Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 04:29:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?"): > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 04:41:18PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > I think Steffen's point was that all the hideousness you are ta

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 04:41:18PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:10:59AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > Distribution packages generated by upstream are usually horrible unless > > upstream is deeply involved in that distribution community. From the > > perspective

Re: virtualbox-guest-utils as time server.

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 01:54:33PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:52:04AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > If you're going to use localisation (which is fine, I do too), then if > > you're trying to ask for help, please get into the habit of reproduc

Re: Mandates explicit -std=c++XY for c++ projects

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:26:07AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 02:16:36PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > On 10 October 2017 at 14:07, Gert Wollny wrote: > > > I think nobody would object if you set the flag to -std=c++98 for a > > > certain

Re: virtualbox-guest-utils as time server.

Hi Jörg, Not related to your question, but: On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:56:25PM +0200, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: > Hello, > > today I update my system I got the following messages: > > [quote] > $ sudo apt-get dist-upgrade > Paketlisten werden gelesen... Fertig > Abhängigkeitsbaum wird

Accepted ola 0.10.5.nojsmin-3 (source amd64 all) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:58:53 +0200 Source: ola Binary: libola-dev ola-python ola-rdm-tests ola libola1 Architecture: source amd64 all Version: 0.10.5.nojsmin-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <

Accepted pmw 1:4.29-2 (source amd64 all) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 13:44:22 +0200 Source: pmw Binary: pmw pmw-doc Architecture: source amd64 all Version: 1:4.29-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> Changed-By: Wouter Ve

Re: Alioth: the future of mailing lists

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 02:55:26PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hello Axel, > > On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Axel Beckert wrote: > > Alexander Wirt wrote: > > > - Distribution lists for use in the Maintainer: field. We suggest > > > that, with maybe some extra code, this use-case could be well

Accepted nbd 1:3.16.2-1 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 16:52:45 +0200 Source: nbd Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1:3.16.2-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> C

Accepted ola 0.10.5.nojsmin-2 (source amd64 all) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 08:43:18 +0200 Source: ola Binary: libola-dev ola-python ola-rdm-tests ola libola1 Architecture: source amd64 all Version: 0.10.5.nojsmin-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <

Re: openssl/libssl1 in Debian now blocks offlineimap?

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 11:03:33PM +0200, Hanno Rince' Wagner wrote: > Hi Jonas! > > Question is if Debian _force_ only TLS 1.2 so that no services _can_ use > > anything else. > > IMHO we should have the default at TLS 1.2, but be able to configure > 1.0. But this has to be an opt-in value, not

Re: openssl/libssl1 in Debian now blocks offlineimap?

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 01:51:16PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > Arguing for keeping TLS 1.0 support means you're arguing for providing > users with a default-insecure setup. No. Arguing for keeping TLS1.0 *enabled by default* does. But arguing for *allowing* it to be re-enabled (without

Re: openssl/libssl1 in Debian now blocks offlineimap?

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 05:04:50PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > My problem is that if we don't do something, TLS 1.0 will be used > for an other 10 year, and that's just not acceptable. My problem is that the cause you're fighting, while laudable, should not be fought in Debian. Debian is a

Re: OpenSSL disables TLS 1.0 and 1.1

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 04:24:03PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:41:10AM -0400, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 08:35:52PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 05:22:51PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote

Re: OpenSSL disables TLS 1.0 and 1.1

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 08:35:52PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 05:22:51PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > I wonder if there is a middle way that ensures that all new stuff does > > go TLS1.2 (or later, whenever), but does allow older stuff still to > > work. Which isnt the

Re: Let's enable AppArmor by default (why not?)

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 01:27:49PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 07:28:08AM +, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote: > > I can't think of a situation where you would not want it > The "I don't want yet another thing that can cause subtle breakages and > doesn't give me anything"

Accepted pmw 1:4.29-1 (source amd64 all) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:09:45 +0200 Source: pmw Binary: pmw pmw-doc Architecture: source amd64 all Version: 1:4.29-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> Changed-By: Wouter Ve

Re: alioth replacement survey

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 01:49:36PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:47:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > Is it possible to share a link to the survey results? I saw it when I > > submitted > > my entry, but I closed the window before my brain parsed it, so I

Re: Too many Recommends (in particular on mail-transport-agent)

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:29:05PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > bash-completion: bash dput-ng licensecheck > > * DEBATABLE: I like the Tab key to do something reasonable, > > "bash-completion" means you never know what you'll get. > > I

Re: Too many Recommends (in particular on mail-transport-agent)

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 03:55:48PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 05:39:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Maybe someone has a list of things they view as Recommends inflation that > > have (a) been reported as bugs to the appropriate package maintainers, and > > (b) have

Accepted nbd 1:3.16.1-1 (source amd64) into experimental

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 10:07:27 +0200 Source: nbd Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1:3.16.1-1 Distribution: experimental Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.

Re: When do we update the homepage to a modern design? (was Re: Moving away from (unsupportable) FusionForge on Alioth)

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 09:45:46PM +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > > > On 05/15/2017 02:02 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:42:09PM +0200, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: > >> On 15 May 2017 at 13:30, Paul Wise wrote: > >>> TBH if I was confronted with the

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 04:51:27AM -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 03:48:09PM -0400, Tom H wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> w

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 03:48:09PM -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> wrote: > > I didn't say RPM *doesn't* deal with changed files; I said ours deals > > with it better. I stand by that. > > Sure; and an rpm

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 04:21:17AM -0400, Tom H wrote: > Did Linux development move as quickly as it does now? > Did users experience more problems or failures when running those > dist-upgrades? RedHat also did not support upgrades back when they did not wait four years to do finish a new

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 08:03:13AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:18:54 +0200, Wouter Verhelst > <wou...@debian.org> wrote: > >I didn't say RPM *doesn't* deal with changed files; I said ours deals > >with it better. I stand by that. > > Given that

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 07:53:57AM -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > The "packages drop files in /usr/*, sysadmins override in /etc" way of > > doing things is prevalent in

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 08:05:10AM -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > > All of this is caused by Red Hat having no support for upgrades: > > > > https://access.redhat.com/solutions/21964 > > > > # Red Hat does not support

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:17:48AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Apr 23, Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> wrote: > > > The "packages drop files in /usr/*, sysadmins override in /etc" way of > > doing things is prevalent in the RPM world; in Debian, however,

Accepted nbd 1:3.15.2-3 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:45:17 +0200 Source: nbd Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1:3.15.2-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> C

Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:16:58PM +0200, Evgeni Golov wrote: > Ohai, > > LXC recently got a bug (#860974) that is best fixed by bumping a certain > sysctl limit above the default. > > However I could not find any documented policy how to do this (if at all). > > Both, procps and systemd

Re: Bug#860170: node-brfs -- browserify fs.readFileSync() static asset inliner

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:13:40AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 08:59:30AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:16:18PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 03:35:46PM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > &

Re: Bug#860170: node-brfs -- browserify fs.readFileSync() static asset inliner

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:16:18PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 03:35:46PM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > > Subject: Re: Bug#860170: node-brfs -- browserify fs.readFileSync() static > > asset inliner > > This should have "ITP" in the title of the bug. > > >

Re: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:07:54PM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Apr 06 2017, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > Nikolaus Rath dijo [Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:18:57PM -0700]: > >> >> I have a very different perception > >> > > >> > Me too. I guess it depends very much on whether one can

Re: [stretch] mc-4.8.18 broken, but fixed mc-4.8.19 released 5 March

On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 04:15:41PM -0400, Felix Miata wrote: > Wouter Verhelst composed on 2017-04-02 20:59 (UTC+0200): > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 05:24:53PM -0400, Felix Miata wrote: > > > > Andrey Rahmatullin composed on 2017-04-01 01:49 (UTC+0500): > > >

Re: System libraries and the GPLv2

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:48:44PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 07:28:19PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > In this scenario, you can determine the intent of the program copyright > > holders, but what you need is a linking exception from the > > purely-GPL-licensed

Re: [stretch] mc-4.8.18 broken, but fixed mc-4.8.19 released 5 March

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 05:24:53PM -0400, Felix Miata wrote: > Andrey Rahmatullin composed on 2017-04-01 01:49 (UTC+0500): > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 04:30:28PM -0400, Felix Miata wrote: > > > Andrey Rahmatullin composed on 2017-03-24 21:18 (UTC+0500): > > > > Start with reporting this bug at our

Accepted pmw 1:4.28-4 (source amd64 all) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 12:50:48 +0200 Source: pmw Binary: pmw pmw-doc Architecture: source amd64 all Version: 1:4.28-4 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> Changed-By: Wouter Ve

Accepted logtool 1.2.8-10 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 12:44:18 +0200 Source: logtool Binary: logtool Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1.2.8-10 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> Changed-By: Wouter Verhels

Re: dlopen()ing shared libraries considered harmful (was Re: Depends/Recommends from libraries)

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 05:44:20AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > As I've also noted in the past [B], I'd go even further and say that > we need at least to very strongly discourage, but ideally outright ban > the dlopen()ing of shared libraries that are not part of the same > source package or at

Accepted logtool 1.2.8-9 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:43:41 +0200 Source: logtool Binary: logtool Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1.2.8-9 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> Changed-By: Wouter Verhels

Accepted pmw 1:4.28-3 (source amd64 all) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 21:15:09 +0100 Source: pmw Binary: pmw pmw-doc Architecture: source amd64 all Version: 1:4.28-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> Changed-By: Wouter Ve

Accepted nbd 1:3.15.2-2 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 14:41:37 +0100 Source: nbd Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1:3.15.2-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> C

Accepted ola 0.10.3.nojsmin-2 (source amd64 all) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:13:52 +0100 Source: ola Binary: libola-dev ola-python ola-rdm-tests ola libola1 Architecture: source amd64 all Version: 0.10.3.nojsmin-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <

Re: Depends/Recommends from libraries

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 10:19:10AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Now, if this were taken a further step so that dpkg-shlibdeps would > provide some mechanism to *automatically* add those downstream > dependencies to packages that depend on the library unless the > dependencies were explicitly

Accepted ola 0.10.3.nojsmin-1 (source amd64 all) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 12:42:10 +0100 Source: ola Binary: libola-dev ola-python ola-rdm-tests ola libola1 Architecture: source amd64 all Version: 0.10.3.nojsmin-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <

Re: debian.org RTC: announcing XMPP, SIP presence and more

Hi, On Saturday 2015-11-07, Daniel Pocock wrote: > The Debian Project now has an XMPP service available to all Debian > Developers. Your Debian.org email identity can be used as your XMPP > address. Unfortunately, as of a few weeks ago, spammers have started to send messages through the

Accepted nbd 1:3.15.2-1 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:09:31 +0100 Source: nbd Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1:3.15.2-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> C

Re: Archive no longer accepts uploads signed using SHA-1 or RIPE-MD/160

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 09:07:23PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > The archive no longer accepts uploads signed using the SHA-1 Yay! (https://shattered.io is fun) > or RIPE-MD/160 algorithms. Uhh? AFAIK, RIPEMD160 is not compromised at all, not even in a theoretical attack. Why was this part

Re: manpages.debian.org has been modernized!

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 06:20:30PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > Would a mirror of the git repository on alioth be sufficient? I had > planned to set that up, but didn’t get around to it yet. Any help with > that would be very welcome. I realize you've already done so, but for future

Re: github and its workflows (was Re: manpages.debian.org has been modernized!)

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 09:51:51AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Firstly, it is not clear to me how the barrier to getting involved with > more substantial bugs is affected by the fact that I can trivially > submit typo fixes. What did you have in mind? How big was your first ever contribution to

Accepted ola 0.10.3-1 (source amd64 all) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:25:44 +0100 Source: ola Binary: libola-dev ola-python ola-rdm-tests ola libola1 Architecture: source amd64 all Version: 0.10.3-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.

Accepted nbd 1:3.15.1-2 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 20:36:11 +0100 Source: nbd Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1:3.15.1-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> C

Accepted nbd 1:3.15.1-1 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:22:53 +0100 Source: nbd Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1:3.15.1-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> C

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 01:12:32PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Hi, > > Quoting Mattia Rizzolo (2016-12-18 11:38:24) > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 09:27:12PM -0500, James McCoy wrote: > > > As Arno hinted at, it's to have reliable builds. A transient inability > > > to install the first arm of

Re: depending on libssl1.0-dev, buildd fails to find it

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:13:25AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > Provides: libssl1.0-dev > > in the control file and would that ensure it works without tweaks? It might, but the proper way to fix it is: Build-Depends: libssl1.0-dev (>= 1.0.0) | libssl-dev (<< 1.1) i.e., put what's in unstable

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 08:15:15PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sat, 2016-12-17 at 09:45 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > Yes, but that still says: > > Ack. > > > I think a proper procedure should involve a script that: > > > > - is packaged in De

Accepted nbd 1:3.15-1 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 01:08:18 +0100 Source: nbd Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1:3.15-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> C

Re: contacting all bug reporters for a package?

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:51:49AM -0600, Don Armstrong wrote: > That was me; sorry about that. Presumably you got all of the copies > because they were to different aliases which eventually ended up hitting > you. That reminds me of #784131. Is it possible to implement something along those

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:19:34AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > One way in which the need to keep armel around would be reduced is if we > > could somehow upgrade from armel machines to armhf ones, without > &g

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:50:40PM +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote: [...asking for armel to be retained...] One way in which the need to keep armel around would be reduced is if we could somehow upgrade from armel machines to armhf ones, without requiring a reinstall. After all, armel has been around

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:51:39PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Hi, > > Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2016-12-01 16:24:16) > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > But maybe to talk about this option: what would speak against changing

Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#843773: Bug#843773: misleading timestamps in binnmus

Hi, (Sorry for piping in so late to the party here) On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > But maybe to talk about this option: what would speak against changing the > "nmu" command of wanna-build to also add an option that allows setting a > timestamp, or even let

Accepted ola 0.10.2-3 (source amd64 all) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2016 22:03:05 +0200 Source: ola Binary: libola-dev ola-python ola-rdm-tests ola libola1 Architecture: source amd64 all Version: 0.10.2-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <

Accepted nbd 1:3.14-4 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 22:53:37 +0100 Source: nbd Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1:3.14-4 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> C

Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 10:41:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Is this a recommended recipe ? AIUI a buildd doing a binnmu will not > modify the debian/changelog file. Are you sure? When last I checked, this was not true (it may have changed since, however). -- < ron> I mean, the main

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:05:59AM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: > 30 days within the deep freeze should be plenty enough - and as I > said: if the problem is more complicated, just talk to the release > team _while the package is still in testing_. Let's say I'm on holiday (or I get hit by a

Re: Keysafe dynamic UID

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:58:35PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > (IME one gets the first matching entry found in /etc/passwd). Yes, if you use libnss_compat.so. There are, however, a number of caching NSS modules (e.g., libnss-db, libnss-cache, ...) that do not guarantee the same ordering of

Re: Proposed documentation, please comment! [was Re: Bug#838919: debian-installer: please calculate swap parition according to max RAM...]

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 02:43:13PM +0200, Bart Schouten wrote: > I have no problem with what Debian is today, Actually, you do. You seem to be advocating against systemd; but systemd *is* what Debian is today. Jessie has been released with systemd as its default init system, and there are no

Re: Proposed documentation, please comment! [was Re: Bug#838919: debian-installer: please calculate swap parition according to max RAM...]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 07:17:15PM +0200, Bart Schouten wrote: > I just mean is that you shouldn't try to expand the scope of your userbase > beyond what is reasonable possible because it is not possible anyway That is a fairly defeatist attitude. > and you should recognise that you *are* a

Re: Proposed documentation, please comment! [was Re: Bug#838919: debian-installer: please calculate swap parition according to max RAM...]

Ian, On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 04:26:49PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: Proposed documentation, please comment! [was Re: > Bug#838919: debian-installer: please calculate swap parition according to max > RAM...]"): > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016

Re: Proposed documentation, please comment! [was Re: Bug#838919: debian-installer: please calculate swap parition according to max RAM...]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 01:41:11PM +0200, Bart Schouten wrote: > I don't think Debian is for lay users Why? -- < ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules, and pretty much all

Re: [RFC] Adding pkg-config to build-essential

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 11:26:05AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder if nowadays pkg-config would qualify as Build-Essential. No, I don't think so. > We have 2400 source packages listing it as explicit Build-Depends and > countless -dev packages pulling in pkg-config. So the list

Accepted ola 0.10.2-2 (source amd64 all) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 10:43:06 +0200 Source: ola Binary: libola-dev ola-python ola-rdm-tests ola libola1 Architecture: source amd64 all Version: 0.10.2-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <

Accepted fdpowermon 1.18 (source all) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:26:44 +0200 Source: fdpowermon Binary: fdpowermon fdpowermon-icons Architecture: source all Version: 1.18 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> Changed-By:

Accepted nbd 1:3.14-3 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 15:21:54 +0200 Source: nbd Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1:3.14-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> C

Accepted nbd 1:3.14-2 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 17:45:16 +0200 Source: nbd Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1:3.14-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> C

Accepted nbd 1:3.14-1 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:33:45 +0200 Source: nbd Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1:3.14-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> C

Accepted fdpowermon 1.17 (source all) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:55:40 +0200 Source: fdpowermon Binary: fdpowermon fdpowermon-icons Architecture: source all Version: 1.17 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> Changed-By:

Re: travis-ci build error qq

Hi Mateus, For future reference, please note that the debian-devel mailinglist is not about developing on or for Debian, it is about developing Debian itself. On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:58:27AM -0300, Mateus Bellomo wrote: > Hello, > > I'm trying to commit to a project but it is failing in the

Re: Are two Vcs-{Git|Svn|...} and Vcs-Browser fields sensible?

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 06:54:08PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > I appreciate this idea and effort. Unfortunately, this is the type of > information we want in the *source* package (at least AFAICT), and to my > knowledge you cannot use substitution variables in those. This surprised me[1], so I

Bug#813374: general: Menus and window popup does not work after recent upgrade

control: reassign 813374 xfce4 thanks On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 10:35:15PM +0100, Vincent Danjean wrote: > Le 03/02/2016 12:31, Thomas Goirand a écrit : > > Vincent, > > > > This sounds like issues with your window manager, since you mostly > > complain about issues with window placements and

Re: Are two Vcs-{Git|Svn|...} and Vcs-Browser fields sensible?

Hi Andreas, On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 08:59:57AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Well, debcheckout is not accessing debian/control files of single > packages. My suggestion was obviously not clear enough. We certainly > should keep the old known fields in Packages files etc - but these > should be

Re: metapackages and setting config files in /etc and /home/dir

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 06:53:01PM -0500, Stephan Foley wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> wrote: > > That depends to a large extent on what you want to do with it once > > you've built the package. > > I shou

Re: metapackages and setting config files in /etc and /home/dir

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:38:10PM -0500, Stephan Foley wrote: > Hello, let's say I have the following install: > > my_metapackage -> depends on windows_manager -> depends on lightdm -> > depends on xorg > > So, I am forcing the following: > > - xorg > - lightdm > - windows_manager > > can I

Re: Debian package non-strict equal dependencies

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:20:38PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Dmitrii Kashin wrote: > > If there's package A which depends on B and C, B depends on D (= > > "2.0-43") and C depends on D (>= "2.0"). If there're packages D-2.0-43 > > and D-3.0 in the repository,

Re: Debian package non-strict equal dependencies

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 03:34:20PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > Josselin Mouette writes: > > > Dmitrii Kashin wrote: > >> The main thing is we can describe dependency as `pkg (= "2.0")' and yum > >> will > >> install package `pkg' of version "2.0"

Accepted nbd 1:3.13-1 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.8 Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:26:41 +0100 Source: nbd Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1:3.13-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> C

Re: Renaming the Debian Project

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 02:03:40PM -0800, benjamin barber wrote: > It's unfortunate that Debian is named after Debra and Ian, because having the > project named after a white supremacist, who used his ex-wifes name as an > trophy. Being that the current year is almost 2016 and is 20 years after >

Accepted nbd 1:3.12.1-2 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.8 Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 02:40:33 +0100 Source: nbd Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1:3.12.1-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> C

Accepted nbd 1:3.12.1-1 (source amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.8 Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:04:37 +0100 Source: nbd Binary: nbd-server nbd-client nbd-client-udeb Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1:3.12.1-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> C

Re: Automatically detecting package file conflicts without dependency conflicts?

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 05:35:16PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 05:28:35PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Bugs like 806253 come up fairly regularly in unstable: two packages > > contain the same file, but don't have a Conflicts or Replaces > > relationship. Renamed

Accepted pmw 1:4.28-2 (source all amd64) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.8 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:55:40 +0100 Source: pmw Binary: pmw pmw-doc Architecture: source all amd64 Version: 1:4.28-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> Changed-By: Wouter Verhels

Re: Ideas to improve dpkg/ucf with hooks [was: Putting default config files in /usr]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 05:47:41PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > Regarding dpkg, its conffile handling is IMO beyond repair, it should > be deprecated and later removed. Could you explain why? -- It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer -- Barack Obama, speaking in

Re: Bug#802595: ITP: node-defined -- return the first argument that is `!== undefined`

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 09:44:33AM +0900, Josh Triplett wrote: > However, whether we fix (1) or not, (2) needs to stop. It's completely > ridiculous to go to an upstream and say "your package is tiny, could you > combine it with other unrelated tiny packages to make a less tiny > package?". Yes,

Re: debian.org RTC: announcing XMPP, SIP presence and more

Hi Daniel, On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 12:05:16PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote: > Dear Developers, [marketing snipped] While all this irrelevant information about metcalfe's law and federation and whatnot is very interesting, this mail lacks one key data point: How does one use the damn XMPP service?

Re: (newbie) Disruptive LIRC package update.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 04:52:06PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote: > A file delivered by a package in /etc automatically becomes a conffiles. If you use debhelper. (not saying you shouldn't, but hey, sometimes being pedantic is good) -- It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate

Re: [br...@bstinson.com: Distributions Devroom CFP]

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 10:07:55PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > No idea why this wan't also sent to debian-devel... :-/ Simple answer: I used to do so (-devel-announce, really) and hadn't done so yet this year. -- It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer -- Barack

Accepted ola 0.9.8-1 (source amd64 all) into unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:30:49 +0200 Source: ola Binary: libola-dev ola-python ola-rdm-tests ola libola1 Architecture: source amd64 all Version: 0.9.8-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.

Re: iscsi support in Jessie

Hi, On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:36:02PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > Hi folks, > > Some years ago I have setup an iscsi target using targetcli 2.0 on Wheezy. > Actually it works pretty well, but there were some serious upgrade > problems to 2.1 and 3.0, making targetcli go away for Jessie :-(.

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >