mory for that couldn't be shared by either
1) having it as a file on disc that all processes can open and map in
2) forking and inheriting the parent's data
3) using POSIX SHM
?
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://peop
rposes of
>
> Don't we have epochs for this? I know they are annoying and should
> be avoided, but they are still a blessing compared to the current
> confused versioning scheme.
Hopefully we'll have 0.7 in unstable soon(ish), and this will just
be a temporary issu
e this obviously isn't an overriding
consideration it is a nice easy way to browse the documentation. Can
same be done for any other compression formats?
Roger
--
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/7e7rh8-j14@silverstone.rilynn.me.uk
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 07:36:26PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 06:00:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 05:35:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:11:49PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > > Ar
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 06:03:59PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:11:49PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Fedora has moved to having /var/lock (now /run/lock) owned by
> > root:lock 0775 rather than root:root 01777. This has th
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 05:35:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:11:49PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Fedora has moved to having /var/lock (now /run/lock) owned by
> > root:lock 0775 rather than root:root 01777. This has the advantage
> > of maki
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 06:03:59PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 04:11:49PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Fedora has moved to having /var/lock (now /run/lock) owned by
> > root:lock 0775 rather than root:root 01777. This has th
sue is the
existence of badly broken programs³, which make stupid assumptions
about lockfiles.
¹http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2011-April/001828.html
²https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=581884
³http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=637856
Rega
ssibly a stupid question here but: Given that we are now autosigning
builds, why can't the slower arches use gzip, and then after upload
they could be recompressed with xz (and resigned) on a faster arch?
This would allow xz compression on all arches, but not require slow
arches to a
ring black magic and/or prior knowledge
of the correct runlevels? update-rc.d certainly isn't it.
Having a "service foobar enable|disable" type of action would be a
major improvement, and save the need for horrible "ENABLED=yes" type
settings in /etc/default, or manual e
ftware out there doing exactly this.
systemd isn't particularly special in this respect. Take a look at
apache, for example.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux?
ential of complex and poorly-tested postrm logic--it's
completely removed. It also means that other packages can't
arbitrarily overwrite it. It would certainly be very useful for
e.g. generated files in /var which currently require special
handling in postrm.
Obvious this could cause problem
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 11:26:58AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 02:02:01PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Roger Leigh wrote:
> >
> > > /etc/mtab - symlink to /proc/self/mounts (494001)
> >
> > debootstrap (but seems ok; only remove
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 02:02:01PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > /etc/mtab - symlink to /proc/self/mounts (494001)
>
> debootstrap (but seems ok; only removes file not symlink)
>
> busybox
Not configured to use or write /etc/mtab AFAICT
(CONFIG
power.
My number is 07725_257708
Thanks,
Roger (at number 9)
sent from my fone
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:09:40PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> (culled cc list of a few people I know read -devel)
> Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > Given the need to consider unlocking as well as locking, I'm not sure
> > it's worth adding special support to deluser
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:04:35PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#621833: System users: removing them"):
> > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:31:47PM +0200, sean finney wrote:
&g
unlock/lock to the maintainer scripts,
dropping use of deluser entirely.
I do agree that a --local option would be a valuable and useful
addition to the adduser and deluser etc. tools, even if currently
a no-op. However, due to the above I don't think that adding
special-case u
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 07:28:30PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/RunDirectory
> With the upload of initramfs-tools (0.99) to unstable, we're now
> ready to upload sysvinit 2.88dsf-13.6 to unstable
The upload has been done and you should
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 09:07:04PM +0200, Stefan Lippers-Hollmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Friday 13 May 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 05:40:13PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:23:10AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> [...]
>
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 05:40:13PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:23:10AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > An update on /run:
> >
> > sysvinit/initscripts 2.88dsf-13.4 is now available in experimental.
> > If you hav
read-write. Why doesn't
> this work for commit= too?
The initscripts /do/ already do this. See checkroot.sh and read_fstab
in /lib/init/mount-functions.sh.
If it's not working for you, then it's possible that the fstab entry
for / doesn't match. Might be worth
em when you debootstrap.
So this will work--it'll just take a bit of careful planning
so all the bits fall into place in the correct order.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `'
facto broken and needs fixing (e.g. CUPS). Programs
can not, and should not, expect to have a writable /etc under normal
conditions.
