On Thu, 05 May 2011, Carl Miller wrote:
> Let me know everything I should capture and send along, and I'll try it
> again this weekend. My system has been freshly rebooted this week (a
> rarity; my uptimes typically are many months) due to a failed UPS battery
> followed quickly by a power glitch.
On Fri, 06 May 2011, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> >> If you want this fixed, just ping me, it's easy to add something like
> >> "&& (->name[namelen] == \0 or ...->name[namelen] == '/')", and
> >> I'll fix it at both places.
> >
> > Ah nice catch! I've pushed a fix for this (commit
> > 2c9a342dc4e1ad3e
On Mon, 09 May 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> In any scenario, I think debhelper is the place to make the first
> step. :(
Yes. I did not really need a patch to rip out the environment variables,
what I need is some assurance that we're not reverting uselessly.
And for this, it would be nice to h
On Mon, 09 May 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> The intent of the current behavior is that the sysadmin is free to use
> symlinks to cause files in one directory to appear on a different
> partition, and dpkg will leave that alone rather than replacing it
> with a directory. For symmetry, dpkg will
On Sat, 14 May 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Raphaël Hertzog wrote:
> > dpkg: improve pre-dependency check on unpack
> >
> > When a pre-dependency is not satisfied due to a package in
> > triggers-awaited state, immediately run the trigger processing
> > and continue without errors
Hi,
Ping again. Without any answer, at some point I'll just go ahead with the
compromise that I suggested.
Cheers,
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi Guillem,
>
> can you reply to my mail below?
>
> I don't want this request to sit there for months. We
Hi,
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> (small) ping with question...
>
> Are you going to consider implementing purge_dir to
> dpkg-maintscript-helper or should I do it directly in
> php5-.postinst scripts? (Both options are OK for me.)
I'm definitely interested into providing a standardi
Hi,
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 2) This change breaks actual packages. Even if no such package exist in
> squeeze, users
> could still want to install older or unofficial packages, or created with
> dpkg-repack.
The next version of dpkg has --force-bad-version to work around th
Hi,
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Jonas Stein wrote:
> # dpkg --update-avail
> dpkg: error: --update-avail needs exactly one Packages file argument
>
> ==
> "Packages file" looks strange to me. In man dpkg its
> "Packages-file" but uppercase 'P' looks strange too for me.
> I am not native english speaker
Hi,
On Sun, 29 May 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > There is more than a handful of packages which do not care about
> > dpkg-buildflags yet in debian/rules. Currently it's difficult to
> > tell if a package build honors dpkg-buildflags or not. The only way
> > to do this
Hi,
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011, Cristian Henzel wrote:
> My application [1] depends on gtk+-2.0 and -pthread seems to be brought in by
> this:
> $ pkg-config --cflags gtk+-2.0
> -pthread -I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/include
> -I/usr/include/atk-1.0 -I/usr/include/cairo -I/usr/include/gdk-pix
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Was a bit bored and wrote a small patch fixing the "uninitialized"
> values, but it does not sanity beyond that (so the --is --vendor issue
> still exists with this patch).
Thank, it's enough for me. The other issue exists with all dpkg-* script
is only
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Please find a new patch that use the name Build-Features and the module name
> Dpkg::BuildFeatures.
Thanks, here's a short review with a few details to clean.
1/ You're not consistent with the coding style (see doc/coding-style.txt).
2/ Why are you no
Hi,
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Please find a new patch.
Did some small changes and merged it. Thanks!
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)
--
T
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Package: dpkg-dev
> Version: 1.16.0
> Severity: wishlist
> User: d...@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: dpkg-gensymbols
>
> Hi!
>
> It would be nice to have a private tag which would have the following
> semantics:
>
> * any symbol marked as such could
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Attached is a patch to add the distribution to the .dsc
I don't like this. Source package migrate and can be reuploaded in
multiple places (including distributions of derivatives) without being
rebuilt.
The Distribution is part of the .changes file and it
Hi,
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, chris h wrote:
> We (Grml) would like to switch back to short Version: strings for our
> kernel packages, as they already have the major "version number" in
> the package name, to allow co-installation of multiple versions, and
> there's no point in duplicating this info i
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I've got this message again on the buildds:
> Removing fontconfig ...
> dpkg: error processing fontconfig (--purge):
> subprocess pre-removal script returned error exit status 1
> dpkg: ../../lib/dump.c:186: w_status: Assertion `pigp->trigpend_head' failed
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Witold Baryluk wrote:
> On 06-20 11:55, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> > retitle 631081 dpkg: please clean environment for maintainer scripts
> > reassign 631081 dpkg 1.16.0.3
> > thanks
> >
> > As this bug's history shows, a recent libpam-afs-session upgrade made
> > cron start syslo
Hi,
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hmm. Seems plausible, but I went through quite a few libX11 uploads
> without losing my diversion: I would've noticed quite quickly, as the
> failure mode (which prompted the xkbcomp 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 releases) with
> my local XKB dataset and any distr
tag 631299 + unreproducible
severity 631299 important
thanks
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Daniel Stone wrote:
> By hand: for i in /usr/lib/libX11.*; do sudo dpkg-divert --add $i; done
Hum, this doesn't rename the existing file. So when you install your
custom lib, you overwrite the packaged files. The di
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Package: dpkg-dev
> Version: 1.16.0.3
> Severity: minor
>
> The dpkg-source(1) manpage section titled "3.0 (custom)" starts out
> with the sentence "This format is particular." This sentence doesn't
> mean anything in context, as far as I can tell. I think
forcemerge 245322 631902
thanks
Hi,
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Peter Krefting wrote:
> (Reading database ... 253704 files and directories currently installed.)
> Preparing to replace git 1:1.7.2.5-1 (using .../git_1%3a1.7.2.5-2_amd64.deb)
> ...
> Unpacking replacement git ...
> dpkg: error processing
Author: Raphael Hertzog
Date: Sun Apr 19 20:08:44 2009 +0200
dpkg-source: don't complain on binary files that are ignored
To avoid mistakes with "3.0 (quilt)" source packages, dpkg-source fails if
it finds binary files that have not been whitelisted in the
clone 632305 -1
reassign -1 quilt
retitle -1 quilt: please support inclusion of files in series files
block 632305 by -1
tag 632305 + wontfix
thanks
Hi,
On Fri, 01 Jul 2011, Iain Lane wrote:
> Currently the management of vendor-specific patches is a bit
> suboptimal in the case where there are co
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.16.0.3
>
> Minor man page typo:
>
> man/dpkg-source.1
> -it could be anything.) Any other branches will be available, under as
> +it could be anything.) Any other branches will be available as
You picked "as" but
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> Well, I would say that technically each BRANCH is available as
> origin/BRANCH, with no refs/ prefix. The refs/ prefix, and the
> implementation of references as a tiny directory tree below .git, are
> implementation details which should not be vi
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Kingsley G. Morse Jr. wrote:
> If it's OK for every entry in /var/lib/dpkg/status
> to end up having an "Architecture: " line, then
> how would one know whether to specify an
> architecture of
>
> "all"
>
> or (in my case)
>
> "i386"?
The easiest solution for
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Sounds promising! Now what values can trigger-name and command have?
> Unfortunately the manpage does not say.
There's no explicit list of value... a trigger name is just that, the name
of a trigger.
Can you suggest a wording that would make it clear
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> Package: dpkg-dev
> Version: 1.16.0.3
> Severity: normal
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> For some reason I have recently been unable to build packages linked
> against libc.so.6 or libpthread.so.0 because dpkg-shlibdeps
Hi,
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > There's no explicit list of value... a trigger name is just that, the name
> > of a trigger.
> >
> > Can you suggest a wording that would make it clearer for you because I
> >
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> The following script demonstrates the problem:
Thank you for your report and your test script. Do you think you could
update the non-regression test-suite of update-alternatives to reproduce
the problem?
This is much more useful than just a test scri
tag 633627 + patch
thanks
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> In the mean time, I will look into fixing this regression.
Here's a patch, can you tell me if it works for you?
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> OK, patch attached.
Thanks!
> That fixes most regressions I could produce in above patch. There is one
> left when --force is used, I'm not sure if I did this correctly or I
> found another bug.
In fact set_choice() did not support passing supplemen
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> > This test was reversed, with --force it must remove the file.
>
> Probably depends on your interpretation of --force.
To avoid any ambiguity I updated the manual page to indicate that --force
also allows the removal of files which are in place wher
Hi Ondrej,
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > I'm just not sure what the correct solution is. Instead of purge_dir maybe
> > the right answer is "manage-manual-conffile" and/or
> > "manage-manual-file". And it would drop the file on removal/purge and try
> > to remove the parent directori
Hi,
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Modestas Vainius wrote:
> What do you think about using a negative dependency template id in order to
> trigger dpkg-shlibdeps failure? In my opinion, it's still useful (for
> reference purposes) to have version information even for private symbols.
Could be workable I
Hi,
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Modestas Vainius wrote:
> What do you think about taking this further and supporting expressions like
> cpuattr:value (or cpuattr-value, or cpuattr=value, or whatever other syntax)
> in the architecture wildcards (Dpkg::Arch::debarch_is()). In this particular
> case:
>
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Nicolas STRANSKY wrote:
> Simplistic tests involving "tar" show that the disk is able to produce
> throughputs that are about 30x higher than the ones I observe when dpkg
> is unpacking files (60MB/s vs. 2MB/s). I have tried a couple
> workarounds but they didn't change anythi
Hi,
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> I have noticed that when CONFIG_SITE is set, dpkg-buildpacakge is getting
> confused:
> unsetting CONFIG_SITE does the trick.
Can you explain how it gets confused?
dpkg-buildpackage does not use this environment variable, but maybe the
package you
[ Bcc: debian-dpkg to get a wider audience ]
Hello,
during Debconf I discussed with doko and a few of the tech-ctte members
to find a good solution for the problem of enabling hardening build flags.
Following that discussion I worked on a few dpkg-buildflags enhancement
that are now in the master
reopen 636352
severity 636352 wishlist
retitle 636352 dpkg: provide a way to query the multiarch path component
without dpkg-dev
thanks
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> Also you can have libraries for *both* subarchs and there is no way to
> tell on what arch you are actually running
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > It's also unlikely to be quickly fixed at this point. It would basically
> > require to rewrite a large part of dpkg-architecture in C.
>
> Why the need to rewrite it?
Because we don't want the dpkg package to depend on perl. (But for
dpkg-dev it's
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I understand it's annoying to not have dpkg-architecture around for
> maintainer scripts. And duplication is not really desirable, but then
> those packages do not really need any kind of table nor mapping, just the
> matching multiarch triplet, which is
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011, Kees Cook wrote:
> I have all of Ubuntu's "main" component's build logs local, to try to
> give us a quick measure (it's about 3500 packages out of the entire
> archive). I can search for the warning, but is there a good way to check
> that the package was built using dpkg-buil
On Sun, 07 Aug 2011, Sven Joachim wrote:
> | * dpkg-buildflags is only used to set environment in v9, to avoid
> | re-breaking packages that were already broken a first time by
> | dpkg-buildpackage unconditionally setting the environment, and
> | worked around that by unsetting varia
On Sun, 07 Aug 2011, Joey Hess wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Joey, once the new dpkg is in unstable, can we revert this and get the
> > packages fixed to use the proper dpkg-buildflags interface to adjust
> > the flags to avoid the failure?
> >
> > Beca
tag 620566 = wontfix
thanks
It looks like Guillem is not willing to revert this change and neither am
I (because I don't really care, the impact is null since we have no official
packages affected by this).
So I'm tagging this bug accordingly.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Foll
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Niko Tyni wrote:
> However, are sync_file_range() and fsync() effective with an O_RDONLY
> file descriptor? From fsync(2):
>
>EBADF fd is not a valid file descriptor open for writing.
>
> but https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29972 suggests this is
> mislea
Hi,
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> In addition such an interface cannot be expected to be used realiably
> by maintainers for all builds of their packages on buildds and
> similar or user systems, as it needs an additional setup step.
It's definitely not meant for maintainers... but
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> This is misleading on Linux, but it's not a safe portable assumption
> to make on POSIX in general as that behaviour is not specified and as
> such is implementation specific, some Unix systems do actually fail
> on read-only file descriptors, for example
tag 635683 + patch
thanks
Hi,
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Ok, here's a patch with better behavior. On Linux and similar platforms,
> it just opens the file for reading. If fsync fails with errno == EBADF,
> it falls back to opening for writing, and if that fails with errno ==
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> None of the other file types really need the deferred renames, and I
> actually rather not have deferred renames at all! but oh well. Also
> because we need to have the immediate rename code path in any case for
> the directories I don't see the point in
Hi Salvatore,
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Attached is a tentative patch trying to solve this: a link should only
> be updated, if it does not point to the right place.
Can you add a test-case for this? I guess that verifying that the inode
number did not change is a good wa
tag 638291 + patch
thanks
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011, Sven Joachim wrote:
> It's not clear to me what the contents of the old version and the
> situation on the filesystem were, but this is reproducible even on fresh
> install. The reason is that conffile processing takes place after
> unpacking all non
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > Can you also turn your testcase in a patch against pkg-tests.git?
>
> Once I have acquainted myself with the testsuite, probably yes. Might
> take a few days, I have other things to to as well.
You might find
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Contribu
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Thanks, this was very helpful indeed. After reading that, the only
> pitfall I fell in was that git does not preserve hardlinks, so I needed
> to handle that in build-hook/clean-hook targets.
Right, I just noticed/remembered that we have t-unpack-hardlin
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > Yes, that doesn't matter at all for the purpose of this test at least.
>
> I've only made test-conffile-link0 a conffile and test-conffile-link1 a
> hardlink to it.
The problem with this is that you don't know which copy will become
the main file in th
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> But attached is an updated version for the patch, is this better
> suitable so far? Jan, changed the parts you mentioned.
Yes, it's better but still two small points remain:
> +static bool
> +alternative_link_needs_update(const char *linknam
Hello Guillem,
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> The other day while I was messing with u-a I prepared the attached patch
> which I think is better (but actually pretty close to what you have
> now here :). But forgot including it in my push. In any case I'll
> include it for my next one
tag 640676 + patch
thanks
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> I am getting this bizarre message:
>
> Can't call method "isa" on an undefined value at /usr/bin/dpkg-shlibdeps line
> 567.
>From a quick analysis, this means that your Build-Depends line is somehow
broken. And your log
(Just clarifying a detail)
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> A patch to make this an optional feature, without some plan for how we can
> get this turned on by default (either in dpkg-dev, or in debhelper where it
> would benefit the majority of packages) is not worth the effort. We've
Hi,
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> I maintain a package using git. So in the normal state in which I check
> stuff in the the patches are unapplied. The upstream makefiles happen to
> remake a number of files (to generate random numbers for security).
> Obviously I don't want to sto
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> Well -tc option certainly works and will sometimes be what I want. What
> however happens when I want to inspect the dbeian/ directories?
You can always reapply the patches by yourself:
$ quilt push -a
$ fakeroot debian/rules clean
$ quilt pop -a
Aft
Hello,
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > $ sudo apt-get install dpkg-dev
[...]
> > tar: unrecognized option `--warning=no-timestamp'
> > Try `tar --help' or `tar --usage' for more information.
> > dpkg-deb: error: subprocess tar returned error exit status 64
> > dpkg: error processing
Hi,
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> FWIW, the previous Ubuntu LTS release included tar 1.22, so using a
> pre-dependency in Debian probably means Ubuntu will have to carry a delta
> for this for 12.04. A solution that works for both Debian and Ubuntu would
> be welcome.
Why would th
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011, Hector Oron wrote:
> To be able to reproduce:
> # multistrap -f armhf.conf -d test-chroot
> # cp /usr/bin/qemu-arm-static test-chroot/usr/bin
> # chroot test-chroot dpkg --configure -a
Running this with debugging enabled shows me:
# dpkg -D71223 --configure -a
D02:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011, Hector Oron wrote:
> > (So an easy work-around for now is to mkdir /var/lib/dpkg/triggers
> > && touch /var/lib/dpkg/triggers/Unincorp in the created chroot)
>
> Thanks Raphael, I can (at least) confirm that the work-around works.
Well, note that this work-around is a not a
severity 609159 wishlist
merge 609159 644791
thanks
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
> It would be helpful if dpkg-shlibdeps supported an environment variable to
> make this warning a fatal error instead. Indeed, given that DSOs installed
> to subdirectories (!$in_public_dir) are handle
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011, James Vega wrote:
> dpkg-gencontrol generates a tempfile, debian/files.new, and then
> attempts to rename that back to debian/files when it's done generating
> the files.new. This can easily break when parallel builds are happening
> as independent dpkg-gencontrol runs may ren
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> The correct solution would be to lock a file we know must be there, so
> that there's no race condition and no possible cruft leftover. For
> example debian/control or debian/changelog (or the file arguments
> specified on the command line).
What do you
[ CCing debian-perl for a RFP ]
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 08:34:48 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > Also we should be using fcntl(2) instead of flock(2) to get NFS support,
> > > bu
notfound 645204 1.16.1
found 645204 1.16.0
close 645204 1.16.1
thanks
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> When building a multi-archified binary package, dpkg-deb shows a warning:
> dpkg-deb: warning: '.../DEBIAN/control' contains user-defined field
> 'Multi-Arch'
>
> This is a bit odd, giv
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >dpkg 1.16.1 knows about this field.
>
> Uh. See this, then:
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=snowball&arch=i386&ver=0%2Bsvn546-2&stamp=1316996050
Oh, right. My fault, sorry.
Well, this will be fixed when the multiarch branch gets merged.
Hi,
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > #643632 moved -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE from CFLAGS to CPPFLAGS, but the man page
> > wasn't updated.
>
> Hm, a shame you didn't attach a patch. :) Let's fix that...
A shame that your patch apply neither on the sid branch nor on the master
one. :-)
C
Hi,
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Sven Joachim wrote:
> The reason seems to be that {/usr,}/lib/i386-linux-gnu is not in the
> dynamic linker's search path in squeeze. Perhaps dpkg-dev should depend
> on multiarch-support, which pulls in a libc6 version with the right
> contents of /etc/ld.so.conf.d/i486-
Hi,
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Whether it's multi-arch enabled depends on the debhelper and dpkg-dev
> versions on the build system. With debhelper from squeeze-backports and
> dpkg-dev from squeeze, ncurses builds fine (without multiarch support, of
> course).
Just because dpkg-
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Not on my side, but dh(1) also does its multiarch stuff in v9 mode only
> if dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_MULTIARCH does not fail.
Well, dh parses the output of dpkg-architecture and since
DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH doesn't appear there, it switches off multiarch
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > Well, if it finds a system library with a shlibs/symbols file, the
> > generated dependency can't really be wrong.
>
> It can, because some symbols may be missing from the system library that
> are present in the just-built one.
Well, that can only hap
retitle 645849 dpkg should better manage the Conffiles field
thanks
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 05:53:55AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > Package: console-setup
> > Version: 1.73
> > Severity: important
> >
> > While doing a test-upgrade from squeeze to s
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> Currently console-setup-linux doesn't "Replace" console-setup.
But it conflicts with old version of it, so it's enough to take over
the conffile since at no point in time is the conffile owned by 2
packages.
An obsolete conffile can always be taken ove
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.1.1
Severity: wishlist
It sometimes happen that users lose the available file due to bad
manipulation or due to filesystem corruption.
That loss is not a big deal and it would be nice if dpkg could
continue working afterwards without requiring the user
to do "sudo touc
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011, Matt Kraai wrote:
> This patch does not document the fields that reportbug expects to
> find in the files in /etc/dpkg/origins, but it does document the
> Parent field that dpkg-vendor uses.
Thank you, I integrated the patch but it doesn't resolve #608884. We
certainly need
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011, Colin Watson wrote:
> In a multiarch environment, it's useful to be able to check whether
> build-dependencies are satisfied for a different architecture. It looks
> rather easy to add an -a option to dpkg-checkbuilddeps, although it does
> require translation changes. Would
Hi,
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011, Dave Anglin wrote:
> After installing libperl5.12_5.12.4-6_hppa.deb, libperl-dev_5.12.4-6_hppa.deb,
> perl_5.12.4-6_hppa.deb, perl-base_5.12.4-6_hppa.deb and
> perl-modules_5.12.4-6_all.deb (built from source), I see errors shown below
> when using apt-get --compile source
Hi,
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> bzed@think ~debian/gpsd/build-area/gpsd-3.3 QUILT-% dpkg-gensymbols
> -plibgps20 -Pdebian/libgps20 -d -e'libgps20.*'
> Using references symbols from debian/libgps20.symbols
> Scanning debian/libgps20/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgpsd.so.20.0 for sym
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Robert Luberda wrote:
> > I've just came up with another reason why the current behavious is
> > wrong: let's imagine that maintainer modifies the clean action of
> > upstream's Makefile (see the latest bsd-mailx for example). Than a
> > `debuild clean
Hi,
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> > If you know a good place where we should mention the existence
> > of those include files in /usr/share/dpkg/ please let me know.
>
> Maybe the man page for dpkg-buildpackage? Usually man pages have
> a paragraph "FILES" for this. See the attached
reassign 650818 debconf
forcemerge 560317 650818
tag 560317 = patch
found 560317 1.5.41
thanks
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Calling "dpkg-maintscript-helper supports rm_conffile" has that
> effect.
>
> I don't see what we can do about this in the ntp package, so
> reassigning to dpk
forcemerge 642802 651334
thanks
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011, n...@cantrip.org wrote:
> I upgraded dpkg from 1.16.0.3 to 1.16.1.2, and was then
> unable to install, upgrade, or downgrade any other package,
> or dpkg itself. This turns out to have been because my
> version of tar was 1.22-2, which did not
> On a different system where /root was world readable, the error was
> replaced with a warning:
>
> dpkg-source: warning: extracting unsigned source package
> (exe_1.04.1.3602-boss1.dsc)
> dpkg-source: info: extracting exe in exe-1.04.1.3602
> dpkg-source: info: unpacking exe_1.04.1.3602-boss1.t
Hello,
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011, Martin von Wittich wrote:
> Since we are managing our configuration files with a custom script, we
> have configured dpkg on all our servers to use --force-confmiss by
> default - we want dpkg to always give us the package manager defaults,
> and our script then takes c
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011, Kees Cook wrote:
> This patch adds that ability, and lets the environment correctly adjust it:
>
> $ dpkg-buildflags --features hardening
> -bindnow,+format,+fortify,-pie,+relro,+stackprotector
>
> $ DEB_HOST_ARCH=ia64 dpkg-buildflags --features hardening
> -bindnow,+format,+
tags 652063 + patch
thanks
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Martin Pitt wrote:
> But I'm filing it here because
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=632555#20 referred to
> it and to have an early warning before that dpkg branch lands in
> Debian. If you consider that inappropriate, then please
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, Kees Cook wrote:
> > $flags->{'features'}{'hardening'} is mostly the same than %use_feature,
> > please do not duplicate it but rather modify the code so that it works
> > that way:
> > 1/ generate %use_feature by directly taking into account the architecture
> >specif
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Yeah, that's not correct. The attached patch should fix this. It's
> untested though and it would be great if you could confirm that it works
> as expected.
It turns out it was not enough as dpkg will try to disappear the pa
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > <503 pcew80@reincke:~> ps -aef | grep amavis
> > amavis2299 1 0 00:47 ?00:00:01 amavisd (master)
> > amavis2496 2299 0 00:47 ?00:00:00 amavisd (ch7-avail)
> > amavis2497 2299 0 00:4
Hello Bastian,
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Bastian Blank wrote:
> dpkg-deb uses the -6 preset of xz by default, or at least documents it
> this way. According to xz(1), this mode needs 9MiB of memory for
> decompression (and 94MiB for compression).
>
> This should be no problem for most mainstream arche
Hi,
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, Martin Packman wrote:
> See attached patch making the dpkg-mergechangelogs only tolerate bad
> versions, leaving the existing strict handling in Dpkg::Version.
Thanks for the report and the patch. I pushed a fix in git master.
The fix itself is really simple:
--- a/script
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Martin Packman wrote:
> Thanks Raphael! That cut down approach does work, though it also lacks
> some of the benefits of the larger change.
> It's a judgement call whether warning about invalid versions during
> merge is worthwhile
For this I have added a check in the Dpkg::C
501 - 600 of 968 matches
Mail list logo
