Package: dpkg
Version: 1.17.23
Severity: normal
I had to test something quickly in an older sid chroot (hence the many
not updated packages) and updating libgcc1 + libc6 failed without
clear reason why. Running dpkg --configure -a configured the 2
packages just fine.
I'm unsure what went wrong
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 08:46:51PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
2012/7/13 Martin-Éric Racine martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi:
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.4.3
Followup-For: Bug #617299
I also encounter the same bug when trying to build kernel 3.2.21 from
upstream tarball:
$
Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org writes:
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 14.06.2012, 11:10 +0200 schrieb Bernd Zeimetz:
The only problem I see with this is that if the build dependencies can
only be calculated after a full build, building source and binaries
requires two builds (and a third
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.15.8.12
Severity: normal
File: /usr/bin/dpkg-deb
Hi,
I'm building a backport of cdebootstrap for work and we automatically add
+codename to the version of binary packages using
dh_gencontrol -- -v$(VERSION)
to make it clearer for what release a backport was build.
Hi,
Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org wrote:
Even if the /usr/lib location could be interpreted and argued as valid
too, I'd not see the point in changing it, given the coding and
transition work involved, susceptible to system breakage, and
unfortunately also because there are programs out
Hi,
Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org wrote:
re usage of /var:
~~
dpkg puts the package data into /var/lib/dpkg/info. This includes the
list of files, the list of conffiles, templates, md5sums and also the
maintainer scripts of each package.
According to FHS:
| /var
Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org writes:
3) dpkg is pointlessly slow in such use cases as buildds where *sync() is
not
important at all.
Well, even if the buildd chroot supposedly should be able to be recreated
easily, if the zero-lenght file issues appear on it, then it might not
be
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
severity 596841 wishlist
thanks
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
So the respective library needs to be added and fetched and everything
build again, a somewhat lengthy process.
You know you can call dpkg-shlibdeps/dh_shlibdeps
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.15.8.4
Severity: normal
File: /usr/bin/dpkg-shlibdeps
Hi,
when we run dpkg-shlibdeps on ia32-libs* we get an error like this:
dpkg-shlibdeps: error: couldn't find library libcanberra.so.0 needed by
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.15.8.4
Severity: wishlist
File: /usr/bin/dpkg-architecture
Hi,
recent discussions about multiarch, cross-compiling and the increasing
number of ABIs used in ports have raised the issue that the GNU
tripplet is not sufficiently unique to distinguish between different
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 11:40:13AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
This also causes issue with not being able to have installed two
cross-toolchains for say armel and armhf as they share triplet,
although you can use the armel toolchain with few options to
David Claughton d...@eclecticdave.com writes:
On 13/08/10 17:58, Russ Allbery wrote:
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
As suggested by Ian on -devel (see attachment), it would be nice to have
a way to remove files during unpack of a source package to hide non-free
files from our
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.15.8
Severity: wishlist
As suggested by Ian on -devel (see attachment), it would be nice to have
a way to remove files during unpack of a source package to hide non-free
files from our users without stripping them from
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.15.7.1
Severity: wishlist
File: /usr/bin/dpkg-buildpackage
Hi,
I just run into the problem with the following command sequence:
dpkg-source -x foo.dsc
cd */
quilt pop
edit file
quilt refresh
dpkg-buildpackage -b
I simply forgot to quilt push -a again before
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.15.5.6
Severity: normal
Hi,
bar 2 has Breacks: foo (= 1). Updating bar and foo in the wrong
order gives:
m...@frosties:~/t% sudo dpkg --auto-deconfigure -i bar_2_all.deb foo_2_all.deb
dpkg: considering deconfiguration of foo, which would be broken by installation
of
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.15.5.6
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
with apt adding the first parts for multiarch support and multiarch
debs appearing in the archive I think it is time to think about how
multiarch systems should be configured. Since dpkg is the common and
lowest point I beliefe the
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
0) (Starting intuition) most source package have a description per se,
intuitively, that is the same description you'd find on the upstream
homepage that made you download a
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.15.5.5
Severity: wishlist
File: /usr/bin/dpkg-gencontrol
Hi,
when I build a package I get
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: unknown substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends}
Since the package builds multiple debs it would be nice to know for
which package the
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.15.4.1
Severity: normal
File: /usr/bin/dpkg-shlibdeps
Hi,
in the process of packaging the Intel pro c/c++ compiler I run into
the problem that their libraries have broken SONAME libfoo.so. They
do not have any soversion at all. Because of this dpkg-shlibdeps
ignores
Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org writes:
Hi!
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 13:55:00 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.15.4.1
Severity: normal
File: /usr/bin/dpkg-shlibdeps
in the process of packaging the Intel pro c/c++ compiler I run into
the problem
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
in the process of packaging the Intel pro c/c++ compiler I run into
the problem that their libraries have broken SONAME libfoo.so. They
do not have any soversion at all. Because of this dpkg-shlibdeps
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.15.3.1
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
on irc the issue was raised that a package didn't call ldconfig in
postinst and I thought to myself: Every library package has a call to
ldconfig? That is so stupid. Don't we have dpkg triggers for that sort
of thing now?
As it turns out
Aleksey Midenkov a...@uezku.kemsu.ru writes:
On Tuesday 15 September 2009 17:34:18 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
Guys! Placing some hints on dpkg about packages that may be
broken is wrong. Imagine that count of such packages is infinity,
so you will
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, 15 May 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Bastian Blank wrote:
dpkg-genchanges should fold lines in the output to a sane length. There
is a package in the archive (linux-modules-extra-2.6) which produces a
25k long Binary
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.14.25
Severity: normal
File: /usr/bin/dpkg-source
Hi,
when one builds a 3.0 (quilt) package with local changes then
dpkg-source automatically creates a new patch for it and lists it in
both debian/patches/series and debian/patches/.dpkg-source-applied.
When one
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.14.25a0.mrvn.2
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Hi,
I just noticed that in 3.0 (quilt) format dpkg-source ignores .hg but
not .hgtags. The attached patch adds .hgtags to the ignore list.
MfG
Goswin
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
between packages that distributions wide default does not make sense.
Such change would rather lead
Hi,
for policy defined targets the policy defines when root is required and
when not. For those dpkg-buildpackage should not need the --with/out)-rootcmd
option.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Goswin von Brederlow]
+# dpkg-vendor
+#
+# Copyright ?? 2004-2005 Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED],
+# Copyright ?? 1999 Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Is it really?
Cutpaste error.
+get_vendor() {
+if ! [ -z $DEB_VENDOR
/debian/changelog dpkg-1.14.23/debian/changelog
--- dpkg-1.14.22/debian/changelog 2008-09-05 16:55:04.0 +0200
+++ dpkg-1.14.23/debian/changelog 2008-09-09 12:19:54.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+dpkg (1.14.23) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ [ Goswin von Brederlow ]
+ * Add /usr/share/dpkg
; urgency=low
+
+ [ Goswin von Brederlow ]
+ * Add /usr/share/dpkg/Makefile.dpkg for default environment setup.
+
+ -- Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:18:43 +0200
+
dpkg (1.14.22) unstable; urgency=low
[ Raphael Hertzog ]
diff -Nru dpkg-1.14.22/debian/dpkg
/debian/changelog
--- dpkg-1.14.23/debian/changelog 2008-09-09 16:17:35.0 +0200
+++ dpkg-1.14.24/debian/changelog 2008-09-09 15:06:29.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+dpkg (1.14.24) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ [ Goswin von Brederlow ]
+ * Add /usr/bin/dpkg-vendor script
+ * Update /usr/share
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
severity 477954 normal
thanks
I'm CCing Joey who wrote the initial support for the git source package.
He might want to provide his input and maybe even a patch. Release
managers agreed to push changes/fixes in lenny for the new source package
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 05 May 2008, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
'this is instead used'. To me that clearly says dpkg will do the
ignoring automatically with -i. A regexp can never say 'uncommited
file'.
As that is not the case I think this should be changed
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 11:11:04PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
One of the issue is that tools like sbuild and pbuilder which want to
take advantage of the Build-Depends-Indep split needs to know whether
dpkg-buildpackage will call debian/rules build
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 03:28:05PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
Running debian-rules can always have side effects and can actively
rely on them so a --has-target can not be implemented cleanly in
make.
I am proposing hooking into the logic that
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.13.25
Severity: important
File: /usr/bin/dpkg-shlibdeps
Hi,
it seems that dpkg-shlibdeps is somewhat out of sync with glibc/binutils in
regards to the ld.so.conf syntax. There are two things wrong:
1. # Support system library directories.
my $ldconfigdir =
Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Andreas Metzler wrote:
---
Somehow make dpkg-buildpackage -B make use of the build-arch target
if present. Either by detecting it automatically or by something like
#229357.
---
The entire issue circles around not
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.10.28
Severity: normal
Hi,
I'm not sure if this still happens but I found it anoying enough to report it
despite the old version:
(Reading database ... 69314 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace autofs 4.1.3+4.1.4beta2-10a0.cross.1 (using
Guillem Jover [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
tags 403216 - patch
thanks
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 13:26:41 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.13.24
Severity: critical
File: /usr/bin/dpkg-shlibdeps
Tags: patch
Er, there's not patch in here... and I think the proposed
parsing $_) unless defined $dep;
--- dpkg-1.13.19.orig/debian/changelog
+++ dpkg-1.13.19/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,21 @@
+dpkg (1.13.19-0a0.mrvn.1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ [ Goswin von Brederlow ]
+ * debian/rules: remove po/*.gmo and dselect/po/*.gmo on clean
+ * Introduce Multi-Arch field
Nicolas François [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello,
After reading the log of #315784 (dpkg: dependencies should ensure md5sum
is present), I wonder why adding a
Pre-Depends: coreutils (= ...)
field to dpkg would break (c)debootstrap.
I made a tarball for debootstrap with a modified
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.10.28
Severity: normal
File: /usr/bin/dpkg-genchanges
Tags: patch
Hi,
due to the huge demand of OpenOffice.org for amd64 I finaly spend some
time devising a simple way to produce 32 bit amd64 debs. Since
building a 32bit OOo on amd64 directly is out of the question
Jeremy Brand, B.S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Goswin,
Thus spake Goswin von Brederlow:
What does your sources.list look like?
They look like this:
deb http://mirrors/debian-amd64/ sarge main contrib non-free
deb-src http://mirrors/debian-amd64/ sarge main contrib non-free
of which
Jeremy Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.10.28
When I invoke `dpkg-architecture` on Sarge/amd64, the output is
seemingly broken:
$ uname -a
Linux gamera.domain.mars
Hi,
talking to joeyh he said that he did a patch for the same thing as
well. Comparing the two his is the preferable solution so please
ignore this patch and stick with his.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
46 matches
Mail list logo