To clarify, programs such as editors and even custom tools to modify
configuration are obviously needed to update configuration files under
/etc. However, the
09 note, this won't work
for all mount options such as data= for ext3, but it would allow any
other options to from fstab to be applied to the root mount.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `&#x
reassign 625538 gnome-power-manager
merge 370692 625538
thanks
This is a known bug in gnome-power-manager.
Regards,
Roger
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 11:16:25AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> reassign 625538 gnome
> thanks
>
> On Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2011, Alessandro Sardone wrote:
the already available archive signing keys), but we can
add it.
The main thing sbuild needs would be the information to add to
sources.list, signing key packages etc. This would probably require
passing from buildd, so probably more a question of how buildd will
be configured and get the informatio
iciently flexible, then we can always
add them by allowing them to be specified on the command-line. This
mechanism might be a somewhat simpler and more flexible alternative to
99builddsourceslist for the general case as well.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GN
ation we have now: breakage.
Using it indirectly is not a solution; the solution is to fix the
library to work sensibly by default, and fix up the client code
relying on the assumptions made by the library so that they can be
removed and/or made non-default.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`.
ber of cores used, memory/swap usage and other resource
usage, I'll be happy to add them to the sbuild summary stats. Actually
measuring those might be a bit trickier though, especially on machines
running parallel builds.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : D
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 03:09:48PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes:
>
> > libgcrypt has some horrendous bugs which upstream refuse to fix,
> > for example the broken behaviour relating to setuid binaries
> > discussed previously here, and the ha
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 02:10:27PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Roger Leigh]
> > This also permits the mount options for filesystems mounted in the
> > initramfs (e.g. /dev, /run, /sys, /proc etc.) to be set in
> > /etc/fstab; the filesystems are remounted with t
and the hard coded behaviour which
makes it unsuitable for use in general programs. See
"libgcrypt brain dead?"
3c5cf5261003081534s5202413dw4d93c80db1a30...@mail.gmail.com
Until these major issues are fixed, it's simply unusable.
Ideally, the software relying on the bro
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:23:10AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> An update on /run:
>
> sysvinit/initscripts 2.88dsf-13.4 is now available in experimental.
> If you haven't tested it yet, now would be a good time before it
> goes into unstable. Ad
he logic
is broken, and this results in a partially functional udev.
Note that for the networking, an ifdown and ifup of the device does
work around the issue. For other devices, probably just a modprobe.
If there's anyone familiar with udev who could take a look at it, I'd
be very grateful
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 07:44:55AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Edward Allcutt writes:
>
> > On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 05:58:19PM +0100, Edward Allcutt wrote:
> >>> I suggest:
> >>> - on upgrade, bi
e others
can also be done fairly simply, while I haven't looked at all of them,
most can simply just mv any files in their postinst (with a versioned
dependency on initscripts).
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:58:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 08:59:01PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > > { fi
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 09:35:53AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:41:56PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Roger Leigh writes:
> >>
> >> > If it wasn't already clear, having /tmp as
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 08:59:01PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > { find var/run/ ! -type d -print0; \
> > find var/lock/ ! -type d -print0; } | xargs -0r $_CHROOT_SH rm
> >
> > I'm afraid this will need
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 03:26:59PM +0100, Edward Allcutt wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 01:38:34PM +0100, Edward Allcutt wrote:
> >Your assumption is correct in that this is a fallback. This is the
> >special case for chroo
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:41:56PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes:
>
> > If it wasn't already clear, having /tmp as a tmpfs is a
> > /configurable option/, and it is /not/ the default (except when
> > root is read-only (ro) in fstab).
&g
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 02:39:40PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 02:28:35PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:07:37PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/run/sysvinit_2.88dsf-13.3.dsc
> > >
&g
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 01:38:34PM +0100, Edward Allcutt wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >This I really don't get. There was no error reported, and we're using
> >this logic:
> >
> >if [ ! -L /var/run ] && [ -d /var/run ]; then
>
ase could we create a mount point for /run/lock ?
> A bind mount for disk based and a true mount for ramfs ?
Sorry, but I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. Could you
rephrase it more clearly?
Thanks,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linu
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:55:20PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 08:19:38PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > I think this should be fixed now; could you possibly try again
> > (you'll need a clean vserver environment that hasn't been upgraded
> >
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:20:45PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:32:51PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> >
> > > ]] Julien Cristau
> > >
> > > | On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 16:20:10 +0100, Roger
will always
be lost on system reboot, and it it is no longer explicitly
cleaned at boot. Because of this, packages can not expect
directories in /var/lock to exist after boot. Packages expect‐
ing this are buggy and need to be fixed. Note that /run/lock
was previously /va
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:29:31AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:22:33PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 03:20:38PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 01:49:15PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > &g
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 02:13:57PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:15:07 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:44:08AM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Karl Goetz wrote:
> > > > On W
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:44:08AM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Karl Goetz wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:32:42 +0100
> > Roger Leigh wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:38:03PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >
>
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 03:20:38PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 01:49:15PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > I have now implemented this (though it's not the default).
> >
> > I would very much appreciate it if anyone could take the time to
> >
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 05:21:18PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I just realized that I misunderstood Roger Leigh's posting and so
> my previous message was mostly superfluous. My apologies.
>
> 1. His statement "but you have to mount many more to be able to
> break your
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 03:35:24PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 02:24:30PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 03:20:38PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 01:49:15PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > &g
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 03:20:38PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 01:49:15PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > I have now implemented this (though it's not the default).
> >
> > I would very much appreciate it if anyone could take the time to
> >
his is the
case, and would it be a problem if I made it into a conffile in
order to add the new RAMSHM and RAMTMP options (and remove RAMRUN)?
I've worked around this by setting defaults if unset in
/lib/init/vars.sh, but it might be nice to be able to update the
configuration as well
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:38:03PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 08:01:42PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > With the transition to /run and /run/lock as tmpfs filesystems, it
> > would be desirable to provide sensible default size limits. Currently,
> > we
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:29:16AM +0200, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes:
>
> > One reason for doing this is to have a single writable mount on the
> > system, which might be useful for tiny systems with minimal resources,
> > where root is r/o. On su
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:35:37PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:47:35 +0200, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:12:21PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:38:03 +0200, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >>
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:22:00PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2011-04-12, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Having multiple tmpfses with the kernel defaults means that a user or
> > badly written program could intentionally or accidentally lock up the
> > machine by using al
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:08:30PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Roger Leigh
>
> | I think that if we have /run/lock, /run/shm makes sense (how different
> | are locks and POSIX semaphores? They are just a different type of
> | lock (broadly). And shared memory is epheme
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:19:59PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:44:54AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If the problem is that multiple tmpfs are mounted and
> > each can expand to half-of-RAM, either reduce the number of tmpfses
> > presented (as
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:07:48PM +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:47:35PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > With the patch as it stands at present, RAMRUN is deprecated. /run
> > is always a tmpfs; RUN_SIZE will set its size, as before.
>
> Hmm, just
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:44:54AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:38:03PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 08:01:42PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > With the transition to /run and /run/lock as tmpfs filesystems, it
> >
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:12:21PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:38:03 +0200, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Josh Triplett suggested that we could use a single tmpfs on /run and
> > have the rest as symlinks into /run, with potentially a separa
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:38:03PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 08:01:42PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > With the transition to /run and /run/lock as tmpfs filesystems, it
> > would be desirable to provide sensible default size limits. Currently,
> > we
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 08:01:42PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> With the transition to /run and /run/lock as tmpfs filesystems, it
> would be desirable to provide sensible default size limits. Currently,
> we default to the tmpfs default of ½ RAM. But with several tmpfs
> filesystem
major services etc.) for context.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign y
lack of detailed guidance on
best practice. Would it be worth adding explicit examples of
how to add system users and groups in Policy. Also, would it
be worth adding support to debhelper or dpkg-maintscript-helper
to do the user addition--it would unify the process so that
packages won'
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 09:54:53AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> I'm just mentioning this here because udev started to use /run before
> we had completed our work, and without a versioned dependency, causing
> breakage. If you are planning on using /run, please hold fire for a
>
ase hold fire for a
few days longer until initscripts is uploaded!
Thanks,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`-GPG Public Key:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 09:36:14AM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 05:59:51PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> >> > What do
rovided executable scripts)?
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 10:59:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes:
>
> > Both of these issues were due to /etc/mtab being inconsistent with
> > reality. I've now corrected the code to make domtab() behave
> > identically to domount() t
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 01:10:29PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:20:45PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > 1) /etc/init.d/mountall.sh is broken for some reason. The "mount -a"
> >invocation fails. Not
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 04:06:16PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:33:44 +0200, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Patches filed against base-files and initscripts in #620157 and #620191.
> > Test packages here: http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/run/
>
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 02:33:44PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:20:45PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:32:51PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> > >
> > > > ]] Julien Cr
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:20:45PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:32:51PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> >
> > > ]] Julien Cristau
> > >
> > > | On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 16:20:10 +0100, Roger
gt; have it).
>
> Has to be available before any tcp-wrapped network service is started.
This won't be until after /var is mounted. Can't dynamically added
entried be added to /var/lib/wrap/hosts.* (for example) and then
libwrap can be patched to read both locations, allowing f
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 04:39:30PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Roger Leigh]
> > As a followup, I would like to get the UTF-8 codeset and collation
> > hardcoded in libc6 directly and sharable by all UTF-8 locales to
> > reduce startup time and needless dupli
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:32:51PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Tollef Fog Heen writes:
>
> > ]] Julien Cristau
> >
> > | On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 16:20:10 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > |
> > | > Given that Fedora are adopting /run, and it has b
dpkg-shlibdeps, ld etc. would need checking
to make sure that building on such a system still results in
packages which are installable on old-style split systems, e.g.
when generating shlibs files etc.
I'm sure I'll have more to come!
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 05:39:13PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Julien Cristau
>
> | On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 16:20:10 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> |
> | > Given that Fedora are adopting /run, and it has been something
> | > we have wanted in the past, is anyone
Given that Fedora are adopting /run, and it has been something
we have wanted in the past, is anyone working on implementing
/run in Debian?
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/146976
https://lwn.net/Articles/436012/
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :&
binary-foo Packages in favour of binary-all Packages use by apt-get/
aptitude?
I would also have a use of binary-all dist in sbuild-db (an experimental
wanna-build replacement using PostgreSQL 9.0), just for the record.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 08:31:13AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just as a reminder:
>
> Roger Leigh (16/03/2011):
> > OK. I think this is the only known discrepancy between the two
> > resolvers. Given that we now routinely build using minimal clean
>
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 01:07:19AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 03:36:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:08:18PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 0
preciated. It's not the nicest codebase in the world,
but I think we've improved it significantly in recent years. sbuild
at least is now usable by mortals, though it could still be easier to
set up; documentation is the main lacking here.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 05:24:25PM +, Hector Oron wrote:
> Hello Roger,
>
> 2011/3/10 Roger Leigh :
>
> > This mail is really just to find out: is anyone actually using the
> > wanna-build package in the archive? popcon indicates that a few
> > people have it
people have it installed, and < 10 have ever used it. Would
migrating to wanna-build.git be realistic for these users?
Thanks,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing o
vscripts?
>
> Most of the script are written in Python. Rewriting them to get them
> included in devscripts is too much work without benefit. devscripts
> would depend on python then.
Most of the scripts are short. Rewriting would be fairly simple, and
may be beneficial in removing th
need
addressing to make it robust enough to handle simultaneous
creation and removal of many snapshots.
It would be great if there was a solution to this problem; is anyone
running Btrfs as a root filesystem who has any suggestions?
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : De
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 03:36:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:08:18PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 07:42:32PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > > I disagree here.
> > > Alternatives in build-* relationships *a
;m not involved with the CGI scripts, but I /think/ that one is an
older version. These two do show me the current version:
https://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=insighttoolkit
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=insighttoolkit&suite=sid
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Rog
of foo a bit vulnerable against random decisions by the maintainers of
> bar-dev?
Very much so. This is why library transitions need coordination,
since they have distribution-wide impact. This is also a good
example of why we should aim to only have one major version of each
library in use a
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:45:06AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:40:52PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > From discussion on IRC earlier this evening, it looks like the most
> > pragmatic approach will be to get the apt and aptitude sbuild
> > r
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:05:28AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 22:40:52 +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > From discussion on IRC earlier this evening, it looks like the most
> > pragmatic approach will be to get the apt and aptitude sbuild
> >
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:21:24PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 06:49:21PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Roger Leigh writes ("Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps"):
> > > I agree that these do serve a useful purpose
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:13:19PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:08:18 +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > · Standard alternative use in the form "concrete|virtual", as used for
> > normal deps on virtual packages. Is this sensible?
> > ·
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:21:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes ("Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps"):
> > Taking one of php5's dependencies as an example:
> >
> > libdb-dev (>= 4.7) | libdb4.8-dev | libdb
301 - 400 of 835 matches
Mail list logo
