On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:18 PM, alberto fuentes wrote:
> _Proposal_:
> Add a new release stage between stable and testing. Called usable or
> whatever name we find fit for it
>
> stable <- <- testing <- sid
>
> Migrate packages after a period* in testing without RC bugs.
> *a 2-4 weeks seems reas
On 01/03/2013 06:32 PM, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 05:12:03 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
No, because apt-listbugs exists and provides a nice interface so users
don't have to care about pinning details for themselves.
Can apt-listbugs do anything more than abort the entir
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/03/2013 08:15 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> http://cut.debian.net/
>
>
> Isn't this (more or less) what you are asking for?
Isn't this (more or less) dead?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: U
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 09:41:15AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 01:05:46PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >> - Private dependencies, as they leak to rdeps. When a library uses
> >> another library priv
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 12:43:56AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> The problem to be solved is that ISVs provide binaries for Linux i386
> and our users want to run them on amd64. LSB, x32 and ARM are
> completely irrelevant - the important thing is to make it easy to
> install whatever libraries th
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:35:43PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 06:59:02PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > You installed a 32-bit application on a 64-bit system. That will only
> > work if you also install the 32-bit supporting libraries, including the
> > dynamic linker. Th
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 519 (new: 1)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 141 (new: 1)
Total number of packages request
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 05:12:03 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > > * Pin packages with RC bugs on upgrade. This is:
> > > - Non trivial: it makes you understand how bad the bug is and know how
> > > the pinning system works
> > No, because apt-listbugs exists and provides a nice interface so
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Tanguy Ortolo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
* Package name: fonts-opendyslexic
Version : 20121109
Upstream Author : Abbie Gonzalez
* URL : http://dyslexicfonts.com/
* License : CC-BY-3.0
Description
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:45:45PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > * Pin packages with RC bugs on upgrade. This is:
> > - Non trivial: it makes you understand how bad the bug is and know how
> > the pinning system works
>
> No and yes.
>
> No, because apt-listbugs exists and provides a nic
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:18:27 +0100, alberto fuentes wrote:
> The only ways to prevent this if you are running the more or less
> up-to-date testing are:
> * Pin packages with RC bugs on upgrade. This is:
> - Non trivial: it makes you understand how bad the bug is and know how
> the pinning sy
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 06:59:02PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> You installed a 32-bit application on a 64-bit system. That will only
> work if you also install the 32-bit supporting libraries, including the
> dynamic linker. This is not a bug in Debian.
>
> And no, installing 32-bit libraries by
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Thomas Koch
Control: block 697193 by 622928
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
* Package name: libandroid-json-org-java
Version : 20090211 (to mimick the last json.org version)
Upstream Author : The Android Open Source Project
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:26:46AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >>> Debian clearly says: "File does not exist", while in fact it DOES EXIST.
> >>> This is a 100% proof of Debian bug.
>
> > I guess it is bash telling you that.
>
> >> That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader fo
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> >
> > release and lsb-base being Architecture: foreign). Patches are welcome to
> > make
> > Wheezy+1 more suitable to your needs.
>
> How about changing it from a kernel bug to tasksel fe
On 03/01/13 19:18, alberto fuentes wrote:
> Request for comments!
AFAIK there is already an ongoing effort to provide an usable updated
rolling release of Debian.
http://joeyh.name/code/debian/cut/
http://cut.debian.net/
Isn't this (more or less) what you are asking for?
signature.asc
Descr
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 02:01:26AM +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> > But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_.
> >
>
> This does not mean you can't run 32bit application under a 64bit
> Debian installation, it's because the support
On 01/03/2013 02:16 PM, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>>
>> release and lsb-base being Architecture: foreign). Patches are welcome to
>> make
>> Wheezy+1 more suitable to your needs.
>
> How about changing it from a kernel bug to tasksel fea
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:26:46AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader for a
> >> binary doesn't exist. I think that's been the case for as long as
> >> Linux has existed.
> > That's already reported as bug #609882.
> I think that's askin
Timo Weingärtner writes:
> Hallo Russ Allbery,
>> I think that's asking quite a lot of bash. Wouldn't it have to open
>> the binary and parse the ELF headers, extracting the INTERP header, in
>> order to verify that? Does it really make sense to encode
>> understanding of ELF binary layout form
Hallo Russ Allbery,
2013-01-03 um 19:26:46 schriebst Du:
> Timo Weingärtner writes:
> > 2013-01-03 um 18:32:28 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> >> Alexey Eromenko writes:
> >>> User error? Huh ?
> >>>
> >>> No ! This is a Debian Bug !
> >>> Debian clearly says: "File does not exist", while in fact it DO
Timo Weingärtner writes:
> 2013-01-03 um 18:32:28 schrieb Russ Allbery:
>> Alexey Eromenko writes:
>>> User error? Huh ?
>>> No ! This is a Debian Bug !
>>> Debian clearly says: "File does not exist", while in fact it DOES EXIST.
>>> This is a 100% proof of Debian bug.
> I guess it is bash tel
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> clone 697270 -1
Bug #697270 {Done: Holger Levsen } [general] PC 32-bit
programs fails to work on amd64
Bug 697270 cloned as bug 697299
> retitle -1 misleading error message when ELF interpreter does not exist
Bug #697299 {Done: Holger Levsen } [g
clone 697270 -1
retitle -1 misleading error message when ELF interpreter does not exist
reassign -1 bash
severity -1 normal
merge -1 609882
retitle 697270 i386 multiarch not enabled and ia32-libs not installed by
default on amd64
severity 697270 minor
tags 697270 +wontfix
thanks
Hi Alexey,
2013-
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>
> release and lsb-base being Architecture: foreign). Patches are welcome to make
> Wheezy+1 more suitable to your needs.
How about changing it from a kernel bug to tasksel feature ?
I recommend: "tasksel" to install 32-bit libraries b
Ubuntu has done some poor decisions but it has done some other that are
okay. We should consider merging some of them back.
Im thinking about the 6 months release thing. Without further ado, here's
the proposal pre-draft:
_Proposal_:
Add a new release stage between stable and testing. Called usabl
Le jeudi, 3 janvier 2013 18.44:59, Alexey Eromenko a écrit :
> But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_.
By the way:
* Debian is not LSB-certified
* ... but the lsb-* packages try to provide a working implementation.
No work has been attempted to provide Multi-Arch lsb packages (
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_.
>
This does not mean you can't run 32bit application under a 64bit
Debian installation, it's because the support is not added into
default installation as the feature isn't consider
Alexey Eromenko writes:
> But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_.
Debian provides LSB compliance via the lsb set of packages. Not everyone
wants to have all LSB packages installed or particularly cares about LSB
compliance. If you do:
aptitude install lsb
will install
Alexey Eromenko writes:
> User error? Huh ?
It is, I'm afraid.
> No ! This is a Debian Bug !
No, it is not.
> Debian clearly says: "File does not exist", while in fact it DOES
> EXIST.
It does not. However, the file the message is referring to is not the
file you think it refers to: it is mi
On 01/04/2013 01:31 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> on a 64 bits arch Debian, when really, you'd better just do:
>> apt-get install iceweasel
>>
>> and use your newly installed browser in 64 bits mode...
> Not, because my job requires the lates
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>
>> on a 64 bits arch Debian, when really, you'd better just do:
>> apt-get install iceweasel
>>
>> and use your newly installed browser in 64 bits mode...
>
> Not, because my job requ
But having 32-bit LSB compliance will help people a _LOT_.
--
-Alexey Eromenko "Technologov"
--
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/CAOJ6w=H9b9+paJGv5h0_Lp
Alexey Eromenko writes:
> User error? Huh ?
> No ! This is a Debian Bug !
> Debian clearly says: "File does not exist", while in fact it DOES EXIST.
> This is a 100% proof of Debian bug.
That's the error message that you get when the dynamic loader for a binary
doesn't exist. I think that's be
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> on a 64 bits arch Debian, when really, you'd better just do:
> apt-get install iceweasel
>
> and use your newly installed browser in 64 bits mode...
Not, because my job requires the latest FireFox (latest-and-greatest).
And the standard Fi
On 01/04/2013 01:02 AM, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> Please keep in mind, that I have wasted 4 hours of my personal time on
> this Debian bug, and do you think this is reasonable ?
>
It all depends.
How did you even install Firefox 32 bits? We don't have such a
package in Debian. It's rebranded as "ic
+++ Wookey [2013-01-03 12:42 +]:
> Franz Zinn wrote:
> Hmm. I use TARGET=sparc dpkg-buildpackage
I tried this (with 2.23.1) and found a bug - --target in configure is set to
'sparc'
rasther than sparc-linux-gnu which means it builds for sparc-sunos.
This may well be due to my modifications
Please keep in mind, that I have wasted 4 hours of my personal time on
this Debian bug, and do you think this is reasonable ?
--
-Alexey Eromenko "Technologov"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.d
User error? Huh ?
No ! This is a Debian Bug !
Debian clearly says: "File does not exist", while in fact it DOES EXIST.
This is a 100% proof of Debian bug.
--
-Alexey Eromenko "Technologov"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub
Holger Levsen writes:
> Hi Gergely,
>
> if you take the effort to reassign to general, why dont you lower the
> severity
> as well?
>
> And, if you explain how this is a user error, why dont you close it straight
> away?
Because I haven't slept this year yet, and I forgot to change the Cc: to
Hi Gergelzz :-)
On Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2013, Gergelzz Nagy wrote:
> Because I haven't slept this year yet, and I forgot to change the Cc: to
> -done@, and there's been about 5 minutes between the Control: header and
> the rest of my mail, during which I completely forgot about th
Your message dated Thu, 3 Jan 2013 16:32:54 +0100
with message-id <201301031632.56423.hol...@layer-acht.org>
and subject line Re: Processed: Re: Bug#697270: PC 32-bit programs fails to
work on amd64
has caused the Debian Bug report #697270,
regarding PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
to be
Hi Gergely,
if you take the effort to reassign to general, why dont you lower the severity
as well?
And, if you explain how this is a user error, why dont you close it straight
away?
cheers,
Holger
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Paul Wise writes:
> With Built-Using, we get a way to rebuild packages that embed parts of
> other packages:
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-built-using
>
> Not sure if the buildd stuff will automatically schedule rebuilds or
> if we will notice due to britney k
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Hideki Yamane
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
pkg-ruby-extras-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Package name: ruby-spoon
Version: 0.0.2
Upstream Author: Charles Oliver Nutter
URL: https://github.com/headius/spoon
+++ Franz Zinn [2013-01-02 14:42 +]:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to build a cross version of binutils (Squeeze version
> 2.20.1) using the directions in debian/README.cross with the command
> line
>
> TARGET=sparc fakeroot debian/rules binary-cross
Hmm. I use TARGET=sparc dpkg-buildpackage
the bi
Processing control commands:
> reassign -1 general
Bug #697270 [kernel-image] PC 32-bit programs fails to work on amd64
Warning: Unknown package 'kernel-image'
Bug reassigned from package 'kernel-image' to 'general'.
No longer marked as found in versions 3.2.0.
Ignoring request to alter fixed vers
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> One might argue that the static case is actually better because it is
> more predictable, but our post-release support model is heavily
> dependent on minimal changes (because we cannot do full QA
> post-release). Such minimal changes are im
* Michael Stapelberg:
> Hi Florian,
>
> Florian Weimer writes:
>>> Could you provide an example please? I don’t understand how this is
>>> different with static linking than with dynamic linking yet.
>>
>> With dynamic linking, you pick up the behavior change along with
>> "apt-get upgrade", so I
Hi Florian,
Florian Weimer writes:
>> Could you provide an example please? I don’t understand how this is
>> different with static linking than with dynamic linking yet.
>
> With dynamic linking, you pick up the behavior change along with
> "apt-get upgrade", so I expect that we get much more tes
* Sune Vuorela:
> On 2013-01-03, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>> (1) pkg-config files for libraries, in particular all those that ship
>> static libs, to be a
>> release goal for jessie.
>
> rather get rid of static libs.
We might want to extend static libraries with LTO data one day.
(We could eve
On 2013-01-03, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> (1) pkg-config files for libraries, in particular all those that ship
> static libs, to be a
> release goal for jessie.
rather get rid of static libs.
> It would be useful / interesting if pkg-config information could be used
> to generate dependencies
* Michael Stapelberg:
> Florian Weimer writes:
>> My main worry is that, for example, a fix in another, otherwise
>> unrelated dependency prompts a rebuild, and this picks up behavioral
>> changes which haven't been visible before, but lingering in the static
>> library. Essentially, we end up w
Hi Florian,
Florian Weimer writes:
> My main worry is that, for example, a fix in another, otherwise
> unrelated dependency prompts a rebuild, and this picks up behavioral
> changes which haven't been visible before, but lingering in the static
> library. Essentially, we end up with non-reproduc
On 2013-01-03 08:41, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 01:05:46PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
>>> - Private dependencies, as they leak to rdeps. When a library uses
>>> another library privately this dependency ge
Hi Reinhard,
Reinhard Tartler writes:
> Consider this from the application perspective: Say an application
> links against a library libfoo.a. At some point, libfoo decides to
> include compression support, and requires functionality from libz. No
> problem for the library package maintainer; he
* Wouter Verhelst:
> Strictly speaking, if you're only using static libraries this is not
> really true; once you've compiled something against a static library,
> the static library might change in whatever way it sees fit, the
> compiled binary will continue to work, with or without recompilatio
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:28:52AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > Package name: sun
> > Description : sun calculates the sun's rise/set times, the solar noon
> > and the daylight time duration
>
> This package apparently shares functionality with the redshift package
> already in De
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 03:54:06PM +0100, Steffen Vogel wrote:
> Package name: sun
> Version : 0.1
> Upstream Author : Steffen Vogel
> URL :
> http://www.steffenvogel.de/2012/12/23/cron-jobs-fur-sonnenauf-untergang/
> License : GPL
> Programming Lang: A
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 01:05:46PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> - Private dependencies, as they leak to rdeps. When a library uses
>> another library privately this dependency gets linked in directly
>> in all other rdeps,
Agustin Henze writes:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
>
>Package name: libjs-jquery-slides
> Version: 1.1.9
> Upstream Author: Nathan Searles
> URL: http://nathansearles.com
> License: Apache-2.0
> Description:
61 matches
Mail list logo
