Re: release goal for jessie! (Re: Source-only uploads

[Tollef Fog Heen]

]] Gunnar Wolf 

> Didier Raboud dijo [Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 09:21:19PM +0100]:
> > Actually, I like that way to put it as it leaves us with multiple ways 
> > forward:
> > 
> > * accept source-only;
> > * drop uploaded binaries;
> 
> I would join this camp as well. Without the working knowledge of being
> a DSA or buildd-admin, I cannot assure how much would this increase
> our workload, but it would probably just mean rebuilding for the most
> popular architectures (that is, AMD64 or i386), hardware for which is
> readily available and should pose no additional effort to get. And it
> would mean IMO a good leap forward in ensuring buildability — Even
> more with arch:all

I doubt it would make any change in the workload for us in the DSA.  I
assume it will lead to a slight increase in workload for the buildd
maintainers.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d2z3fc3t@xoog.err.no

Bug#694157: ITP: kerkerkruip -- interactive fiction roguelike game

[Dannii]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org


Package name: kerkerkruip
Version: 6
Upstream author: Victor Gijsbers 
Maintainer: Dannii Willis 
URL: https://github.com/i7/kerkerkruip
Licence: GPL3+

Description: Kerkerkruip is a dungeon crawling game that brings together
the interactive fiction medium with the roguelike genre. You take on the
role of an adventurer in a randomly generated dungeon, whose only hope of
escape is to destroy the mighty wizard Malygris. The game has been designed
to offer a diverse array of meaningful tactical and strategical options,
and combines the thrill of random combat with the skill of complex puzzle
solving.

I have built a package available at
http://ubuntuone.com/6t6d67HLcsIBdS7F9KubXX
This package runs with and depends on gargoyle | gargoyle-free.

Bug#694173: ITP: gdnsd -- authoritative domain name server

[Faidon Liambotis]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Faidon Liambotis 

* Package name: gdnsd
  Version : 1.6.9
  Upstream Author : Brandon L Black
* URL : https://github.com/blblack/gdnsd
* License : GPLv3
  Programming Lang: C
  Description : authoritative domain name server

  gdnsd is an Authoritative-only DNS server. The initial g stands for
  Geographic, as gdnsd offers a plugin system for geographic (or other
  sorts of) balancing, redirection, and service-state-conscious
  failover.
   
  gdnsd has a strong focus on high performance, low latency service. It
  does not offer any form of caching or recursive service, and does not
  support DNSSEC.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121124153502.ga25...@dewey.void.home

Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems (was: Gentoo guys starting a fork of udev)

[Toni Mueller]

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:09:51AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/14/2012 11:12 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > The full thread is here:
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2262

> This thread was originally about udev, yet everyone is starting again the
> systemd / upstart / sysv-rc war. I think we can agree that we don't about

I, for one, wholeheartedly welcome the fork, as I hope that this will
help getting back some of the modularity in Linux that was there, once
upon a time, and which contributed to making Linux a robust platform -
sometime in the past.


Kind regards,
--Toni++


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121124155750.ga14...@spruce.wiehl.oeko.net

Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems (was: Gentoo guys starting a fork of udev)

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 04:58:04PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > This thread was originally about udev, yet everyone is starting again the
> > systemd / upstart / sysv-rc war. I think we can agree that we don't about
> 
> I, for one, wholeheartedly welcome the fork, as I hope that this will
> help getting back some of the modularity in Linux that was there, once
> upon a time, and which contributed to making Linux a robust platform -
> sometime in the past.

Well, while I'm usually not against forks - I like MATE for example
very much - I don't think this fork is going anywhere soon. I have
followed their development a bit and read the discussion involving
Greg Kroah-Hartman and others and their comments on the fork and I
don't think the eudev people know what they're doing.

They're constantly claiming, for example, that udev and systemd break
a separate /usr partition which is simply not true. systemd just warns
you about it. Furthermore, they're randomly removing code from udev
which they don't seem to understand which means they will probably
break something some time.

I don't think these guys have the expertise to work on a udev fork (I
wouldn't claim that for myself either). Just look at their discussion
about creating a free BIOS replacement [1], it's ridiculous.

Coming back to your original complaint. The discussion about init
systems naturally came about because this is actually the reason udev
was forked by Gentoo in the first place. They want to stick to their
init solution OpenRC - no matter what - like Ubuntu wants to stick to
upstart.

If both Ubuntu and Gentoo would just go with the rest of the community
and accept systemd, we wouldn't have to bother whether udev runs
without systemd or not. I don't see anyway why something as low-level
as udev should be highly portable in the first place.

Cheers,

Adrian

> [1] 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!topic/linux.gentoo.dev/yWQGqxsfjI0

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121124161524.ga5...@physik.fu-berlin.de

Processed: your mail

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> reassign 665334 general
Bug #665334 [generic] A lot of type 1 fonts include Adobe all right reserved 
code
Warning: Unknown package 'generic'
Bug reassigned from package 'generic' to 'general'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #665334 to the same values 
previously set
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #665334 to the same values 
previously set
>
End of message, stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
665334: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=665334
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.135377366321942.transcr...@bugs.debian.org

the right bug severity in case of data corruption

[Christoph Anton Mitterer]

Hi.

I've recently reported several bugs against MUAs and mail tools, that
employ the mboxo (note the trailing "o") format to either store or
import mails.

This however leads to irrecoverable data corruption, as the partial
quoting of so called From_ lines cannot be undone anymore.
An easy solution for that dilemma is known for years, namely the other
mbox formats (either mboxrd, mboxcl or mboxcl2), of which mboxrd is
typically the one which fits best the needs for staying backwards
compatible.


Given that mails are the core business and data of MUAs and mail tools,
I'd personally say that any corruption of them, even if it seems to be
minor deserves the most critical severity.
Similarly, if a DBMS like postgres would silently modify integers, even
if joust a tiny bit, it would be considered unacceptable.

For mails one may easily think, that a "small" corruption isn't a
problem, but not only does it break signatures or perhaps corrupt
in-line content like patches, it's IMHO also not the decision of
upstream, the maintainers or anyone else but each single user which kind
of corruption of his data he/she considers to be severe.



No first I've had reported these corruptions at the different upstreams
(and apart from KMail and mutt...all the major players I've tested, e.g.
Thunderbird, Evolution, getmail, postfix, were affected).
Apart from the getmail upstream all reacted rather stubborn and without
much insight,... bringing up obscure "arguments" like "this corruption
has always been the case historically, therefore it's ok".
Well we, as Debian, can't of course force upstreams to fix their crap,
but IMHO neither should we let our users at risk for silent data
corruption.

So I've opened bugs at the BTS, too, with severities critical
(justification: data loss) where I mentioned the upstream bug and
further suggested what I think we should do at the Debian level to
adequately warn users.


IIRC, in all but the getmail case (where the issue has been fixed)
upstream, this was neither accepted by the Debian maintainers, referring
to the same obscure arguments from the upstreams.


I personally have no longer much interest in tracing this family of
issues, especially when being confronted with so much narrow-mindedness
and arrogance (IMHO, deciding for the users that they can live with mail
corruption is arrogance)...and when it's tried at nearly all levels to
hide these corruption bugs away behind duplicates or lesser severities..


So,... bringing this up here at d-d, as I think it would be good for
Debian to have a well thought position in how to handle this family of
corruption bugs...

If it's agreed upon with upstreams/maintainers that it's ok to let
people live with them... fine for me...
If not, than the majority opinion might perhaps even convince the
maintainers to handle this with some higher severity :)


Cheers,
Chris.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems (was: Gentoo guys starting a fork of udev)

[Toni Mueller]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 05:15:25PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> If both Ubuntu and Gentoo would just go with the rest of the community
> and accept systemd, we wouldn't have to bother whether udev runs
> without systemd or not.

I would highly prefer a system where I can take small bites if I want
to, and where components are as portable as possible, and as it stands,
I am very uncomfortable with systemd, too. It's certainly
interesting, but having a hard dependency on it is imho a no-no.

Please take a step back, look at the bigger picture, and tell me
whether you think that we, as Debianites, or as Free Software
Advocates, are still heading in the right direction:

1. What does it mean if more and more software is required to run a
   Linux system, in the various scenarios, and losing the ability to
   swap components w/o major kernel hackery? So far, being highly
   modular was a way to contain the complexity, and finish off bugs.
   It's not only "more eyeballs" to catch them, it's also the complexity
   that makes it increasingly hard for people to understand what's going
   on in the first place, so the problem of having the required
   knowledge, that you highlighted in your message, will only get worse
   and worse with tighter integration.

2. What does it mean if more and more software only runs on Linux?

3. What does it mean that - my claim/experience - more and more Linux
   software is simply broken (see Gnome for a popular example, but I
   have more)?

> I don't see anyway why something as low-level
> as udev should be highly portable in the first place.

Maybe, but I do see why systemd must not be a hard dependency of the
Linux kernel, and if systemd is basically the user-space part of udev,
and both can't live without each other, then something is fundamentally
wrong in the design. IMHO.



Kind regards,
--Toni++

PS: Please don't Cc' me, I'm on the list.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121124170302.gb10...@spruce.wiehl.oeko.net

Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems (was: Gentoo guys starting a fork of udev)

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 06:03:02PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote: 
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 05:15:25PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > If both Ubuntu and Gentoo would just go with the rest of the community
> > and accept systemd, we wouldn't have to bother whether udev runs
> > without systemd or not.
> 
> I would highly prefer a system where I can take small bites if I want
> to, and where components are as portable as possible

Why? Why would you want to rip such low-level stuff apart? It
seriously doesn't make any sense unless you need a highly-customized
setup, for embedded applications, for example.

> and as it stands,
> I am very uncomfortable with systemd, too. It's certainly
> interesting, but having a hard dependency on it is imho a no-no.

Again. What's so bad with systemd? I don't get it. I really don't get
it. You're not seeing your init daemon 99% of the time you're using
your computer, so why even bother with it? When you have something
such low-level, you're best off with taking the best solution which
is clearly systemd and which is why most distributions are adopting
it.

> Please take a step back, look at the bigger picture, and tell me
> whether you think that we, as Debianites, or as Free Software
> Advocates, are still heading in the right direction:
> 
> 1. What does it mean if more and more software is required to run a
>Linux system, in the various scenarios, and losing the ability to
>swap components w/o major kernel hackery?

Because it's a LOW-LEVEL component and you don't profit at all by
choosing any different solution. It's not like your browser or desktop
which you can choose on your personal preferences. Argueing which init
daemon is the best is like argueing over which oil pump in your car to
choose based on preferences. You choose the one that does the job
best, it doesn't have to be customizable, that's just non-sense.

>So far, being highly
>modular was a way to contain the complexity, and finish off bugs.

So, you think code is more maintainable when it's spread across dozens
of projects instead of doing the work in one repository? Why should we
have separate repositories for atd, crond, anacron, xinetd, init, rc,
watchdogd, autofs and so on when these projects are more or less
something that should be performed by ONE daemon, because what these
daemons do overlaps quite a lot?

>It's not only "more eyeballs" to catch them

systemd has over 118 contributors, that makes 236 eyeballs. I guess
that's much more than any eyeballs in any of the traditional daemons
combined.

>it's also the complexity
>that makes it increasingly hard for people to understand what's going
>on in the first place, so the problem of having the required
>knowledge, that you highlighted in your message, will only get worse
>and worse with tighter integration.

systemd is not complex, sysvinit is. Just compare the average init
script with a systemd unit file and you will understand.

> 2. What does it mean if more and more software only runs on Linux?

It's a very good thing. It makes Linux stronger as a free platform
which is what we need in order to be able to compete against the
proprietary platforms. We need to combine power.

You probably want to hear now that's unfair to the other free
operating systems, but seriously, I don't care. You want to dictate
developers of free software not to take advantage of Linux-specific
features. You want to force them to consider stuff like FreeBSD as
well.

> 3. What does it mean that - my claim/experience - more and more Linux
>software is simply broken (see Gnome for a popular example, but I
>have more)?

It's broken because it doesn't run on your favourite non-Linux
operating system? I don't think so.

> > I don't see anyway why something as low-level
> > as udev should be highly portable in the first place.
> 
> Maybe, but I do see why systemd must not be a hard dependency of the
> Linux kernel, and if systemd is basically the user-space part of udev,
> and both can't live without each other, then something is fundamentally
> wrong in the design. IMHO.

systemd has a hard dependency on the Linux kernel because it takes
advantage of many Linux-specific features and it would be stupid not
to do that. Linux has these features, so we should be free to use
them when we can.

Do the FreeBSD people develop all their stuff in a fashion that it
would run on Linux as well?

I'm sorry for the harsh tone, but it's really something that annoys
me, people constantly complaining about systemd but never really
coming up with good arguments why something as low-level as
systemd/udev should be replacable in the first place. 95% of the users
don't care and just want something that's reliable.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


--

Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems

[Russ Allbery]

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz  writes:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 04:58:04PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:

>> I, for one, wholeheartedly welcome the fork, as I hope that this will
>> help getting back some of the modularity in Linux that was there, once
>> upon a time, and which contributed to making Linux a robust platform -
>> sometime in the past.

> Well, while I'm usually not against forks - I like MATE for example
> very much - I don't think this fork is going anywhere soon. I have
> followed their development a bit and read the discussion involving
> Greg Kroah-Hartman and others and their comments on the fork and I
> don't think the eudev people know what they're doing.

[...]

I really wish people would stop having this debate.

It is completely pointless for us to argue here over whether or not the
fork will be successful.  The outcome of that argument is completely
irrelevant to the world: even if we all decide that the fork will be
successful or all decide that the fork will be unsuccessful, it will not
have the slightest effect on reality.  Meanwhile, it will become obvious
(or at least much more obvious) whether the fork is successful if we just
wait and see what happens.

All that debating its possible success is doing is hardening everyone's
positions (about something for which there's no point in having a
position!) and creating hard feelings.

For those of us who are not directly involved in upstream kernel
development or other affected upstream projects, the *only* thing that
anyone has to worry about at this very, very early stage is whether you,
personally, want to go help with the fork.  If the answer is no, then all
you have to do right now is watch and see.

Let's please not turn this into a sporting event where we stand on the
sidelines and root for our "side" instead of wait to evaluate things on
their merits.  There's too much of that in free software already.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87txsex3rn@windlord.stanford.edu

Canonical pushes upstart into user session - systemd developer complains

[Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez]

FYI, Yet another episode of the Linux init drama:


https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/RaringUpstartUserSessions

https://plus.google.com/115547683951727699051/posts/ZZWLtq6tYdn



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems (was: Gentoo guys starting a fork of udev)

[Steve McIntyre]

Adrian wrote:
>
>If both Ubuntu and Gentoo would just go with the rest of the community
>and accept systemd, we wouldn't have to bother whether udev runs
>without systemd or not.

Please drop the systemd propaganda crap. We get enough of that from
Lennart already.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"We're the technical experts.  We were hired so that management could
 ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs."  -- Mike Andrews


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1tckpz-0004su...@mail.einval.com

Re: Canonical pushes upstart into user session - systemd developer complains

[Andrej N. Gritsenko]

Hello!

Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez has written on Saturday, 24 November, at 19:20:
>FYI, Yet another episode of the Linux init drama:


>https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/RaringUpstartUserSessions

>https://plus.google.com/115547683951727699051/posts/ZZWLtq6tYdn


It is only me who thinks that it is going by Windows steps? With only
difference Windows has more manpower to manage that bloated monster bugs.

WBR, Andriy.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121124184307.gd29...@rep.kiev.ua

Re: Canonical pushes upstart into user session - systemd developer complains

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 07:20:02PM +0100, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/RaringUpstartUserSessions

This is actually going to be very interesting to see if they are able
to extend upstart in such a way that they can use it for session
management similar to systemd-loginctl.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121124191735.ga6...@physik.fu-berlin.de

Re: Canonical pushes upstart into user session - systemd developer complains

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 08:17:35PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 07:20:02PM +0100, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/RaringUpstartUserSessions
> 
> This is actually going to be very interesting to see if they are able
> to extend upstart in such a way that they can use it for session
> management similar to systemd-loginctl.

While reading a bit on it, I found this passage:

> By making use of a Linux-specific prctl(2) call, we effectively tie
> Upstart to systems running with a Linux kernel. This is a major
> restriction, but porting to other systems is already complicated by
> the fact that even the BSDs do not provide a full POSIX environment
> (missing "waitid(2)" for example).

So it's not just systemd which runs into the situation that at some
point they have to drop support for non-Linux kernels because they
need a Linux-specific feature, in this case prctl.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121124192951.ga6...@physik.fu-berlin.de

Re: Canonical pushes upstart into user session - systemd developer complains

[Russ Allbery]

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz  writes:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 08:17:35PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:

>> By making use of a Linux-specific prctl(2) call, we effectively tie
>> Upstart to systems running with a Linux kernel. This is a major
>> restriction, but porting to other systems is already complicated by the
>> fact that even the BSDs do not provide a full POSIX environment
>> (missing "waitid(2)" for example).

> So it's not just systemd which runs into the situation that at some
> point they have to drop support for non-Linux kernels because they need
> a Linux-specific feature, in this case prctl.

This is not a revelation.  We've known this for, literally, years.  It's
been part of every previous init script discussion we've had on
debian-devel.  However, many of those features can be made optional or be
implemented another way, not to mention that the FreeBSD kernel is not
static either and can adapt and adopt new features itself.

Porting any more modern, event-driven, session-aware init system to
FreeBSD is going to require actual work.  I don't think anyone is under
any illusions to the contrary.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87624ux001@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Bug#693998: ITP: linux-minidisc -- Free software for accessing NetMD and HiMD MiniDisc devices

[Karl Goetz]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012, 00:26:34 LHST, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz 
 wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:02:18AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:16 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > 
> > > * Package name       : linux-minidisc
> > 
> > Thats a strange name considering it builds and runs on MacOS, Windows,
> > Linux, FreeBSD and Haiku.
> 
> Yes, the name is indeed somewhat confusing in that regard.

> If you have a better idea, I'd be happy to hear it ;).

Not necessary better, but perhaps libre-minidisk? 3 letters different and only 
contains one trademark :)
thanks,
kk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1353786925.1563.5.camel@Nokia-N900-02-8

Re: Bug#693998: ITP: linux-minidisc -- Free software for accessing NetMD and HiMD MiniDisc devices

[Filippo Rusconi]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 02:26:34PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:02:18AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:16 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > 
> > > * Package name: linux-minidisc
> > 
> > Thats a strange name considering it builds and runs on MacOS, Windows,
> > Linux, FreeBSD and Haiku.
> 
> Yes, the name is indeed somewhat confusing in that regard. But when we
> first came up with the project, we were initially only concerned about
> Linux, so the name was obvious. Finding a good name for such a project
> is complicated because of possible trademark violations.
> 
> If you have a better idea, I'd be happy to hear it ;).

minidisk-intercessor
minidisk-accessor

???
Ciao
Filippo

-- 
Filippo Rusconi, PhD - public crypto key C78F687C @ pgp.mit.edu
Researcher at CNRS and Debian Developer 
Author of ``massXpert'' at http://www.massxpert.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121123133635.GA16316@licorne

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

[Bernhard R. Link]

* Christoph Anton Mitterer  [121124 17:42]:
> I've recently reported several bugs against MUAs and mail tools, that
> employ the mboxo (note the trailing "o") format to either store or
> import mails.

> So,... bringing this up here at d-d, as I think it would be good for
> Debian to have a well thought position in how to handle this family of
> corruption bugs...

I'd say if you complain about a tool not documenting what mbox format
it is using, that is a minor bug.

If you want an option to also support another mbox format but mboxo,
then I'd vote for wishlist severity.

Ambiquity about lines starting with from in mboxo format is the same
like storing the value 0007 in an integer and getting 7 back when
asking for the value. Or like storing a filename in a FAT filesystem
and getting it back when asking for a file with the name converted
to upper case.

Bernhard R. Link


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121124201101.gb7...@client.brlink.eu

Re: Canonical pushes upstart into user session - systemd developer complains

[Guillem Jover]

On Sat, 2012-11-24 at 20:29:51 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> While reading a bit on it, I found this passage:
> 
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 08:17:35PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > By making use of a Linux-specific prctl(2) call, we effectively tie
> > Upstart to systems running with a Linux kernel. This is a major
> > restriction, but porting to other systems is already complicated by
> > the fact that even the BSDs do not provide a full POSIX environment
> > (missing "waitid(2)" for example).
> 
> So it's not just systemd which runs into the situation that at some
> point they have to drop support for non-Linux kernels because they
> need a Linux-specific feature, in this case prctl.

waitid is supported on FreeBSD. Regarding prctl(2), it seems upstart
is supposed to handle Linux kernels w/o prctl(PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER)
support gracefully by printing a warning and just ignoring respawn
statements, so the same could be applied to non-Linux kernels. Of
course there's other things that might need porting currently.

Regards,
Guillem


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121124212846.ga10...@gaara.hadrons.org

Re: Canonical pushes upstart into user session - systemd developer complains

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:28:46PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> 
> waitid is supported on FreeBSD.

Are you sure? According to their status page [1] it's not yet fully
implemented. The page is dated to last October.

Adrian

> [1] http://www.freebsd.org/projects/c99/index.html

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121124214629.ga7...@physik.fu-berlin.de

Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems (was: Gentoo guys starting a fork of udev)

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 24 novembre 2012 à 18:25 +, Steve McIntyre a écrit : 
> Please drop the systemd propaganda crap. We get enough of that from
> Lennart already.

OTOH we also get quite enough of FUD from people who don’t know what
systemd is but don’t want us to use it.

-- 
 .''`.  Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
  `-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1353798957.4220.23.camel@pi0307572

Re: Canonical pushes upstart into user session - systemd developer complains

[Guillem Jover]

On Sat, 2012-11-24 at 22:46:29 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:28:46PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > waitid is supported on FreeBSD.
> 
> Are you sure? According to their status page [1] it's not yet fully
> implemented. The page is dated to last October.





Regards,
Guillem


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121124232556.ga17...@gaara.hadrons.org

Bug#694278: ITP: gpg-remailer -- GnuPG-enabled remailer for mailing lists

[tony mancill]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: tony mancill 

* Package name: gpg-remailer
  Version : 2.53.0
  Upstream Author : Frank Brokken 
* URL : https://www.icce.rug.nl/debian/remailer
* License : GPLv3
  Programming Lang: C++
  Description : GnuPG-enabled remailer for mailing lists

Encrypting and signing remailer for groups of users/mailing lists.
The original message can be sent to the remailer encrypted and the
remailer will handle decryption and re-encrypting for the list
recipients.

The remailed content bears the signature and/or encryption of the
remailer's GPG key.  For this reason, the remailer is intended to run
from a dedicated user account on a secured system.

The remailer supports a number of configure options related to operation,
including support for:
   o  Multi-part encrypted messages
   o  Encrypted messages containing detached signatures
   o  Various signature requirements for received messages
   o  Conifgurable logging and debugging


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121124233946.20383.50809.reportbug@boson

Re: release goal for jessie! (Source-only uploads

[Thorsten Glaser]

Thomas Goirand  debian.org> writes:

> Though I'm in the favor of dropping binaries rather than source-only,

This could even help the cases of packages that need itself
to be built.

When a packager does a source+binary upload of foo (= 1.2-1),
it would be built in a clean, minimal chroot (yes, I’m adding
the minimal here, with several side-stabs…) whose sources.list
would contain unstable, and experimental for packages targetting
that, as right now, plus ANOTHER, NEW repository, which is created
by buildd “on the fly”, which contains the binaries that the
packager uploaded, but is marked to never be used automatically
just like experimental, so the binaries by the packager *CAN* be
used to build the binaries that will make it into the archive,
but *only* if the packager explicitly states it, here by doing a
B-D on foo (>= 1.2-1), or even foo (>= 1.2) would work in this case.

That one-package APT repo and its content would then be dropped
afterwards, never to be seen again, no matter whether the build
succeeded or not.

bye,
//mirabilos


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20121125t005535-...@post.gmane.org

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> This however leads to irrecoverable data corruption, as the partial
> quoting of so called From_ lines cannot be undone anymore.
> An easy solution for that dilemma is known for years, namely the other
> mbox formats (either mboxrd, mboxcl or mboxcl2), of which mboxrd is
> typically the one which fits best the needs for staying backwards
> compatible.

...

> No first I've had reported these corruptions at the different upstreams
> (and apart from KMail and mutt...all the major players I've tested, e.g.
> Thunderbird, Evolution, getmail, postfix, were affected).

...

> Apart from the getmail upstream all reacted rather stubborn and without
> much insight,... bringing up obscure "arguments" like "this corruption
> has always been the case historically, therefore it's ok".

At least for postfix, I'd expect them to accept a patch for local(8) to
not quote From lines as a config option, with the default being to keep
the current behaviour (i.e. quote them).

> Well we, as Debian, can't of course force upstreams to fix their crap,
> but IMHO neither should we let our users at risk for silent data
> corruption.
> 
> So I've opened bugs at the BTS, too, with severities critical

Look, if it were severity critical, given how long this situation stands,
we'd not have this thread and nobody would be doing this.  It is severity
important or normal, I'd say.

In postfix' case, it is documented like all heck, for example (see local(8)
manpage), and it can trivially be configured to use something else to
deliver mail to mbox files (such as procmail, etc).

> So,... bringing this up here at d-d, as I think it would be good for
> Debian to have a well thought position in how to handle this family of
> corruption bugs...

We [Debian] could deprecate anything that uses mboxo (mbox old) format as
the native/preferred storage format, and configure our stuff where possible
to never use mboxo by default.  That's about it.  But first, you need to get
support for better mbox formats on the important stuff.

We [users/developers] can write patches to teach important software to use
something less retarded than mboxo by default, and pester upstream to take
them.  Just complaining about it obviously won't help, since people don't
see it as a problem at all.  You need to do _all_ the leg work, write the
new functionality, and test the heck out of it before you can really expect
upstream to accept the change.

> If not, than the majority opinion might perhaps even convince the
> maintainers to handle this with some higher severity :)

That's not how it works.  Someone needs to come up with *well tested*
patches for everything worth fixing.  THEN you can ask for some sort of
Debian-wide pressure to get rid of mboxo outside of extra/old-libs...

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121125002747.ga17...@khazad-dum.debian.net

Re: Canonical pushes upstart into user session - systemd developer complains

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 08:29:51PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 08:17:35PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 07:20:02PM +0100, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/RaringUpstartUserSessions

> > This is actually going to be very interesting to see if they are able
> > to extend upstart in such a way that they can use it for session
> > management similar to systemd-loginctl.

> While reading a bit on it, I found this passage:

> > By making use of a Linux-specific prctl(2) call, we effectively tie
> > Upstart to systems running with a Linux kernel. This is a major
> > restriction, but porting to other systems is already complicated by
> > the fact that even the BSDs do not provide a full POSIX environment
> > (missing "waitid(2)" for example).

> So it's not just systemd which runs into the situation that at some
> point they have to drop support for non-Linux kernels because they
> need a Linux-specific feature, in this case prctl.

Upstart is already not portable to non-Linux kernels.  This is a known
issue; had it not been for sensitivity to not breaking Debian's non-Linux
ports, it's likely that upstart would have been the default in Debian before
systemd was a glimmer in Lennart's eye.

Unlike systemd, upstart is open to being ported to non-Linux kernels. 
Sadly, so far no one has stepped up to do this work.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems

[Thomas Goirand]

On 11/25/2012 12:15 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> They're constantly claiming, for example, that udev and systemd break
> a separate /usr partition which is simply not true.
I believe you've been reading too much L. Poettring. Yes, lots of
udev stuff are moving to /usr, and this is a fact. Yes, lots of
things are annoying in the merge for someone who wishes to use
udev alone, and not systemd. That is a fact as well.

It would help the discussion if there was nobody always claiming
the opposite.

On 11/25/2012 12:15 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> If both Ubuntu and Gentoo would just go with the rest of the community
> and accept systemd
Yeah, right! Along the line with "why are these idiots so vocal". That is
in fact one of the main concern about udev/systemd people: they don't
care about others, refuse patches, and always claim others are stupid.
You shouldn't go through this dangerous path as well, IMO.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50b1a41f.60...@debian.org

Re: release goal for jessie! (Source-only uploads

[Philip Ashmore]

On 25/11/12 00:00, Thorsten Glaser wrote:

Thomas Goirand  debian.org>  writes:


Though I'm in the favor of dropping binaries rather than source-only,


This could even help the cases of packages that need itself
to be built.

When a packager does a source+binary upload of foo (= 1.2-1),
it would be built in a clean, minimal chroot (yes, I’m adding
the minimal here, with several side-stabs…) whose sources.list
would contain unstable, and experimental for packages targetting
that, as right now, plus ANOTHER, NEW repository, which is created
by buildd “on the fly”, which contains the binaries that the
packager uploaded, but is marked to never be used automatically
just like experimental, so the binaries by the packager *CAN* be
used to build the binaries that will make it into the archive,
but *only* if the packager explicitly states it, here by doing a
B-D on foo (>= 1.2-1), or even foo (>= 1.2) would work in this case.

That one-package APT repo and its content would then be dropped
afterwards, never to be seen again, no matter whether the build
succeeded or not.

bye,
//mirabilos
If you need binaries from a package in its build process then you use 
the ones

in the build tree in preference to any that might be installed.
It's just a shame that automake can't use LD_LIBRARY_PATH to prefer shared
libraries from the build tree in the same way.

Regards,
Philip


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50b1bb8c.30...@philipashmore.com

Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:52:47PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/25/2012 12:15 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > They're constantly claiming, for example, that udev and systemd break
> > a separate /usr partition which is simply not true.
> I believe you've been reading too much L. Poettring.

And again the same idiotic and childish style of argumentation. It has
nothing to do with Poettering. Please come up with real arguments
instead of just saying systemd is broken and the author is an idiot.

> Yes, lots of
> udev stuff are moving to /usr, and this is a fact. Yes, lots of
> things are annoying in the merge for someone who wishes to use
> udev alone, and not systemd. That is a fact as well.

There is tons of stuff that you would need to fix, not just udev
stuff. See [1].

> It would help the discussion if there was nobody always claiming
> the opposite.

What? I'm not claiming the opposite, I am claiming facts. Is it false
that all these binaries mentioned in [1] are required for early boot
up and are located in /usr? Just check it yourself.

> On 11/25/2012 12:15 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > If both Ubuntu and Gentoo would just go with the rest of the community
> > and accept systemd
> Yeah, right! Along the line with "why are these idiots so vocal". That is
> in fact one of the main concern about udev/systemd people: they don't
> care about others, refuse patches, and always claim others are stupid.
> You shouldn't go through this dangerous path as well, IMO.

Sorry, but I wouldn't touch code with a ten-feet pole who from someone
is so naive claiming that he knows more about writing an open source
BIOS than the people at Coreboot who have been doing that since
1999. I started right out laughing when he claiming Coreboot is a
Linux distribution and starting a x86 computer just involves setting
up a few interrupt vectors.

I know several people in the Coreboot project personal and the
claims that Richard makes in [2] are just ridiculous and show the same
attitude he has towards working on udev.

Even Greg is ridiculing their work [3]. And he should know, he came up
with udev in the first place and he is even a Gentoo developer. Don't
you think he understands you a little more than anyone else, so he can
assess when people do the right things with the code or not?

Adrian

> [1] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
> [2] 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!topic/linux.gentoo.dev/yWQGqxsfjI0
> [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2226/focus=81216

--
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121125073521.ga10...@physik.fu-berlin.de

Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 08:35:22AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Sorry, but I wouldn't touch code with a ten-feet pole who from someone
> is so naive claiming that he knows more about writing an open source
> BIOS than the people at Coreboot who have been doing that since
> 1999. I started right out laughing when he claiming Coreboot is a
> Linux distribution and starting a x86 computer just involves setting
> up a few interrupt vectors.
> 
> I know several people in the Coreboot project personal and the
> claims that Richard makes in [2] are just ridiculous and show the same
> attitude he has towards working on udev.
> 
> Even Greg is ridiculing their work [3]. And he should know, he came up
> with udev in the first place and he is even a Gentoo developer. Don't
> you think he understands you a little more than anyone else, so he can
> assess when people do the right things with the code or not?

And if that's not already enough, they even started removing copyright
information from the udev files headers [1] which I find rude and
disrespectful. They claim that they can do that because it's free
software, after all. Again, it just shows they have no idea what
they're talking about.

Going with this philosophy, their code wouldn't probably even meet the
Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). Removing copyright information
of other people's work is a no no.

Adrian

> [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2226/focus=81216 

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121125075028.ga10...@physik.fu-berlin.de