On 2024-05-23 18:22 +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hi Mathieu (2024.05.23_18:14:20_+)
>> What is expected from Debian packager now ?
>>
>> 1. Remove the t64 suffix upon next version upload ?
>
> You can remove it at the next SONAME transition (ABI bump)
>
>> 2. Keep the package-name-doesnt-mat
Am 31.03.2024 um 19:44 schrieb Hans:
> Hi folks,
>
> as I could not find, which package /usr/bin/mv is belonging to and
> apt-file search /usr/bin/mv did not help either, I just in form you here.
Problems with German translations are best reported to
debian-l10n-ger...@lists.debian.org.
> There
On 2024-03-30 12:19 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Gioele Barabucci writes:
>
>> Just as an example, bootstrapping coreutils currently requires
>> bootstrapping at least 68 other packages, including libx11-6 [1]. If
>> coreutils supported [2], the transitive closure of its
>> Build-Depends woul
On 2024-03-31 06:54 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2024-03-30 Julian Gilbey wrote:
>> My very limited understanding of this major transition was that the
>> t64 libraries are being held in unstable until (almost) everything is
>> ready, at which point there will be a coordinated migration int
On 2024-03-02 08:47 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2024-03-02 08:01 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>
>> iirc it was recently proposed to add a suggestion to run dpkg --verify
>> to the trixie upgrade notes to find missing files due to the usr-merge
>> transition. (Cannot
On 2024-03-02 08:01 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> iirc it was recently proposed to add a suggestion to run dpkg --verify
> to the trixie upgrade notes to find missing files due to the usr-merge
> transition. (Cannot find the reference right now).
>
> However I just had file loss (due to libuuid
On 2023-10-26 00:29 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 25.10.23 um 22:42 schrieb Alexander Koskovich:
>> Hello,
>> The removal of libncurses5 has led to not being able to compile the
>> Android Open Source Platform. There is a dependency on this package
>> in Clang prebuilts to compile the Renderscr
On 2023-10-09 14:10 +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> For libvirt, the upstream build system actually installs systemd
> units under /usr/lib, and we move things around in debian/rules so
> that they end up under /lib in the Debian package:
>
> SRV_MONOLITHIC = libvirt-guests virtlogd virtlockd \
On 2023-08-19 10:03 +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> [please CC me as I'm not subscribed to debian-devel]
>
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 at 21:45:13 +1000, Hugh McMaster wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 at 00:07, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> > On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 at 22:38:20 +1000, Hugh McMaster wrote:
>> > > C
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sven Joachim
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: wtmpdb
Version : 0.8.0
Upstream Contact: Thorsten Kukuk
* URL : https://github.com/thkukuk/wtmpdb
* License : BSD 2-Clause
Programming Lang: C
On 2023-08-09 22:10 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> it has been a long time since I've analyzed this so things might've changed
> indeed since then. But what I remember is that, depending on the source
> package, running sbuild with --source would produce a different source packag
On 2023-08-05 19:31 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> On 2023-08-05 17:06 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>
>> I wonder what we should do, because 5000+ failing packages is a lot...
>>
>> Should we give up on requiring a 'clean' target that works? After all,
>> when 17% of packages are failing, it means that m
On 2023-07-16 22:38 +1000, Hugh McMaster wrote:
> I will be removing the transitional package libfreetype6-dev (from the
> source package freetype) later this year.
>
> Currently, there are 219 build-dependencies and 29 (direct)
> dependencies on libfreetype6-dev, which has been released with
> bu
On 2023-06-29 20:55 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> On 13/11/2021 11:41, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>
>> TL;DR> pcre3 is obsolete and upstream don't want to fix it any
>> more. I propose a MBF to track our progress in getting rid of it for
>> Bookworm
>
> Bookworm is now out; I will shortly be increasin
Control: severity -1 wishlist
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
I was asked to remove the libtinfo5, libncurses5 and libncursesw5
packages and am looking for feedback.
On 2022-12-12 16:44 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote:
> Package: libncurses5
> Version: 6.3+20220423-2
> Severity: minor
>
> With bullseye
On 2023-06-19 21:37 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 at 21:42:08 +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>> I've never had to do this before, so I wonder if moving packages to
>> severity: standard or higher (in this case, important) requires any
>> decision from the CTTE or a similar a
On 2023-06-10 10:39 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Hi Sven,
>
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 08:35:44AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> > Unfortunately, any
>> > external package that still ships stuff in /bin breaks this. In effect,
>> > any addon repository
On 2023-06-10 08:35 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Am 10.06.2023 um 07:35 schrieb Helmut Grohne:
>
>> One of the approaches to making bootstrapping work was adding the
>> symlinks to some data.tar. That has been category 2 from my earlier
>> mail. We definitely cannot add /b
Am 10.06.2023 um 07:35 schrieb Helmut Grohne:
> One of the approaches to making bootstrapping work was adding the
> symlinks to some data.tar. That has been category 2 from my earlier
> mail. We definitely cannot add /bin as a directory to one package and
> /bin as a symlink to another (unless usi
On 2023-04-26 10:34 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 10:11, Simon Richter wrote:
>>
>> What I'm mostly concerned about (read: have not verified either way)
>> with /lib/ld.so and /bin/sh is what happens when dpkg learns of /bin and
>> /lib as symlinks -- because right now, the
On 2023-02-07 17:50 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-02-07 at 16:41:47 +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>> When building packages, a -ffile-prefix-map option is automatically injected
>> into CFLAGS. Where does it come from? Since when?
>
> This is coming from dpkg-buildflags (in this case
Control: reassign -1 release-notes
On 2023-02-01 08:30 +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Package: general
>
> The average user will not notice his firmware is not updating any more.
Unless they pay close attention to apt(itude)'s messages, that is
probably true.
> So he must do Google Search.
> http
On 2022-09-10 15:37 +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> the transition to usrmerge as described in [1] is planned to start
> around 2022-09-15 (next Thursday).
>
> init-system-helpers 1.65~exp1 in experimental adds the new dependency on
> "usrmerge | usr-is-merged" and will be uploaded to unstable to start the
On 2021-12-06 08:50 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> I am staring at:
>
> * https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1001136
>
> One can verify that sh4 build went fine for this upload:
>
> *
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=openvdb&arch=sh4&ver=9.0.0-3&stamp=1638662998&
On 2021-11-19 15:37 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> On 19.11.21 11:58, Philip Hands wrote:
>> Ansgar writes:
>>
* doing this will, in a non-negligible number of cases, trigger the
bug to manifest on systems where that package is upgraded from a
version where the move had not taken pl
On 2021-01-12 16:36 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 02:48:22PM +, Dan Pal wrote:
>> Hello Debian Developers,
>
> Hello World,
>
>
>> I am writing to you from my Debian-Buster 10.6 laptop – that used
>> to be a Windows 10 laptop. I would not be using Debian at all excep
On 2020-11-22 11:29 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> For the past year, I've been (on and off) working with ola upstream on
> getting new-gcc (first 9, then 10) and python3 issues resolved, so that
> I would be able to get it into bullseye again. We're almost there,
> except for one thing that myst
On 2020-09-30 19:31 +0200, Roland Fehrenbacher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> a quick question to the list, since I didn't find an answer after a
> significant time of searching:
>
> Is it allowed to have a source package with a build dependency on a pkg in
> non-free (in this particular case nvidia-cuda-toolki
On 2020-05-10 11:17 +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 06:57:31AM +, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>
>> Unless I deeply misunderstand how locales work in Debian,
>> I believe that any dependency on the ‘locales’ package is ought
>> to be satisfied with locales
On 2020-03-21 00:39 -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Just checking --- this looks like a Really Bad regression in Lintian
> 2.57.0, correct?
Seems so, I can can confirm it with Lintian 2.58.0.
> E: e2fsprogs-udeb udeb: debian-changelog-file-missing
> E: e2fsprogs buildinfo: field-too-long Instal
On 2020-03-18 08:18 +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:50:01PM +0100, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>>I'd disagree. vi is very newbie unfriendly. OTOH I expect people that
>>know how to navigate vi to be able to `apt install vi` without any problem.
>>*t
>
> My initial feeling was
On 2020-03-02 20:24 +0100, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> On 02.03.20 18:06, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> On 2020-03-02 17:20 +0100, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>>
>>> I just got a mail from the BTS, that this spam mail [1] has closed the
>>> bug report. I can't spot why that
On 2020-03-02 17:20 +0100, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> I just got a mail from the BTS, that this spam mail [1] has closed the
> bug report. I can't spot why that spam mail would close the report. Can you?
Without even looking at the bug in question: because it had been closed
(and reopened) before, a
On 2020-02-15 18:29 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-02-15 at 18:31 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> afaict we are moving to a usrmerge setup, i.e. with /lib just a
>> symlink to /usr/lib. So shouldn't packages start installing stuff to
>> /usr/lib instead of /lib? I would l
On 2019-10-28 10:05 +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le mercredi, 23 octobre 2019, 15.49:11 h CET Theodore Y. Ts'o a écrit :
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:18:24AM +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2019-10-22 at 16:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > > That seems excessively pessimistic.
On 2019-08-08 15:20 -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> This is related to the thread Generating new IDs for cloning, but is
> probably OT for this list. I guess this is really a question for
> systemd maintainers? Should I file a bug?
No.
> The man page for machine-id says:
>
> This ID uniquely i
On 2019-07-14 11:56 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> So this is weird. I can't install libfuse3-dev on my buster system:
>
> # apt install libfuse3-dev
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Package libfuse3-dev is not available, but is refer
On 2019-03-08 20:12 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Adrian Bunk
>
>> Something will break (like in the mlocate case), and people might only
>> start noticing when they are doing fresh installs of buster after the
>> release.
>
> Which mlocate case is this?
Bug #882993, updatedb.mlocate will
On 2018-09-26 10:38 -0400, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> I just encountered some weird problem around installing bumblebee-nvidia
> using
> apt and aptitude on Debian Unstable. Here's what I did:
>
> $ sudo apt purge '*nvidia*'
> $ sudo apt autoremove --purge
> $ sudo apt update
> $ dpkg --print-architec
On 2018-03-21 23:18 +0300, kact...@gnu.org wrote:
> Recently I got report (and I can confirm) that libgdbm5_1.14.1-6 have
> different priorities on x86 and amd64. In source package it is
> optional, I checked.
Probably you installed a locally built version of libgdbm5 on your amd64
system, becaus
On 2018-02-21 19:36 +0100, Tobias Frost wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 06:31:46PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> On 2018-02-21 17:48 +0100, Georg Faerber wrote:
>>
>
>> Apart from restricting access to the BTS (which I think nobody really
>> wants), the answer is
On 2018-02-21 17:48 +0100, Georg Faerber wrote:
> Just to let people know: Recently, there has been quite some spam with
> identical content sent to different bugs, project and team mailing
> lists, etc. That's bad, but what's even more worse is that this spam now
> gets send to nnn-done@bugs.d.o
On 2017-10-05 09:09 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 at 11:01:42 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> Anything that generates different code depending on the instructions
>> supported by the build CPU is going to break reproducible builds. So
>> whatever mechanism is used, it needs to be d
On 2017-07-12 09:56 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I've got a request to remove the conffile status of a file after it is
> no longer a conffile. dpkg-maintscript-helper rm_conffile does not
> seem to do this, based on the documentation and the source code.
>
> Is there a clean way to implement t
On 2017-01-27 20:16 -0800, Thomas Nyberg wrote:
> On 01/25/2017 11:18 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> This seems to be a recurring problem in Mozilla's build process, it
>> fails because SHELL is not set in the environment. You can work around
>> that by passing --preser
On 2017-01-25 14:05 -0800, Thomas Nyberg wrote:
> I'm trying to compile my own version of icedove to see if I can
> understand certain bugs I'm running into (at the moment I just get
> random crashes, so I can't really report anything useful). I tried the
> following steps on a new machine:
>
> $
On 2016-12-31 17:42 +0300, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
> wrote:
>> On 08/12/16 13:02, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>> I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga
>>>
>>> nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still available, so why
>>>
On 2016-12-15 22:13 +, Wookey wrote:
> On 2016-12-15 22:50 +0100, Mathieu Parent (Debian) wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I need to have access to $DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH in prerm and postinst to
>> create the appropriate symlink with update-alternatives.
>>
>> What is the best way to do this?
>
> Depend on
On 2016-11-30 14:16 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-11-29 at 19:18:41 +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
>> To force reinstallation of configuration files, invoke dpkg with the
>> "--force-confmiss" option when installing. This will only restore
>> missing configuration files, but not overwrit
On 2016-11-11 22:38 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> there are a bunch of package which were missing -dbgsym packages on
> their arch upload. The buildd built them on the remaining architectures.
> Here are a few examples:
> - missing on amd64: aptly, meep, xdelta3
> - missing on i386: ch
On 2016-11-10 10:00 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> The date from the last sourceful upload should probably still be used
> for any date/time information included in generated files to ensure
> they are identical on all architectures (or at least to try to do so).
>
> If you change the date in th
On 2016-11-04 15:03 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ralf Treinen writes:
>
>> 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 are
On 2016-11-04 21:22 +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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 are scripts (which is reco
On 2016-08-20 09:07 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 18/08/16 10:48, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>> I received a notification that a bug was closed.
>>>
>>> The email that closed the bug was a spam email sent to the
>>> address (bug-numb
On 2016-07-06 02:51 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-04-03 at 17:29:32 +, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> The targets are "officially" mandatory and have been since 3.9.4
>> (released in September 2012). Currently lintian and dpkg still forgive
>> their absence to avoid auto-rejects and FTB
On 2016-06-24 23:01 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Some packages, if installed on any architecture, must be installed for
> every enabled architecture. Most notably, an NSS or PAM module package,
> if enabled in /etc/nsswitch.conf or /etc/pam.d respectively, must exist
> for every enabled architec
On 2016-06-19 12:18 +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 17:03:38 +0200
> Julien Cristau wrote:
>> `init` no longer required
>> -
> (snip)
>> For unstable as of 2016-06-05 this change reduced the size of binary
>> packages to install from 33MB to 29MB for the
On 2015-07-04 03:17 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> I just tried to g++/gcc 5 in chroot, this wanted to pull an additional
> 400MB:
>
> Is this expected? Are those binaries unstripped or how does it come that
> they are so huge?
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=783876
Cheers,
On 2014-11-02 03:01 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I plan to open 10 other bugs like #767710 about packages that install
> a symbolic link to a file with the same name in both /bin/ and
> /usr/bin/, this way preventing a conversion to everything-in-usr.
Thanks for doing that. Have you looked at ca
On 2014-10-20 14:19 +0200, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 07:07:45PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> On 2014-10-01 16:04, Gerrit Pape wrote:
>> > Hi, I uploaded a new version of dash (0.5.8-1) to experimental, please
>> > help testing it. If no critical issues arise, I plan to put th
On 2014-10-04 23:59 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Something else I just realized now is that libkvm pulls in libbsd and
> libfreebsd-glue into the pseudo-essential set on GNU/kFreeBSD, which
> makes the situation a bit worse.
Both libbsd and libfreebsd-glue are already pulled in by freebsd-utils.
On 2014-09-05 23:50 +0200, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adam Borowski writes:
>
>> systemd also pulls in a large amount of bloat (IIRC someone mentioned
>> 100ish packages in wheezy vs 146 in current jessie). Purging those is
>> nontrivial, as some had their priority bumped up.
>
> That seems much high
On 2014-08-09 04:27 +0200, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Potentially stupid question --- why are the gcc-4.[789]-base packages
> have the priority required? And what are they used for?
Providing the mandatory files under /usr/share/doc, all packages built
from the gcc-4.[789] source ship a symlink unde
On 2014-07-14 18:52 +0200, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thorsten Glaser writes:
>
>> * Running dist-upgrade without --purge will keep packages in 'rc'
>> state around, which a later APT call will not even recognise;
>> you need to manually "dpkg --purge pkg1 pkg2 ..." to get rid
>> of them
>
> I u
On 2014-05-12 18:19 +0200, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Having libpam-systemd depend on "systemd-shim | systemd-sysv" will not
> properly
> handle systems that already have systemd installed but not systemd-sysv.
Could you please elaborate what exactly does not work properly in such a
situation? I ha
On 2014-04-30 16:39 +0200, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 04:22:37PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> I think we should first understand why the detection is failing with
>> the newer make. I'm taking a look now. Once that's done we might just
>> be able to fix (or workaround) one of:
On 2014-02-01 22:07 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Christoph Ender , 2014-02-01, 21:47:
>> I’m currently having trouble reproducing a build error – see
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735757
>
> My guess is that the root cause is #735782.
I think you are right, I merged the two
On 2013-12-09 04:55 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 13:56 +1100, Craig Small wrote:
>> As pidof is moving from sysvinit-utils to procps-base in the next
>> release, I want to check I've got the way dpkg handles flags correctly.
>>
>> procps-base will contain the new pidof and
On 2013-10-07 10:53 +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> I see "serious" FTBFS bugs appearing on my packages when people try to
> rebuild the entire archive.
>
> Those failures are due to attempting to run the clean target prior to
> anything else.
This is what dpkg-buildpackage does, so it has to wor
On 2013-09-28 22:18 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> since a short time when I build a binary package on my running system,
> I cannot install the created .deb anymore because it depends on
> libc-amd64 (>= some.version) which somehow is not what I have although
> I am running amd64 sid.
Uninstal
On 2013-07-01 21:54 +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Le 01/07/2013 20:05, Michael Stapelberg a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
>> second blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
>> Debian systemd survey:
>>
>> http://
On 2013-06-30 19:08 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:30:39 -0400, Dave Steele wrote:
>
>> Shortly, piuparts.debian.org will be elevating the broken symlink test
>> in sid from a warning to an error status. In advance of that, bugs
>> submissions are planned against package
On 2013-05-11 11:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was
> to be able to have more than *2* packages provide /bin/sh.
>
> Currently, due to the totaly screwed up way this is done, only dash or
> bash can be /bin/sh.
I think that
On 2013-04-18 10:48 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 09:29:19PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 04/02/2013 09:18 PM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > Actually that hits another problem. Namely that the epoch does not
>> > appear in the binary package filename. While
On 2013-01-15 10:29 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> There's no requirement for md5sums files in the first place AFAIK. How
> are incomplete md5sums worse than no md5sums?
If there is no md5sums file, dpkg (as of version 1.16.3) creates it at
unpack time.
Cheers,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On 2012-06-01 11:54 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
>
>> On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:03:35 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
>>> > On 2012-05-20 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow
On 2012-05-22 20:40 +0200, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 22/05/12 19:24, Sven Joachim wrote:
>
>> and anything that uses libx86 won't work either (#492470).
>
> Is this the right bug? According to the reporter's reportbug System
> Information, he's running l
On 2012-05-22 20:03 +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:27:21PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> * Ben Hutchings , 2012-05-20, 03:16:
>> >5. Installer for i386 prefers amd64 kernel on any capable machine
>> >(that's a one-line change!) and adds amd64 as secondary
>> >architecture i
On 2012-05-20 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Slightly OT but I wanted to mention it for its similarity:
>
> One thing that should be tested and then documented prominently as yay
> or nay in the wheezy upgrade notes is wether one can cross-grade from
> i386 to amd64 using multiarch. We
On 2012-05-19 00:52 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> 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 ove
On 2012-05-17 17:25 +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> The html-xml-utils package contains a bunch of small helper programs.
> I've chosen dh 9 compatibility level recently to enable hardening.
> However, I still get lintian warnings for 3 binaries. However all
> binaries are compiled and linked with
On 2012-05-13 11:49 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Mike Hommey, le Sun 13 May 2012 11:16:13 +0200, a écrit :
>> The versions they had by then had an epoch. Supposedly, to make the new
>> versions greater than these, I have to add an epoch. But do I really
>> need to care about making the new vers
On 2012-05-12 13:10 +0200, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I was always wondering:
>
> Unless we expect that two different binary packages that can be co-installed
> will distribute the same directory under different ownership or permissions
> for
> a good reason, why not simply let dpkg apply ownership
On 2012-05-10 19:45 +0200, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 07:43:46PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>> [Please preserve the CC to 672...@bugs.debian.org because I am not
>> subscribed to debian-devel.]
>>
>> First the problem in few words. The package console-setup needs an
>> acce
On 2012-05-10 18:43 +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> [Please preserve the CC to 672...@bugs.debian.org because I am not
> subscribed to debian-devel.]
>
> First the problem in few words. The package console-setup needs an
> access to a directory similar to /var very early during the boot process
On 2012-05-09 14:01 +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Philipp Kern writes:
>
>> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 10:39:38AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>>> > And the integrator/packager may not want to learn all the funny
>>> > languages that daemons can be written in (ocaml, haskell, java, ruby,
>>> > ...). Be
On 2012-04-30 09:23 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 04/30/2012 03:48 AM, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> The difference is that there are millions of videos you can watch with
>> VLC, while there are only a dozen or so iwads for doomsday, none of
>> which are free.
>
> And the
On 2012-04-11 12:13 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> 2) Static order is currently supported and supporting it for wheezy
> doesn't incurr horrible amounts of work.
I beg to disagree, it is already unsupportable because the only way to
test it is to set up a lenny system, create some local ini
On 2012-03-24 10:50 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 09:48:58AM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> On 2012-03-24 04:04 +0100, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>> > One issue not covered is what to do if your package already builds
>> > 32-bit libraries on a 64-bi
On 2012-03-24 04:04 +0100, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> I would like to do multiarch conversion for the icu packages. I
> understand the concept and the implementation, and I have looked at
> http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Implementation. One issue not covered
> is what to do if your package alread
On 2012-03-14 11:33 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> If it outputs nothing on your system, then you're fine. Otherwise
>> it should give you some instructions to follow to bring it back to a
>> coherent state.
>
> There was a bug in the script. An upda
On 2012-02-14 15:28 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
>
>> This still does not solve the other issues I listed, namely binNMUs
>> have to be performed in lock-step, more complicated transitions /
>> upgrades.
>
> I don't think I see where this is coming from. Are you talking about
On 2012-02-08 21:03 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> This is regarding Bug #645540 ("Essential" package conflict between
> sysvinit and systemd-sysv).
>
> sysvinit is currently Essential. In order to permit the replacement
> of sysvinit with an alternative init system, I'd like to propose the
> creati
On 2011-10-19 23:06 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Recently the readline-dev package and its GPL2 variant
> libreadline-gplv2-dev dropped their dependencies on libncurses5-dev.
> This prompted me to look for packages that currently depend on
> libncurses5 but do not build-depend on lib
On 2011-10-21 12:13 +0200, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 08:48:20PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
>>
>> Actually, just adding the build dependency is not the best solution in
>> such cases, since you'll get a spurious dependency on libncurses5
>> (dpk
On 2011-10-20 14:05 +0200, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:06:20PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> Colin Watson
>>spectemu
>
> Fixed in 0.94a-13, thanks.
Actually, just adding the build dependency is not the best solution in
such cases, since you'll
On 2011-10-20 00:03 +0200, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sven Joachim writes:
>
>> The two exceptions are [...] nvidia-cuda-toolkit (non-free,
>> binary-only(?)).
>
> Yup, binary-only. I believe the dependency is present in the binary that
> we get from upstream, and no -dev
Recently the readline-dev package and its GPL2 variant
libreadline-gplv2-dev dropped their dependencies on libncurses5-dev.
This prompted me to look for packages that currently depend on
libncurses5 but do not build-depend on libncurses5-dev or its aliases
libncurses-dev and ncurses-dev, nor have l
On 2011-10-19 14:35 +0200, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> I propose to remove console-tools from sid, in favour of kbd.
> This is long planned: console-tools has been dead upstream for many
> years, with only Debian and derivatives
> still using it; For squeeze, kbd was made priority: optional and
>
On 2011-10-14 02:28 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> My plan is to write a script which moves to /usr all the binaries in
> /bin and /sbin (taking care of the few cases which actually are links
> to /) and then converts the directories to symlinks to /usr/bin and
> /usr/sbin.
> After this I will try
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
