Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

Lucas Nussbaum writes: > Modifying the source stanza is debian/control is clearly a bad idea. But > for binary stanzas, debian/control is only a template from which > DEBIAN/control is generated. If tools get information about binary > packages using debian/control, then it's probably a bug (lint

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

On 05/01/10 at 16:31 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 03:52:46PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > On 05/01/10 at 21:39 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > > > > > > > That's only true with the v3 format. If you stick with v1, you

Re: Switch on compiler hardening defaults

Hi, On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 11:01:01AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > > > There is a maintained (by RedHat) patch for dealing with PIE.  I already > > maintain a delta for this in Ubuntu, but as you can see in the gdb bug, > > the gdb maintainer does

Re: Switch on compiler hardening defaults

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 11:01:01 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > > > There is a maintained (by RedHat) patch for dealing with PIE.  I already > > maintain a delta for this in Ubuntu, but as you can see in the gdb bug, > > the gdb maintainer doesn't want it

Re: Switch on compiler hardening defaults

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > There is a maintained (by RedHat) patch for dealing with PIE.  I already > maintain a delta for this in Ubuntu, but as you can see in the gdb bug, > the gdb maintainer doesn't want it until it's in upstream.  I, obviously, > think that's ridiculo

Re: Lintian error on- rpath: Would like an exemption

Never mind. Lintian 1, Dirk 0 -- I actually had one redundant / empty entry in there which was a minor bug. Now fixed, and 0.1.3 should be on its merry ways shortly. Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact list

Lintian error on- rpath: Would like an exemption

littler (aka 'r') is a small wrapper around GNU R that Jeff Horner and I released in 2006 and have been maintaining since. It is similar to Rscript (which appeared a little later as part of base R) but implemented differently -- we query a lot of the environment at build time and encode this. An

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:39:40PM +0100, David Paleino wrote: > I remember, some time ago, there has been some discussion about treating > ubuntu as a "pseudo-arch", so that we could do something like: > Depends: foo | bar [ubuntu] > I also remember this proposal was rejected, or hostaged to sa

Re: Switch on compiler hardening defaults

On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 12:23:01PM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Kees Cook wrote: > >>>With the new package, the arch-specific logic for hardening defaults > >>>is in one place, and a maintainer can selectively disable anything they > >>>don't want on by default. > >> > >>This

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 03:52:46PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 05/01/10 at 21:39 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > > > > > That's only true with the v3 format. If you stick with v1, you can > > > > patch debian/control at unpack time. > > > > >

Bug#563865: ITP: python-wifi -- Linux Wireless Extensions in Pure Python

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Henning Heinold * Package name: python-wifi Version : 0.5.0 Upstream Author : Sean Robinson * URL : http://pythonwifi.wikispot.org/ * License : GPL, LGPL, Creative Commons Attribution License Programming Lang: Python

Re: enabling software rendering in libxine

I demand that Andreas Marschke may or may not have written... > applications depending on xine or using the phonon-backend-xine backend in > KDE are currently having problems since features such as videosettings in > dragonplayer and bangaraang aren't working. As reported to me there are 2 > optio

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 05/01/10 at 21:39 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > > > That's only true with the v3 format. If you stick with v1, you can > > > patch debian/control at unpack time. > > > > > And in both cases, you are free to modify it manually during the build. >

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

Xavier Roche writes: > Russ Allbery wrote : >> I'm pretty sure Lintian doesn't care. > Yep, but not debcheck (as Paul Wise corrected), which would produce > another warning Yeah, but debcheck produces warnings about lots of things that aren't really problems, just things it doesn't understand.

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

On 05/01/10 at 21:39 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > That's only true with the v3 format. If you stick with v1, you can > > patch debian/control at unpack time. > > > And in both cases, you are free to modify it manually during the build. > > Err, what? debian/control modified during build? Su

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

> That's only true with the v3 format. If you stick with v1, you can > patch debian/control at unpack time. > And in both cases, you are free to modify it manually during the build. Err, what? debian/control modified during build? Sure not. -- bye, Joerg anyone from the MIA team around? tbm?

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

>>> What do you, folks, think of this case ? >> I would merge the change even if the package doesn't exist. > What about lintian crying in the rain ? More seriously, can we assume > that we'll never have package name collisions (ie. "foo", if exist on > two distributions, are guaranteed to be the

ITP: graphy -- chart generation library for Python

Package: wnpp Owner: Miguel Landaeta Severity: wishlist * Package name: graphy Version : 1.0 Upstream Author : Google Inc. * URL : http://code.google.com/p/graphy/ * License : Apache-2.0 Programming Lang: Python Description : chart generation library fo

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

Russ Allbery wrote : I'm pretty sure Lintian doesn't care. Yep, but not debcheck (as Paul Wise corrected), which would produce another warning -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#563841: ITP: xylib -- library for reading x-y data from several file formats

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Marcin Wojdyr * Package name: xylib Version : 0.5 Upstream Author : Marcin Wojdyr * URL : http://www.unipress.waw.pl/fityk/xylib/ * License : LGPL Programming Lang: C++ Description : library for reading x-y data

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

Raphael Hertzog writes: > On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Xavier Roche wrote: >> What about lintian crying in the rain ? > What tag does it generate? > AFAIK lintian has no knowledge of what package exist or not. And even if > it does, you can override the tag justifying that it exists in ubuntu. > It wou

Bug#563843: ITP: libmoosex-types-varianttable-perl -- Moose extension for a type-constraint based dispatch table

Package: wnpp Owner: Jonathan Yu Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org * Package name: libmoosex-types-varianttable-perl Version : 0.03 Upstream Author : Yuval Kogman * URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/MooseX-Type

Re: dpkg 3.0 (quilt) packages not being accepted?

Rene Engelhard dijo [Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:21:30AM +0100]: > > libprawn-ruby uses the 3.0 (quilt) format and is built from three > > tarballs > > (libprawn-ruby_0.7.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz,libprawn-ruby_0.7.1+dfsg.orig-pdf-inspector.tar.gz >

enabling software rendering in libxine

Hi, applications ddepending on xine or using the phonon-backend-xine backend in KDE are currently having problems since features such as videosettings in dragonplayer and bangaraang arent working. As reported to me there are 2 options how to enable this either via software rendering or hardware

Re: "upgrading" my gpg key

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:26:23AM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote: > Am Mo den 4. Jan 2010 um 21:36 schrieb brian m. carlson: > > For maximum long-term security, I recommend a 3072-bit DSA key > > (preferably with SHA-512) or a 4096-bit RSA key. > > Hmmm, that advice is a bit odd. RSA is a bit better

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 05/01/10 at 13:56 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > But patches are not allowed to modify the debian directory so that only > > works for upstream changes. > > That's only true with the v3 format. If you stick with v1, you can > patch debian/control

Re: Xen support on Squeeze

I think you are addressing the wrong list. This is debian-devel, for discussion of Debian development. Your question is off-topic here. Please try one of the debian-user mailing lists instead. As a second point, you have replied to an unrelated message on debian-devel and referenced the unrelated

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

On 05/01/10 at 13:56 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > But patches are not allowed to modify the debian directory so that only > works for upstream changes. That's only true with the v3 format. If you stick with v1, you can patch debian/control at unpack time. And in both cases, you are free to mod

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Xavier Roche wrote: >> Raphael Hertzog a écrit : >> >>What do you, folks, think of this case ? >> >I would merge the change even if the package doesn't exist. >> >> What about lintian crying in the rain ? > > What tag do

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Xavier Roche wrote: > Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > >>What do you, folks, think of this case ? > >I would merge the change even if the package doesn't exist. > > What about lintian crying in the rain ? What tag does it generate? AFAIK lintian has no knowledge of what package e

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:00:46PM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote: > Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > >>What do you, folks, think of this case ? > >I would merge the change even if the package doesn't exist. > > What about lintian crying in the rain ? More seriously, can we > assume that we'll never have pa

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

Raphael Hertzog a écrit : What do you, folks, think of this case ? I would merge the change even if the package doesn't exist. What about lintian crying in the rain ? More seriously, can we assume that we'll never have package name collisions (ie. "foo", if exist on two distributions, are gu

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

Hi, On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Xavier Roche wrote: > This is the only reason why a patch is needed for all releases on > ubuntu. The patch () is > basically a one-liner in the control file (plus changelog and > friends): > > -Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, webhttrack-

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

AFAIUI this is the reason why virtual packages have been introduced. You cannot - and definitely should not - alternatively depend on each and every webbrowser in Debian (or ubuntu), but every webbrowser should do "Provides: x-www-browser". So all you have to do is depend on the default webbrow

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

Am Dienstag, den 05.01.2010, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Xavier Roche: > [ Don't hesitate to redirect me to an already discussed > solution/thread/FAQ/anything if necessary, but I didn't find anything > related in recent (months) debian-devel. ] > > Hi folks (and happy new year to all DD), > > A minor

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 10:36:33AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote: > This is the only reason why a patch is needed for all releases on > ubuntu. The patch () is basically > a one-liner in the control file (plus changelog and friends): > > -Depends: ${shlibs:Depe

Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

Xavier Roche wrote: > [..] > > (1) Not a very common case, which can be left as is (ie. patch all > further control files) > > (2) We may want to have a namespaced control fields, such as: > > (3) Namespace specific packages ? > > (4) Ubuntu-specific optional control file ? > > (5) Something

Re: "upgrading" my gpg key

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Mo den 4. Jan 2010 um 21:36 schrieb brian m. carlson: > For maximum long-term security, I recommend a 3072-bit DSA key > (preferably with SHA-512) or a 4096-bit RSA key. Hmmm, that advice is a bit odd. RSA is a bit better in security than DSA so

Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file

[ Don't hesitate to redirect me to an already discussed solution/thread/FAQ/anything if necessary, but I didn't find anything related in recent (months) debian-devel. ] Hi folks (and happy new year to all DD), A minor issue (reported by Nick Ellery) with debian vs. ubuntu package is that the