On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Charles Plessy wrote:
And also, the md5sum of the gzipped archive made from the original
bzipped archive can vary from conversion to conversion unless the option
``--no-name'' is passed to gzip.
We're dangerously digressing into pristine-tar's domain here. [0]
From: Joey
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Roger Leigh wrote:
[...] the localised messages are not being recoded from UTF-8 to the
locale charmap at runtime, and this is the cause of the corrupted
output. This is a bug. Localisation systems such as gettext (what
pretty much everything uses) will automatically
Dear Mentors,
I kindly request you to review the new version of my package lbzip2. It
seems to be unstable-lintian-clean.
Changes in this version:
* New upstream release fixes a negligible probability race between the
muxer thread printing an error message due to a write error, and the
(This will be off-topic, sorry. I'm not a DD, just a curious user.)
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Maarten L. Hekkelman wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package libzeep.
* URL : http://www.cmbi.ru.nl/
This redirected me to [0] and there I didn't find the word zeep in the
page.
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Maarten L. Hekkelman wrote:
Hope this clarifies things a bit.
Yes, thank you, I've read it with great interest; the library seems
useful, indeed. I think (hope) that you've automatically provided some
grounds to potential sponsors to look at your package, too.
All the
Dear Mentors,
I've read some notes on how to use the Debian BTS via email [0] [1] [2],
but I am still a bit confused.
Rogério Brito has submitted a wishlist bug report for lbzip2 [3]. As
Rogério has accepted my proposal to use an external tool for his need, I'd
like to close the bug with a
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
Ignoring for now the anomaly of closing a wontfix bug, which Kumar has
already addressed, this is what I would send to achieve this result.
I'll do this.
Thank you both very much,
lacos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Dear Mentors,
I've released lbzip2-0.20 and packaged it for Debian. I kindly ask you to
review it.
The dsc file is available at
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lbzip2/lbzip2_0.20-1.dsc
lintian displays the usual
W: lbzip2: manpage-has-errors-from-man
Dear Mentors,
I kindly request you to review my package lbzip2-0.19-1.
Changes:
lbzip2 (0.19-1) unstable; urgency=low
.
* New upstream release checks for most errno macros before relying on them
(Closes: #559052).
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lbzip2/lbzip2_0.19-1.dsc
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 11:49:45PM +0100, ERSEK Laszlo wrote:
I kindly request you to review my package lbzip2-0.19-1.
Uploaded.
Thank you.
lacos
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
If you agree, I'll upload it with the following changes:
Wow :)
and apply the following patch:
diff -urNp lbzip2-0.18/debian/control lbzip2-0.18/debian/control
diff -urNp lbzip2-0.18/debian/source/format lbzip2-0.18/debian/source/format
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, ERSEK Laszlo wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
gzip -dc lbzip2_0.18.orig.tar.gz | bzip2 -9 - lbzip2_0.18.orig.tar.bz2
touch -r lbzip2_0.18.orig.tar.gz lbzip2_0.18.orig.tar.bz2
Just to understand it better, are both the gz and bz2 tarballs
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:55:48PM +0100, ERSEK Laszlo wrote:
Dear Mentors,
I kindly request you to review my package lbzip2-0.18-1. The package
is located at
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lbzip2/
If you agree, I'll upload
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, ERSEK Laszlo wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
If you agree, I'll upload it with the following changes:
gzip -dc lbzip2_0.18.orig.tar.gz | bzip2 -9 - lbzip2_0.18.orig.tar.bz2
touch -r lbzip2_0.18.orig.tar.gz lbzip2_0.18.orig.tar.bz2
I ran
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
You missed one important thing and so László didn't changed either:
debian/compat should reflect debhelper compatibility level.
Fixed right away.
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lbzip2/lbzip2_0.18-2.dsc
Changes:
lbzip2 (0.18-2)
Dear Mentors,
I kindly request you to review my package lbzip2-0.18-1. The package is
located at
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lbzip2/
Changes:
* New upstream release:
- Add sanity checks to both decompressors.
- Remove input FILE operands.
- Implement options --keep
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
I download at 370KB/s on good days and from local servers, and it's the
fastest (and most expensive) plan my ISP provides. And I know people on
dialup.
An alternative is not an obligation, it's an alternative. I can accept,
though, that it may not
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, George Danchev wrote:
Not that I can help with the surveys, but you may want to compare your
compressor to the practical tests and comparisons found at [1], and eventually
update your debaday article with the results.
[1] (URLs might be wrapped)
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
Decompressing concurrently with the download is faster than both: it takes a
total of max(download_time,bzip2_time). The download is usually the slowest,
so we can just say it takes download_time.
On my machine, standard bunzip2 consumes about 3.6
Hi,
I'd like to ask users for their opinions about lbzip2 as a bzip2
alternative in Debian, by requesting them to choose exactly one of the
following options, after reading my DebADay article [0]:
1. I'd like to use lbzip2 as a bzip2 alternative.
2. I'd like to use lbzip2 as a bzip2
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
But where to put the password?
Due to the protocol used during authentication, the daemon needs the pass-
word in plaintext form, it can't be a hash (remote client sends I want to
auth, daemon sends nonce, remote client hashes password and nonce,
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
Write an article for debaday.debian.net about lbzip2 to promote it and
get more users/testers.
The DebADay Team has reviewed and published my article under [0].
Many thanks to Ana Guerrero, Martín Ferrari, and the rest of the DebADay
Team!
Also thank
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
Reviewed and uploaded.
Thank you!
Not sure if you've used zzuf before, but you might want to use it to
discover possible bugs that could lead to crashes/etc in lbzip2.
Thanks for the tip. I didn't use zzuf, but I did do fuzz testing, as early
as
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
[apologies for the lateness of this reply]
Still too early :), I just noticed I'll have to fix the debian-sanity
target, because in lbzip2-0.16rc1, the set of recognized environment
variables changed.
Mainly I was concerned about the may be used
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009, Ruben Molina wrote:
W: lbzip2: latest-debian-changelog-entry-without-new-version
0.16rc1 precedes 0.16 chronologicallly.
You should have used something like 0.16~rc1 for the previous release.
See the --compare-versions option in dpkg for the next time.
Thanks.
I
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009, Ruben Molina wrote:
W: lbzip2: latest-debian-changelog-entry-without-new-version
0.16rc1 precedes 0.16 chronologicallly.
You should have used something like 0.16~rc1 for the previous release.
See the --compare-versions option in dpkg for the next time.
Fixed,
Dear Mentors,
I kindly request you to review lbzip2-0.16-1:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lbzip2
Changes:
lbzip2 (0.16-1) unstable; urgency=low
.
* New upstream release:
- handle signals and problems with input/output files more gracefully,
- close standard
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
Please note that you need to remove the patches after running make
clean, since you patch the Makefile.
(1) Is it acceptable if I make the clean target in debian/rules depend
on the unpatch target, which is defined by /usr/share/quilt/quilt.make
and
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, ERSEK Laszlo wrote:
(1) Is it acceptable if I make the clean target in debian/rules depend on
the unpatch target, which is defined by /usr/share/quilt/quilt.make and
seems to do the right thing?
Or rather, as the (new) last action of the clean target, invoke
Dear Mentors,
I released a new upstream version of lbzip2. It is a beta (or release
candidate). I refreshed the Debian package under [0], built in a sid
pbuilder; lintian produced no warnings.
lbzip2 (0.16rc1-1) unstable; urgency=low
.
* New upstream release (candidate):
-
Hi,
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Mats Erik Andersson wrote:
2. The window manager WM responds to a user request by issuing
execlp( /bin/sh -c pkill -HUP WM )
4. The main process WM receives SIGHUP, and enters a signal handler.
The signal handler uses two calls: free_menuitems(),
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Mats Erik Andersson mats.anders...@gisladisker.se writes:
Is this unavoidable fact that realloc() blocks execution
a known issue with gcc-4.3.2 or glibc-2.7?
Personally, I was under the impression that
malloc/realloc never should block
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Felipe Sateler wrote:
I've always assumed that malloc (and thus realloc) can sleep.
I believe the creators of the Single UNIX Specification didn't share (or
at least, didn't codify) this assumption. As a general rule, any system
interface that is designed to wait (=
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, George Danchev wrote:
Hm, I guess that the library functions are just fine and it has something to do
with the kernel performing memory overcommitment by default. You can prevent
that by (from the tail of realloc(3) man page):
echo 2 /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory
and
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Mats Erik Andersson wrote:
I inserted two printouts, immediately surrounding realloc():
fprintf(stderr, Will enter realloc().\n);
ptr = realloc(ptrold, 1024)
fprintf(stderr, Has exited realloc().\n);
Only the first statement gets printed.
Please
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
Talk to the upstream tar maintainers about ways to make tar detect if
lbzip2 is available and use it instead of bzip2.
Please join the conversation under [0], I believe I'm no further qualified
to talk on behalf of Debian.
In my understanding, the
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Bdale Garbee wrote:
[0] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-tar/2009-10/msg8.html
As the maintainer of the Debian packaging of tar, I'm ok with Sergey's
proposal in [0].
Thank you.
As that means /etc/alternatives/bzip2-filter, maybe through
/usr/bin/bzip2-filter
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
3) you patch that Makefile to no longer set CC CFLAGS LDFLAGS and LIBS
What I am saying is that this patch is unnecessary. you can do that
totally in debian/rules by placing those variables in the make
invocation within your build-stamp target.
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
Talk to the upstream tar maintainers about ways to make tar detect if
lbzip2 is available and use it instead of bzip2.
I made a proposal under [0]. I amended it under [1].
Please look at [1], it also summarizes how (I think) Debian would be
affected.
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
3) you patch that Makefile to no longer set CC CFLAGS LDFLAGS and LIBS
What I am saying is that this patch is unnecessary. you can do that
totally in debian/rules by placing those variables in the make
invocation within your build-stamp target.
I
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, ERSEK Laszlo wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
= and := are exactly the same, except that := is evaluated once and then
stored, whereas = is evaluated later. If I were you I would be more
worried that all the parsing and reparsing (which causes the need
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
Anyway, here are some ideas about what you could do to improve lbzip2:
In preparation for a possibly upcoming upstream release, I did some work
on the lbzip2 package. I kindly request you to review it; it appears
lintian clean in a sid pbuilder jail. I
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
Write an article for debaday.debian.net about lbzip2 to promote it and
get more users/testers.
Should be in their queue now.
Have the package description and manual page reviewed by the Smith
Review Project:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Note that you might do without a patch. make is build for cases like
that in mind, so replacing variables in a makefile you do not like just
needs those variables as command line arguments.
so just changing debian/rules to
$(MAKE)
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
So as long as it is uploaded before the freeze date you should be
fine.
Thank you.
Most Standards-Version updates are of the form Bump
Standards-Version, no changes needed and such updates should not be
done unless they accompany some other update like
Hi,
what's the earliest event or point in time after which event/point but
before Squeeze shipping as stable the policy won't be changed anymore but
I as a sponsored maintainer will still be able to upload (ask my sponsor
Paul Wise to upload) my lbzip2 package? I'd like to update the package
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
It's not a problem if packages included in a Debian release are
conformant with a slightly outdated version of Policy. I don't see that
as a good reason for delaying the upload of an otherwise-ready release
of your package.
-q:
- I don't have anything
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Eduardo Ferro wrote:
I just upload a new version. I think that this version fixes all the
(I really have no say in this, I'm just curious.)
[1] explicitly mentions cstream as a bandwidth-limiting pipe already in
Debian. Another program with such functionality is pv (also
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
Looks fine, uploaded.
Thank you.
There is one pedantic lintian complaint:
P: lbzip2 source: direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system Makefile and 1 more
I think I'd like to start using quilt or dpatch for my own good. I tried
to do an interdiff -z
On 03/17/09 10:19, Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:55 AM, ERSEK Laszlo la...@elte.hu wrote:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lbzip2
Uploaded.
I released upstream-version 0.15 and uploaded dpkg-version 0.15-1 to the
URL above.
I kindly request you to put
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, ERSEK Laszlo wrote:
On 03/17/09 10:19, Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:55 AM, ERSEK Laszlo la...@elte.hu wrote:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lbzip2
Uploaded.
Thanks a lot!
lacos
Sorry, I intended to post this to the list. I was constantly
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:33:44PM +0100, Grammostola Rosea wrote:
upload error:
/var/cache/pbuilder/result$ dupload -t mentors rumor_1.0.3b-1_i386.changes
dupload note: no announcement will be sent.
Checking signatures before upload...GPG signature
On 03/16/09 07:32, Paul Wise wrote:
That isn't the way to do it. Because lbzip2 is in NEW, you should add
a new changelog entry with two entries, something like this: new
upstream release and bump Standards-Version, no changes needed. For
the latter, please verify that no changes were needed by
On 02/18/09 15:25, Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:12 AM, ERSEK Laszlo la...@elte.hu wrote:
I uploaded a new build of the package:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lbzip2
Please contact this list for future versions and I will upload if I am able.
I released a new
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:12 AM, ERSEK Laszlo la...@elte.hu wrote:
I uploaded a new build of the package:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lbzip2
Apologies for the delay, uploaded, should end up in NEW soon.
Please contact this list
Paul Wise wrote:
The reason is that's the way we do it in Debian. The policy manual
probably has a rationale.
[...]
Hmm, which Debian architectures do you test on?
Perhaps /dev/urandom could be a good source of data.
[...]
Yeah, always run lintian in sid and build/test your packages on
Don Armstrong wrote:
If you plan on being able to debug the binaries that you've released,
you almost certainly need the debbugging symbols that match the
binaries that you've released.
In Debian we currently aren't collecting all of the debugging symbols,
so doing the above is difficult
Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:59 PM, ERSEK Laszlo la...@elte.hu wrote:
Citing the Version, File size [B] and Decompr. speed [%] blocks from
report_alpha_osf1.txt (I mark the relevant rows with exlamation marks
now):
Ok, these numbers convinced me lbzip2 is better
Paul Wise wrote:
And now onto the package review:
Why does your diff.gz patch the Makefile? Shouldn't you add those
changes to the upstream Makefile?
I don't think so. As my general, hobbyist free software development
policy, I *always* and *exclusively* follow the Single Unix
(I'm sorry I can't reply directly to
e13a36b30902121947y639c65cbq3f925f5ac5039...@mail.gmail.com, my
subscription didn't go through before that message appeared on the list,
and pine doesn't let me edit In-reply-to: and References: manually, and
currently I can only use pine.)
How is this
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package lbzip2.
* Package name: lbzip2
Version : 0.13-1
Upstream Author : Laszlo Ersek (myself)
* URL : http://phptest11.atw.hu/
* License : GPLv2+
Section : utils
It builds these binary packages:
61 matches
Mail list logo
