Bug#675918: dpkg: [S-S-D]: write_pidfile() should not follow symlinks

2012-06-04 Thread Carsten Hey
Package: dpkg Hi, start-stop-daemon should not follow symlinks: # ls -l /etc/shadow /var/run/foo.pid -rw-r- 1 root shadow 662 Apr 10 12:20 /etc/shadow lrwxrwxrwx 1 nobody nogroup 11 Jun 4 06:00 /var/run/foo.pid - /etc/shadow # start-stop-daemon --start --verbose --make-pidfile

Bug#675918: dpkg: [S-S-D]: write_pidfile() should not follow symlinks

2012-06-04 Thread Carsten Hey
* Carsten Hey [2012-06-04 09:36 +0200]: start-stop-daemon should not follow symlinks: # ls -l /etc/shadow /var/run/foo.pid -rw-r- 1 root shadow 662 Apr 10 12:20 /etc/shadow lrwxrwxrwx 1 nobody nogroup 11 Jun 4 06:00 /var/run/foo.pid - /etc/shadow # start-stop-daemon --start

Bug#675979: dpkg-dev: dpkg-buildpackage does not always support building twice in a row

2012-06-04 Thread Santiago Vila
Package: dpkg-dev Version: 1.16.3 Severity: important If I untar the orig.tar.gz by hand, then copy the debian/* files and then invoke dpkg-buildpackage, dpkg-buildpackage realizes that the patches need to be applied first, so it applies them and then the package is built. This is ok so far. The

Bug#675979: dpkg-buildpackage does not always support building twice in a row

2012-06-04 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Hi Santiago, Santiago Vila wrote: The problem is that at the same time, dpkg-buildpackage seems to unapply the patches *after* building the package, when the source tree is full of executables, objects, Makefiles and so on. This is when a disaster might happen, as some of the patches might

Bug#675947: Circular build-dependency between libfile-fcntllock-perl and dpkg-dev

2012-06-04 Thread Dominic Hargreaves
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 07:17:57PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Hi, On Mon, 04 Jun 2012, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: The attached patch solves this by using flock() which is built into perl, rather than an external library. My understanding is that this should be adequate for the purpose,

Bug#675947: Circular build-dependency between libfile-fcntllock-perl and dpkg-dev

2012-06-04 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: I wasn't sure if the small amount of code which could be factored out justified a new file (and couldn't see an exisiting one), so I left it in the scripts. Happy to refactor into a new or existing file if you let me know your preference. I think

Bug#675979: dpkg-buildpackage does not always support building twice in a row

2012-06-04 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Santiago Vila wrote: I see it as an inconsistent state which does not make any sense. As far as I can tell, most people starting from the patches-unapplied state keep that form in version control. If the build does not involve modifying any source files (the usual case), they can use usual

Processed (with 1 errors): reassign 676107 to debiandoc-sgml, reassign 676122 to debiandoc-sgml ...

2012-06-04 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: reassign 676107 debiandoc-sgml Bug #676107 [src:debian-faq] debian-faq: FTBFS: nsgmls:OSFD0:6:0:E: reference to entity DEBIANDOC for which no system identifier could be generated Bug reassigned from package 'src:debian-faq' to 'debiandoc-sgml'.

Processed: reassign 676107 to dpkg, reassign 676122 to dpkg, forcibly merging 675613 676107 676122

2012-06-04 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: reassign 676107 dpkg Bug #676107 [debiandoc-sgml] debian-faq: FTBFS: nsgmls:OSFD0:6:0:E: reference to entity DEBIANDOC for which no system identifier could be generated Bug reassigned from package 'debiandoc-sgml' to 'dpkg'. Ignoring request to