Re: Packages using old dpkg tools paths

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 21:21:05 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > So, yes, given the above, I'll reinstate the compat symlinks for dpkg > 1.17.22. It would be nice though, if as many of the fixes for the > remaining callers could be accepted for jessie, if possible? > The cost of keeping symlinks ar

Re: New pre-depends: python pre-depends python-minimal

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 18:24:00 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > It appears that the appropriate resolution of #769106 [1] is to add a new > pre-depends on python-minimal in python. > > This issue at hand is that at the time python2.7-minimal is configured, > python > is unpacked, but python-

Re: New pre-depends: python pre-depends python-minimal

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 02:46:24 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > As part of python2.7-minimal's configuration, > /usr/share/python/runtime.d/public_modules.rtinstall gets executed. It's > part > of the python package. Since the dependency chain was texlive-music -> > python > -> python2.7-m

Re: state of security hardening build flag efforts

On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 02:17:21 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > However, I wonder why bindnow isn't on by default. I thought we had > a discussion about this, and didn't really see any negative > performance from that? > It makes stuff stop working. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digi

Re: state of security hardening build flag efforts

On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 11:27:46 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 07 Apr 2012, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 02:17:21 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > > > However, I wonder why bindnow isn't on by default. I thought we had

Re: Towards multi-arch: "Multi-Arch: same" file conflicts

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 20:03:27 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > If a package is marked as "Multi-Arch: same", files with the same > name have to be (byte-to-byte) identical across all architectures. > Unfortunately, not all packages obey this requirement. I set up a > page to track violators: > > htt

Re: Towards multi-arch: "Multi-Arch: same" file conflicts

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 00:21:20 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > I also see for libopencc1 (not mine but I am watching it...) > > [libopencc1 0.3.0-2] > usr/share/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/opencc.mo > 2c2024df5378074f4727948eb7133516 mips s390 sparc s390x powerpc > 6a7df4d7f1f5383bd7461de8a0bb4957

Re: Towards multi-arch: "Multi-Arch: same" file conflicts

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 00:30:01 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > Just removing Multi-Arch causes this lintian warning ... > > W: ibus source: dependency-is-not-multi-archified libibus-1.0-dev > depends on gir1.2-ibus-1.0 (multi-arch: no) > N: > N:The package is Multi-Arch "same", but it

Re: switching from exim to postfix

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 09:58:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes: > > On Apr 29, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> desires. The disruption doesn't seem worth it even if we had consensus > > > What kind of disruption are you thinking about? > > Existing users who are

Re: switching from exim to postfix

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 19:08:56 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Julien Cristau wrote: > > The 500 packages that would have to change their Depends from "exim4 | > > mta" to something else. > > We're already on our way to update them

Re: RFP bugs and debian-devel list

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 02:14:08 +0300, Touko Korpela wrote: > Aren't RFP bugs automatically forwarded to debian-devel, like ITP bugs? > Thankfully, no. debian-devel is noisy enough as it is. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#672507: ITP: ruby-posix-spawn -- Ruby Implementation of posix_spawn(2) for faster process spawning

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 01:12:37 +0900, Youhei SASAKI wrote: > Package: wnpp > Owner: Youhei SASAKI > Severity: wishlist > > * Package name: ruby-posix-spawn Do you really need a whole package for a single syscall wrapper? Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Version for a returning package

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:40:14 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > 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

Re: new libtiff dev packages

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 10:35:48 -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > [I'm not subscribed to debian-devel at the moment, so please cc me on > responses in the unlikely event that there need to be any.] > > I've uploaded new versions of libtiff4-dev and libtiff-dev (now the name > for libtiff5-dev, with

Re: new libtiff dev packages

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 16:43:39 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > Please don't do that. libtiff-dev needs to point to libtiff4 until > after the wheezy release. > The files have been moved out of the upload queue for now. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Wheezy release: CDs are not big enough any more...

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 21:35:16 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > That's why busybox includes xz :) > Not all relevant busybox builds do, which is the point. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: udeb and data.tar.xz files?

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 15:16:15 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Can someone tell me what's up, and ideally update the text at: > > http://lintian.debian.org/tags/udeb-uses-non-gzip-data-tarball.html > > ... so developers can know what to do? > debhelper switched to xz for udebs yesterday,

Re: udeb and data.tar.xz files?

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 16:01:31 -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote: > I saw a bug report requesting that packages that failed the lintian > udeb-uses-non-gzip-data-tarball check should be summarily rejected. > Did this actually get implemeted on the ftp server? i.e., do I need > to wait until the new version

Re: amd64 as default architecture

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 14:34:34 -0700, Jonathan McDowell wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:51:17PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:18:21PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > > > On 2012-05-22 20:40 +0200, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > > On 22/05/12 19:24, Sven Joachim wrote:

Re: Packages still in experimental but removed in unstable

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:09:53 +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote: > Debian X Strike Force >xserver-xorg-video-v4l > This should be kept around, and a newer version uploaded to unstable. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#676686: libxslt1.1: libxslt1.1 binNMU broke multi-arch installability

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:25:42 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > Wouldn't the ideal solution be non-architecture-specific changelogs? No, that would be very much non-ideal. One should be able to schedule binNMUs for a subset of archs, and one shouldn't have to look up whether a package builds m-

Bug#678100: ITP: salome-{kernel,gui,med,geom,paravis,..} -- integration platform for numerical simulation

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Julien Cristau * Package name: salome-{kernel,gui,med,geom,paravis,..} Version : 6.5.0 Upstream Author : CEA, EDF R&D, Open CASCADE * URL : http://www.salome-platform.org/ * License : mostly LGPL Programming Lan

Re: [hardening-discuss] Using hardening-wrapper but lintian warning still present

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:56:21 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > If you're using debhelper compat level 9, you don't have to worry about > including hardening-wrapper and using DEB_BUILD_HARDENING=1. You'll get > the defaults automatically through debhelper. This is the preferred way > to get build flag

Bug#677582: gcc-4.4-base: upgrade problems since removal of gcj-4.4

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 03:10:16 +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > during piuparts dist-upgrade tests I noticed problems upgrading from > squeeze if gcj-4.4 is installed. gcj-4.4 was recently removed from sid > and testing and there is no clean upgrade path and apt decides to keep > gcc-4.4-base at

Re: Debian Installer 7.0 Beta1 release

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 12:54:16 +, Sam Morris wrote: > I figured it out. The instructions at llvmpipe.html> seem to work. I had some difficulty getting > LD_LIBRARY_PATH to stick, however... setting it from a script in /etc/X11/ > Xsession.d doesn't work as it's res

Re: Debian Installer 7.0 Beta1 release

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:45:31 +0100, Sam Morris wrote: > IIRC I built mesa with 3.0. I'll take a look at the patches. I also just > realised that I didn't run the X server with LD_LIBRARY_PATH set... is > that a problem, or is it just the clients that need the llvmpipe > libGL.so.1? Sorry for t

Re: Proposal: Making Debian compiler agnostic

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 17:18:48 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Our project's intent is not to change the default compiler, just use a > secondary compiler to generate more errors or warnings for package > maintainers to be aware of. In most cases, keeping both compilers happy > would result in h

Re: [b-d][falla] acl2

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 15:23:53 -0400, Camm Maguire wrote: > Greetings! > > Stephen Gran writes: > > > Why not add logging to the Makefile, or cat debian/mini-proveall.out or > > something? This doesn't look like a dead end to me. > > > > Thanks so much for your suggestion! Can uploads inst

Re: mass bug filing about packages with empty /usr/share/doc/$package/ (no copyright file)?

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 15:12:09 +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Also we should formulate some advice how to fix this issue, probably > including some maintainer script snippets. There are several DDs that > have already fixed these bugs (thanks!), so they should know how to do > this :-) > I th

Re: Temporary solution for changelog problem in binNMUs

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 13:14:51 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > One problem that that doesn't solve is what to do when a package would > be able to borrow its /doc/ directory from another package > (using a symlink) but for the changelog and copyright (which gets even > harder when binnmus are in

Re: Temporary solution for changelog problem in binNMUs

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 14:14:20 +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > Also, it wouldn't help for the case of a binNMU on a subset of all arches > since only some of them would have the entry. The solution proposed by ansgar > cover this case. No it doesn't. dpkg will still refuse to install a m-

Re: x32 “half” arrived… now what?

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 22:01:48 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > It was Linus' decree that no new ABI is allowed to suffer from the Y2k38 > bug even if its word size is 32 bit, and I'd say he's right. This means > that this problem will bite us the next time another 32 bit arch comes, > so there's

Re: jessie release goal: verbose build logs

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 14:14:39 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > Debian X Strike Force [long list] Working on fixing these (adding --disable-silent-rules) as I update them. Will take a while though... Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Mass bug filing for shared library broken symlinks detected by piuparts

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 packages which are responsible for > such links. > > This mess

Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 18:58:34 +0200, Nick Andrik wrote: > Since AGPLv3 is really similar to GPLv3 but mostly oriented for > webapplications, would it make sense to contact Oracle with the > concerns raised in this thread and ask for clarification and possible > consideration to change to licens

Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 21:53:45 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Previous versions of Berkeley DB have been released under the > Sleepycat license, which is actually a copyleft license. Right, my bad. I forgot about that oddity. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Current and upcoming toolchain changes for jessie

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 14:51:43 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Am 07.05.2013 15:25, schrieb Matthias Klose: > > The decision when to make GCC 4.8 the default for other architectures is > > left to the Debian port maintainers. > [...] > > Information on porting to GCC 4.8 from previous versions of

Re: Broken library symlink detected in libsamba-util-dev

On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 04:10:16 -0400, Dave Steele wrote: > I guess the next step is a clearer statement of consensus on what to do next. > > My position - I believe that the bug submittal, and the current > severity, is appropriate. > > I will make changes should consensus dictate. (I may need

Re: Algorithm for selecting between packages providing the same phpapi-20100525, change between squeeze -> wheezy

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 14:25:59 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > David, > > will this bug get fixed in wheezy? > > More people are starting to complain they get libapache2-mod-php5filter > installed: #709027 > > I am still have no idea how to fix that in wheezy apart from fixing the > selection alg

Re: Opt-out or Opt-in vebose build logs Re: jessie release goal: verbose build logs

[why oh why are you breaking threading?] On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 19:51:52 +0200, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > We have build log analyzers running for the build logs. And the > important compiler warnings (errors) fail the build. > If we make this opt-in, we will fail to achieve this goal. As when on

Re: Bug#720202: ITP: qreator -- utility for creating QR codes

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 22:16:11 +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > Le lundi 19 août 2013 23:24:48 Chow Loong Jin a écrit : > > Package: wnpp > > Severity: wishlist > > Owner: Chow Loong Jin > > > > * Package name: qreator > > Version : 13.05.3 > > Upstream Author : David Planell

Re: Less dinstall FTW?

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 09:38:55 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > The reason why we want to keep dinstall running often are notably: > - closing bug earlier bugs are closed in cron.unchecked, which runs every 15 minutes. > - informing users/developers earlier that updates are available (even >

Re: Status of dgit (good for NMUs and fast-forwarding Debian branches)

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:43:29 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > I should also mention a non-goal: > > * I have no plans to support a workflow where dgit's git tree >contains different contents to the source packages. > To me the tree that matters is the one after debian/rules clean, not dpkg-s

Re: Status of dgit (good for NMUs and fast-forwarding Debian branches)

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 19:19:22 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Julien Cristau writes ("Re: Status of dgit (good for NMUs and fast-forwarding > Debian branches)"): > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:43:29 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > I should also mention a non-goal:

Re: Status of dgit (good for NMUs and fast-forwarding Debian branches)

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 14:16:32 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Julien Cristau writes ("Re: Status of dgit (good for NMUs and fast-forwarding > Debian branches)"): > > No, I mean the upstream tarball contains autotools-generated files that > > debian/rules delete

Removing old unmaintained X drivers

Hi, we (the debian X Strike Force) are thinking of removing the following packages from the archive, unless somebody steps up (soon) to take care of them. The reason is they see 0 testing, nobody maintains them upstream, if you're lucky people keep some of them building when APIs change, if you'r

Re: Removing old unmaintained X drivers

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 19:27:37 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 23:26:22 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > we (the debian X Strike Force) are thinking of removing the following > > packages from the archive, unless somebody steps up (soon) to

Re: lintian: what means pkg-config-multi-arch-wrong-dir?

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 13:31:39 +0200, Olе Streicher wrote: > Paul Wise writes: > > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Olе Streicher wrote: > >> for one of my packages (funtools) I just got a new lintian error: > >> pkg-config-multi-arch-wrong-dir. However, I cannot see a reason why this > >> is i

Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:44:44 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: > Yesterday I tried to setup a sparc64 chroot on a second disc in one of > my Sparcs, but the currently documented way[1] to do so failed[2] due > to outdated packages. On a first glance it looks like missing BinNMUs > for the Perl 5.14 t

Re: New package doesn't fix the problem in the old version

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 18:40:10 +0100, Raf Czlonka wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 06:09:18PM BST, Daniel Baumann wrote: > > my opinion.. > [cut] > > * unstable and *testing* users are supposed to be able to cope with > > the one or other glitch, if they don't, they use stable. > > I know

Re: Announcing derivatives patches and call for help and feedback

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 15:50:07 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > Hi all, > > Up to now the only options for pulling patches from distributions > derived from Debian have been Ubuntu's Debian patches repository[1] and > manual downloads of source packages from derivatives. In my estimation a > more gene

Re: Minified files and source code requirement

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 19:08:14 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Paul Wise wrote: > > One of the other problems with embedded JavaScript libraries is that > > often only the pre-compiled/obfuscated/minified version is > > distributed, which would be a violation of DFS

Re: Upcoming perl 5.14 transition

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 15:18:11 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 13:59 +, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > As per #637809, I plan to upload perl 5.14 to unstable soon (maybe today, > > depending on how some last bits of testing go). Like last time, this > > will mean that a la

Re: Perl transition blockers: candidates for testing removal

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 20:52:48 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > > * genders (#646286): patch ready, maybe NMU? > > Uploaded in the meantime. > Uploaded, but still broken. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl

Re: Heads-up: Boost defaults changing from 1.46 to 1.48

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 21:23:49 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > Hi, > > Boost 1.48 was uploaded to sid about 9 days ago so it should > transition to "testing" in the next day or so. > > My plan is to update the default boost version to 1.48 immediately > following this transition. > > I'd app

Re: Bug#654116: RFH: screen -- terminal multiplexor with VT100/ANSI terminal emulation

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 03:18:34 +0100, Axel Beckert wrote: > A) Add an option to screen so the screen client speaks the old >protocol to the running server protocol. This IMHO would be best >solution and one without a big impact. It's also something which >could be Debian-only, i.e. a

Re: Bug#654116: RFH: screen -- terminal multiplexor with VT100/ANSI terminal emulation

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 18:05:22 +0100, Romain Francoise wrote: > Jakub Wilk writes: > > > Also, you just introduced a security hole: every user can DoS other one > > (including root) my mkdiring /tmp/tmux-${VICTIM_UID}. > > See #620304 (and CVE-2011-1496) for more context about this. > That d

Re: Outstanding /dev/.udev bugs for /run migration

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 22:11:35 +, Roger Leigh wrote: > There are 19 packages still using /dev/.udev after udev transitioned > to /run/udev. Unless there are any objections, I'd like to raise the > severity of these bugs from important to serious, given that the /run > migration is a release

Re: alioth is down (again)

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:42:48 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > I guess DSA would welcome a patch adding machine-parsable output and > status information to this: > > https://db.debian.org/machines.cgi > > I guess the devscripts maintainers would also welcome a script to read > the resulting info and

Re: Help (voodoo, really) needed [Re: failed i386 build of iceweasel 11.0~b1-2]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 18:36:56 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > Oh, so OSS4 provides an Alsa API that is not compatible with Alsa's. > Awesome. > The oss4 package should die a painful death. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 15:08:50 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > What do others think? > Yes please. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: libidn re-license

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 20:35:53 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it > from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+. So maybe that's a stupid question, but... Why? You didn't have enough license headaches? Cheers, Julien signature.asc Des

Re: libidn re-license

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 21:03:25 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Julien Cristau writes: > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 20:35:53 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > > >> I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it > >> from LGPLv2+

Re: dpkg-buildpackage now sets DEB_BUILD_HOST etc for you?

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 19:10:05 +0100, Wookey wrote: > Should a package depending on this behaviour build-dep on a particular > dpkg version? As it already works in build-essential in stable do the > same rules apply as essential packages in stable (i.e no explicit > dependency required)? That wo

Re: dpkg-buildpackage now sets DEB_BUILD_HOST etc for you?

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 14:08:33 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > Would there not be some advantage to making dpkg-buildpackge the > interface for building? (Not dropping the debian/rules interface, > of course.) This would permit the automatic setting of all the > host- and build-related variables w

Re: mass bug filing about versioned dependency on the libhdf5-7 virtual package

nNMU is all that's needed then please don't file bugs against the packages. See http://wiki.debian.org/binNMU Cheers, Julien -- Julien Cristau Logilab http://www.logilab.fr/ Informatique scientifique & gestion de connaissances -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debi

Re: possible mass bug filing for packages shipping stuff in /var/run, /var/lock, /run?

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 23:16:05 +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Hi, > > I haven't made a detailed analysis, yet, and cannot say how many > packages would be affected. Right now I have about 100 candidate > piuparts logs that should cover /var/run and /var/lock, but I haven't > sorted them in "b

Re: Bug#690544: ITP: xts -- GNU R package for time series analysis

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 20:13:33 +0800, Lifeng Sun wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Lifeng Sun > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-scie...@lists.debian.org > > * Package name: xts > Version : 0.8-6 > Upstream Author : Jeffrey A. Ryan >

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 22:29:53 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > AIUI, most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the second of these > > > branches, which means the pristine-tar binary delta is done against the > > > upstream br

Bug#693879: ITP: python-hglib -- Python library for interfacing with Mercurial's command server

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Julien Cristau * Package name: python-hglib Version : 0.3 Upstream Author : Idan Kamara, Matt Mackall * URL : http://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-hglib/ * License : MIT/X Programming Lang: Python Description

Re: staged freeze

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 22:02:58 +0100, Thomas Koch wrote: > Has this been discussed before? > It's been done before. Cheers, Juien signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Feedback

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 19:49:59 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > (not unblocked for wheezy yet.) > Lies. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Packages with Depends, Recommends and Suggests on fuse-utils (in unstable)

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:39:45 +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi > > As per dev-ref 7.1.1 about mass-bugfilling I'm writing first to > debian-devel. > > In unstable fuse-utils transitional package was dropped, and this now > makes some packages uninstallable. Some Depends, Recommends or

Re: Packages with incomplete .md5sum files

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 13:10:24 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > this I'd probably file as serious, not having checksums for files in /usr > seems worse. But then, the same reasoning as for the above bugs applies, so > maybe important is better after all. > There's no requirement for md5sums file

Re: Packages with incomplete .md5sum files

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:19:36 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > I'm pretty sure modifying *any* shipped files in the maintainer scripts > should be forbidden, although I didn't find a policy reference for this > (this is made explicit for conffiles, what about "normal" files?). > Packages violat

Re: Packages with incomplete .md5sum files

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:46:46 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > 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 md5s

Re: No native packages?

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 18:17:20 +, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 09:36:45AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Tollef Fog Heen writes: > > > ]] Gergely Nagy > > > > >> No, not really. I don't really care what tools one uses, as long as the > > >> result is reasonably easy *and*

Re: Processed: Re: Bug#701883: general: error in the load driver displaylink_drv.so in configuration for two displays with Xinerama

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 16:21:05 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > > > reassign 701883 xserver-xorg > Bug #701883 [general] general: error in the load driver displaylink_drv.so in > configuration for two displays with Xinerama > Bug rea

Re: Bug#704124: codename 'rc-buggy' not handled correctly

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:02:11 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > Package: ftp.debian.org > Severity: normal > > Hi, > > it seems that apt is handling the codename 'rc-buggy' for experimental > not correctly. > > zobel@kvasir:~% sudo apt-get update > [...] > Fetched 26.4 MB in 9s (2,923 kB/s)

Re: Bug#704124: codename 'rc-buggy' not handled correctly

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:56:52 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 11:21:29 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:02:11 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > > > Putting debian-devel@l.d.o on CC for this bug report, as

Bug#705452: docbook-xml: Fail to upgrade due to pre-depend problem

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 14:58:21 +1000, Stuart Prescott wrote: > I don't doubt that there is a smaller subset of packages that can reproduce > this failure, especially since installing those two drags in several hundred > others -- that was just as far as I had managed to get in narrowing it dow

Re: RFC: initramfs-tools support for early firmware loading

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 19:23:50 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > As of Linux kernel 3.9, support for supplying early firmware data to the > kernel has been added. Currently, it is used for early microcode updates > for Intel processors, and ACPI table overrides. > > This is a very im

Re: 2013 sometimes still feels like 2003 or 1993 (Re: NEW processing during freezes

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 09:01:51 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 05/03/2013 03:18 AM, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > > While we're at it, can we also have source-only uploads? Uploading > > potentially > > huge binary packages that just go to /dev/null seems like a pointless waste > > of > >

Re: Will we see MariaDB in Jessie?

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 19:17:47 +0200, Patrick Matthäi wrote: > But why should it _replace_ MySQL, why not providing it as an > alternative MySQL'ish server? > Because Oracle. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Switching packages to non-awaiting triggers

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:37:00 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > python-support (will go away anyway) Seems fairly unlikely that it will, actually, with 758 reverse build deps in sid as far as I can tell. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: wheezy postmortem re rc bugfixing

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:55:03 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Also, we should be more agressive at getting down the number of RC bugs > by automatically removing RC-buggy not-so-important packages. For > example, if we keep the current time-based freeze policy for jessie, we > could announce tha

Re: Debian development and release: always releasable (essay)

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 14:48:36 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > But those shouldn't affect testing yet, right? All of that stuff > needs staging in unstable first. Are bug filers not tagging their > reports correctly? If so, that's quite misleading, and actually > should be quite easy although

Re: Temporary solution for changelog problem in binNMUs

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 15:16:57 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > I've mentioned this before, I find this completely unsatisfactory, > because (at least): > > 1) the changelog stops representing the actual changelog of the > package. Irrelevant, that's already the case today for anything but t

Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 08:30:45 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Op 28-11-13 21:04, Niels Thykier schreef: > > It has also come to our attention that a few buildds do not use > > throw-away chroots. This sometimes results in unclean builds and we > > have therefore decided to only consider archite

Re: Bits from ARM porters

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:42:56 +, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > On 2 December 2013 23:08, Hector Oron wrote: > > 5 arm64 Debian port support > > ═══ > > > > If Debian is unable to find ARM 64-bit hardware before Jessie gets > > frozen, it likely won't be Jessie suppo

Re: Bug#733033: ocl-icd-libopencl1: arch-dependent file in "Multi-Arch: same" package

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:23:08 +0100, Vincent Danjean wrote: > Hi, > > Does anybody know how to force the date on manapages generated by > asciidoc? A quick look for 'date' in asciidoc manpage and a google > search on "asciidoc multiarch date" do not give me anything useful > at first glanc

Re: Bug#733045: debhelper: Can debhelper make autotools-dev updating default behaviour?

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 15:15:13 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Tue, 24 Dec 2013, Wookey wrote: > > 2) for dh packages: > > adding --with autotools-dev to the dh invocation > > This is broken. debhelper modules are not allowed to use "-" in the name, > the correct module name is

Re: libunwind and ia64

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 01:06:07 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > libunwind seems to be holding off many packages to be uploaded to unstable > now. > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libunwind.html > No, it's not holding off anything. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Descript

Re: what about PTS (Re: libunwind and ia64)

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 16:19:24 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > And regarding the icu52 transition: The transition tracker is not smart > enough to detect that a package has finished the transition (i.e. > testing has a version satisfying the "good" constraint.). But this does > not happen too o

Re: Transition of Icedove 24.2.0 to testing

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 01:00:11 +0100, Carsten Schoenert wrote: > Hello release team, > > as Mike asked a few days before for Iceweasel, would it be possible to > force the transition of the current Icedove version 24.2.0 from unstable > to testing before Christoph will prepare the package for s

Re: IA64 removal from unstable and experimental

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 13:18:11 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 02/17/2014 12:50 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > And ia64 is now gone from unstable and experimental since last Saturday. > > And isn't it going to become a port like all the other dropped > architectures? > Not all dr

Re: Backports, Stable releases, Testing, Oh my!

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 13:18:02 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > AFAICT, it's 5 days now. > > The default urgency in dch is medium now, which britney interprets as > 5 days for existing packages. Packages that aren't in testing have > their

Re: Bits from the Security Team

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 18:41:02 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Vincent Danjean , 2014-03-07, 15:41: > >>hidepid=1 means users may not access any /proc// > >>directories but their own. > > > >Even that is strange. I just tried. Processus that are not mine > >are not shown anymore by ps, but even som

Re: LTS (was: Bits from the Security Team)

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 20:54:42 +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote... > > > LTS > > - --- > > > > * Anyone interested in contributing, please get in touch with > > t...@security.debian.org. We'll setup an initial coordination list > > with all interested parties. All p

Re: libphobos-dev build-dep

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 14:40:20 +0100, Peter De Wachter wrote: > On 22-03-14 13:11, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Hello, > > > > The following packages have been in BD-Uninstallable buildd state for a > > very long time. This is because they build-depend on the libphobos-dev > > virtual package inst

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >