qt *ever* exposes its use of openssl anywere in its APIs, it > > > might not be safe. If it doesn't (i.e. at most you have a qt flag that > > > says "use SSL",

Re: Multi-Arch: allowed

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 05:53:04PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 18:11:27 +0100, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > > > The -dbg package is Multi-Arch same. It Depends on the packages for > > which it provides debugging symbols, some of which are Multi-Arch: > > allowed. > > That

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:22:59PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> schrieb: > > And/or get sponsorship from companies for supporting ChaCha20-patched > > 1.0.2 > > It's not a matter of whipping up some patch; anything less than an >

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:43:53PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> schrieb: > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 09:37:01AM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez > > Meyer wrote: > >> On lunes, 14 de noviembre de 2016 16:51:04 ART Marco

Re: libc recently more aggressive about pthread locks in stable ?

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:38:46AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016, at 09:50, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > But we do already have > 1 year of widespread testing by users > > running unstable/testing on machines with TSX enabled. > > > > So

Re: libc recently more aggressive about pthread locks in stable ?

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 09:28:34AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016, at 09:11, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 17/11/16 at 08:31 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > The deal with *current* Debian stable is that, if the breakage is too > > > widespread, we

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:53:18PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-11-16 19:49:44 [+0200], Adrian Bunk wrote: > > The problem are not specific bugs, the problem is the whole size of the > > problem: > > > > 1. Sorting out what packages have to sta

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 12:27:43AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 10:04:00 PM Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez > Meyer wrote: > > On jueves, 17 de noviembre de 2016 00:40:42 ART Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 07:10:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: >

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:15:39AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-11-15 00:16:14 [+0200], Adrian Bunk wrote: > > And since 80% of all OpenSSL-using packages in unstable are still > > using libssl1.0.2 (binNMUs have not yet happened), all runtime > > i

Re: libc recently more aggressive about pthread locks in stable ?

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:31:18AM +0100, Gert Wollny wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 06.11.2016, 01:12 -0200 schrieb Henrique de Moraes > Holschuh: > >  > >  > >  > > Unfortunately, when hardware lock elision support was added to glibc > > upstream, libpthreads was *not* changed to properly assert()

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 07:03:28PM +1100, Scott Leggett wrote: > On 2016-11-15.00:16, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Bugs like "With Kurt's patch, apache2 crashes on startup with an invalid > > free." > > or #843988 will be a common sight on the list of RC bugs for sev

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 09:37:01AM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > On lunes, 14 de noviembre de 2016 16:51:04 ART Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Nov 14, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > > > And yes, I would step back and switch libssl-dev to

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 07:10:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Marco d'Itri: > > On Nov 14, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > > > >> And yes, I would step back and switch libssl-dev to provide libssl1.0-dev > >> and > >> have libssl1.1-dev around for anyone

Re: client-side signature checking of Debian archives (Re: When should we https our mirrors?)

On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 12:03:03AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 2016-11-05 22:23, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > The solution you are trying to sell is apt-transport-https as default. > [...] > > Your solution would be a lot of work with relatively little improvement. > > Well

Re: NRSS has been deprecated [#696302]

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 08:58:53PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 06:55:33PM +, Clint Adams wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 06:28:41AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > A maintainer would then file "ITR: dasher" and wait for responses before > > > requesting RM. > >

Re: unattended-upgrades by default?

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:16:53AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > Forced reboot on upgrade is damage. Let's learn from errors of others. > > needrestart has a mechanism (needrestart-session) to hook into user > sessions, perhaps that could

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 11:16:36AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > > Right. We want auto-removals to be useful for the release process, so that > > we > > don't end up with a thousand of RC bugs in testing when we freeze, most of > >

Re: What to do when a maintainer is blocking maintenance for stretch?

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:45:43PM +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >... > Also, a personal pledge to everybody who's reading this: please don't > attach yourself to your packages like mussels on a rock. If you realize > (or somebody else is making you realize) that you're doing a bad job on > a

Re: Bug#842796: libc recently more aggressive about pthread locks in stable ?

On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 08:04:39AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Henrique de Moraes Holschuh] > > And what should we do about Debian stretch, then? > > I believe a good start would be to add an assert() in a test version of > glibc and then run all the autopkgtest scripts on the packages

Re: libc recently more aggressive about pthread locks in stable ?

On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 05:41:34PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 06 Nov 2016, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > It's worth noting that TSX is broken in 'Haswell' processors and is > > supposed to be disabled via a microcode update. I don't know whether > > glibc avoids using it on

Re: client-side signature checking of Debian archives (Re: When should we https our mirrors?)

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:06:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> writes: >... > So, I'm not quite sure how to put this, since I don't know how much work > you've done professionally in computer security, and I don't want to > belittle that. I

Re: Road to Stretch: let's stop increasing major version number in critical libraries at this point

On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 11:14:02AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Hi, Hi Thomas, >... > Finally, with the above examples as illustration (and please, these > aren't attacks in any way...), I guess what I'm trying to say here is: > > While disruptive changes are necessary evils so we upgrade

Re: unattended-upgrades by default?

On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 10:27:00PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 10:51:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Should Debian also default to automatically reboot? > > > > If the answer is "no", then nothing is a solution that does not also > &

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0

On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:49:30AM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > On jueves, 3 de noviembre de 2016 12:34:23 P. M. ART Tino Mettler wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 14:02:52 -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer > > wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > Today we the Qt/KDE

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not starting on #!

On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 10:21:13PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 11:01:31PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:22:02PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Hi Ralf, > > > > > in the Colis project (w

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not starting on #!

On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 05:05:33PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On November 4, 2016 5:01:31 PM EDT, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:22:02PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > >> Hi, > > > >Hi Ralf, > > &g

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not starting on #!

On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:22:02PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > Hi, Hi Ralf, > in the Colis project (which aims at analyzing maintainer scripts) we > found 39 maintainer scripts in stable which do not start on #!. The > list is attached. Policy 6.1 says about maintainer scripts: > > if they

Re: unattended-upgrades by default?

On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 06:47:28PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >... > * it will be a different experience compared to what people will get >when installing Debian normally, using d-i / debootstrap. Most >(all?) of our desktop environments already have some automatic >notification of

Re: NRSS has been deprecated [#696302]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 06:28:41AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: >... > An user interested in future releases is usually a contributor of sorts, > thus often has "devscripts" installed. The typical user of Debian stable is running Debian on servers, and will become interested in a future release

Re: Static linking and fPIC (Was: Re: "PIE by default" transition is underway -- wiki needs updating)

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 03:23:51PM +0100, Bálint Réczey wrote: > Hi Ian, > > 2016-10-31 14:19 GMT+01:00 Ian Campbell : > > On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 12:17 +0100, Bálint Réczey wrote: > >> 2016-10-31 10:38 GMT+01:00 Ian Campbell : > >> > If possible I'd also prefer a

Re: Rebuilds with unexpected timestamps

On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 12:05:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: >... > Personally I think a Linux kernel tarball, without accompanying git > history, is a GPL violation. >... Why would the git *history* matter for GPL compliance? You can push from a shallow clone. > Ian. cu Adrian --

Re: Rebuilds with unexpected timestamps [and 1 more messages]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 03:58:12PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Rebuilds with unexpected timestamps [and 1 more > messages]"): > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:42:26AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > ... > > > If it does "sufficiently diff

Re: Rebuilds with unexpected timestamps [and 1 more messages]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:42:26AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: >... > Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Rebuilds with unexpected timestamps"): > > Be prepared to see a lot of such issues when you touch random files. > > I'm certainly expecting to see lots of issues. > &g

Re: Rebuilds with unexpected timestamps

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:48:56PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: >... > * Source for generated files in the tarball: should be in both git and > tarball, but sometimes mistakenly omitted from tarballs (e.g. configure.ac, > m4/foo.m4, build-aux/git-version-gen). Leaving these out of the tarball

Re: Rebuilds with unexpected timestamps

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 04:02:48PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: >... > Most of our packages use `make' or something like it. make relies on > timestamps to decide what to rebuild. It seems that sometimes our > source packages contain combinations of timestamps (and perhaps stamp > files) which, in

Re: Planned NMU of w3-recs would use much archive disk space

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 08:41:12AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >... > That said, Thaddeus, if you do go ahead with the upload please check if > you can minimize that size somehow, even just a 10% drop in size would > already be worth the work it took for something big like this. >...

Re: "PIE by default" transition is underway -- wiki needs updating

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:37:06AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:37:18AM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > > The current policy says: > > "As to the static libraries, the common case is not to have relocatable > > code" > > > > As of gcc-6 version 6.2.0-7 this is

Re: client-side signature checking of Debian archives (Re: When should we https our mirrors?)

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:33:57PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> writes: >... > > I would assume this can be pretty automated, and that by NSA standards > > this is not a hard problem. > > Since the entire exchange is encrypted, it's

Re: client-side signature checking of Debian archives (Re: When should we https our mirrors?)

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 09:22:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> writes: > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 07:28:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >>... > >> The value of HTTPS lies in its protection against passive snooping. Given

Re: When should we https our mirrors?

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:00:39PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: When should we https our mirrors?"): >... > Adrian: > > Noone is arguing that switching to https would be a bad thing, > > but whether or not it will happen depends solely on whe

Re: When should we https our mirrors?

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:00:49AM -0700, Kristian Erik Hermansen wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > but also I should point out that your email is being routed > insecurely via welho.com and lacks TLS in transit, so I also probably >

Re: client-side signature checking of Debian archives (Re: When should we https our mirrors?)

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 07:28:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > The value of HTTPS lies in its protection against passive snooping. Given > the sad state of the public CA infrastructure, you cannot really protect > against active MITM with HTTPS without certificate pinning. You are

Re: When should we https our mirrors?

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 06:04:50AM -0700, Kristian Erik Hermansen wrote: >... > The main issue is that a well positioned attacker, such as the NSA or > Chinese router admins, have the ability to collect and analyze in > real-time what systems have installed what patches installed by > monitoring

Re: Bug#841113: ITP: extremetools -- tools for running processes under extreme uid and gid

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 08:55:26AM +0200, Jan Mojzis wrote: > > "extremely outdated"? > > > > This sounds like a hack from ~ 20 years ago when people realized that > > running several programs at the same time as nobody does not isolate > > them from each other. > > > > Much better solutions

Re: Bug#841113: ITP: extremetools -- tools for running processes under extreme uid and gid

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:33:14AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 06:56, Jan Mojzis wrote: > > >I read manpage on github, but did not understood, what exactly this > > > program provides. Can it replace creation system users for dropping > > > privileges? > >

Re: Bug#841196: ITP: node-os-homedir -- Node.js 4 `os.homedir()` ponyfill

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 04:15:50PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >... > Life's too short to go and fix all the crap in the world personally, > but we can keep certain minimum standards for what we as a group allow > into Debian. :-( What policies and processes should ensure these minimum

Re: Bug#841099: ITP: node-has-values -- Returns true if any values exist, false if empty

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:28:53PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > Hallo, > * Andrew Shadura [Mon, Oct 17 2016, 08:23:19PM]: > > Hi, > > > > On 17 October 2016 at 18:57, Sruthi Chandran wrote: > > > Package: wnpp > > > Severity: wishlist > > > Owner: Sruthi Chandran

Re: [buildd] unexpected FTBFS on amd64 buildd «binet»

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 03:10:57AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2016-10-16 at 18:57 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > [...] > > You should fix your package so that it works on the lowest supported  > > hardware of each port. > > Right. > > > Autobuilding is

Re: [buildd] unexpected FTBFS on amd64 buildd «binet»

On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 02:14:47PM +, lumin wrote: > Hi there, > > I encountered an unexpected FTBFS on amd64 that I can't repro.[1] > And I'd like to ask the list before fixing it by e.g. an binary > only upload. > > My package lua-torch-torch7/experimental fails[2] to build from > source

Re: When should we https our mirrors?

On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 02:03:36PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: >... > So, the real question: > > So, when are we going to push this? If not now, what criteria need to be > met? Why can't we https-ify the default CDN mirror today? >... This is actually only the server-side part of the problem,

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 11:13:21PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sun, 2016-10-09 at 21:12 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > [ adding debian-powerpc ] > > > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:54:44PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > > Niels Thykier <ni...@thyk

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Stretch

[ adding debian-powerpc ] On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:54:44PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > Niels Thykier schrieb: > > If I am to support powerpc as a realease architecture for Stretch, I > > need to know that there are *active* porters behind it committed to > > keeping it

Re: Bug#835533: dasher: Please package Dasher 5.0 beta

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 02:46:46PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On October 6, 2016 8:51:59 AM EDT, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > >On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 02:46:44AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >>... > >> As frustrating as o

Re: Bug#835533: dasher: Please package Dasher 5.0 beta

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 02:46:44AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: >... > As frustrating as occasional removal/reintroduction cycles are, they are rare > enough that despite the frustration when they occur it's really not worth the > effort it would take to avoid them completely. This assumes

Re: Bug#835533: dasher: Please package Dasher 5.0 beta

(Cc-ing ftpmaster, debian-devel) On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 07:05:09PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > (Cc-ing debian-a11y) > > Hi, Hi Emilio, > On 30/09/16 13:03, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > > While the patch would solve the RC bug and get dasher back into > > testing, I'm hesitant to

Re: Debian does not have customers

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:50:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > But still, despite all of those caveats, I do think there are a few things > that are fairly clear-cut. If the package has 3,000 open bugs, just close > out the unactionable reports in some polite and constructive way. At that

Re: Debian does not have customers

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:56:10AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > If no one is ever going to look at the bug again, just close it. It feels > more confrontational, but it's far more honest, and it doesn't create > unrealistic expectations. >... "no one is ever going to look at the bug again"

Re: Network access during build

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 09:26:37AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > Full disclosure: several of my packages in the archive have similar tests. > Those tests are part of the upstream test suite for the getaddrinfo and > getnameinfo replacement functions for OSes that are too old to have them. >

Re: Proposed mass bug filing: Removal of automake1.4, automake1.9, automake1.10 and automake1.11

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 02:02:59AM -0500, Eric Dorland wrote: * Adrian Bunk (b...@stusta.de) wrote: On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 02:14:10AM -0500, Eric Dorland wrote: All of the bugs have been filed. Just under half have been fixed. Almost all the rest have tested patches. I'm going to start

Re: Proposed mass bug filing: Removal of automake1.4, automake1.9, automake1.10 and automake1.11

On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 02:14:10AM -0500, Eric Dorland wrote: All of the bugs have been filed. Just under half have been fixed. Almost all the rest have tested patches. I'm going to start uploading 10-day delayed NMUs to try to close these out. If you have an issue with this please speak now

Re: FFmpeg vs. libav packaging

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:16:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes: On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:40 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: Having both sets of libraries in the archive at the same time is what I called insane in the RFP and where I expect additional probems due

Re: FFmpeg vs. libav packaging (was Re: Proposal: SystemD.pushers/forcers, et cetera)

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 06:46:37PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Hi Adrian, Am Donnerstag, den 13.02.2014, 21:37 +0200 schrieb Adrian Bunk: Are you as Debian Multimedia Maintainer willing to discuss which option (libav, FFmpeg, some solution of shipping both) will be best for jessie

Re: FFmpeg vs. libav packaging

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:47:36PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Adrian Bunk (2014-02-14 09:06:34) On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:16:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes: On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:40 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: Having both sets of libraries

FFmpeg vs. libav packaging (was Re: Proposal: SystemD.pushers/forcers, et cetera)

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:48:52AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote: After ***forcing*** users to use libav instead of ffmpeg in debian therefore making it to stuck with outdated fork istead of rapidly developing original it's too late to talk about freedom.. Gosh, we are not forcing you

Re: FFmpeg vs. libav packaging (was Re: Proposal: SystemD.pushers/forcers, et cetera)

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:21:02PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Adrian Bunk (2014-02-13 20:37:47) Are you as Debian Multimedia Maintainer willing to discuss which option (libav, FFmpeg, some solution of shipping both) will be best for jessie based on the information

Re: Re: FFmpeg vs. libav packaging

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:14:39PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote: Hi! Do you have a good idea how to avoid all the problems of mixing both libraries while also creating a sufficient usage of the FFmpeg libraries in a way that both libraries can be in testing at the same time, or are you

Re: init.d script not using !/bin/sh

On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 09:14:17PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: Hi, Hi Thomas, ... If possible, I'd like to make a survey of what kind of interpreter packages are using for /etc/init.d scripts. How can I do that? Note that this would make OpenRC maintainer's life more easy, and avoid ugly

Re: Lintian autoreject tag changes

On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 10:08:39PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: ... license-problem-nvidia-intellectual (1 packages, 1 tags) Huh, what a false hit, so not using this. Actually seems to be a real hit, when you scroll to the bottom of

Re: Lintian autoreject tag changes

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:13:30AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 10:08:39PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: ... license-problem-nvidia-intellectual (1 packages, 1 tags) Huh, what a false hit, so not using this. Actually seems to be a real hit, when you scroll

Re: Bug#735134: perl: rename(1) is ancient

On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 03:12:32PM +, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: So to summarise: for many years the perl package has provided /usr/bin/rename, a stanalone utility implemented in perl. The issue is we don't want to provide the utility from the perl package any more because it's been added

Please remove the libfontconfig NMU from the delayed incoming

Hi Michael, as I've already explained, the horrible hack in your NMU would affect all packages using libfontconfig even though without a doubt the actual bug is in your package (xpdf). And as I've already said, abusing the fact that the maintainers seem to be a bit inactive at the moment to

autoconf AC_FUNC_MKTIME breaks with gcc 4.3

I just tried compiling the emacs22 package from unstable with gcc 4.3, and ran into an issue similar to what Martin described back in May 2007 for another package in #425544, with the following differences: - it's not an infinite loop but a one minute hang (see the alarm() in conftest.c) - the

Re: packages built without optimization

On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:28:13AM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote: Adrian Bunk wrote: Due to upstream bugs and/or packaging mistakes some Debian packages like Abiword [1] or Wireshark [2] are currently unintentionally built without any compiler optimization [3]. This results in programs

packages built without optimization

Due to upstream bugs and/or packaging mistakes some Debian packages like Abiword [1] or Wireshark [2] are currently unintentionally built without any compiler optimization [3]. This results in programs being both significantely bigger and significantely slower than they should be. It would IMHO

Re: ITP: cl-rfc2388 -- an implementation of RFC 2388 in Common Lisp

On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 12:06:14PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote: ... BTW, the CVS source already contains a debian/ folder, as the author accepted to let rfc2388 become a Debian native package :-) Please don't package it as a native Debian package. You can ship it with an empty Debian diff but

Re: C++ ABI change for etch -- freeze unstable for all C++ libs with changed or new sonames

On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 01:25:28PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: ... - freeze unstable for uploads of library packages with new ABI versions. If a new soname is introduced now, it has to be changed a few weeks later again. Packages depending on these libraries would need to be uploaded

Re: C++ ABI change for etch -- freeze unstable for all C++ libs with changed or new sonames

On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 05:12:46PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: Adrian Bunk writes: On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 01:25:28PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: ... - freeze unstable for uploads of library packages with new ABI versions. If a new soname is introduced now, it has to be changed

Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:45:21PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote: ... You're a native German speaker right Adrian? Perhaps you could help Debian instead by pointing out the journalist's mistake(s). ... OK, I can try to send them a message that Debian developers have asked me to point them to

Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:58:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:27:08AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: ... Why are there always extremely aggressive timelines (with at least three publically announced release dates for sarge already passed) instead of making

Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:27:04PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:02:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:58:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: Anyone who can't distinguish between an officially announced release date and a projected

Re: Dear Adrian Bunk, Please hold off a week or two

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 03:45:07PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: 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

Re: Dear Adrian Bunk, Please hold off a week or two

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:07:11PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote: I noticed that Adrian moved a bug report for a kernel in sid (2.6.10 IIRC) to the 2.6.8 kernel so it appeared as a Sarge RC Bug? I didn't see anything that showed that it was a 2.6.8 problem, maybe it is, but it looked like second

Re: Example where testing-security was used?

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:56:16PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: 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

Re: Example where testing-security was used?

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:56:52AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:25:39AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:56:16PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:48:54AM +0100, Mark

Re: Release update: minor delay; no non-RC fixes; upgrade reports

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:29:31AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:59:26PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: Since it seems noone of the release team bothered to pay this part of the price for the testing release process, I'm sometimes using one or two spare hours to go

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >