Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> I've just noticed that cacert.org certificates was removed from
> "ca-certificates" a month ago. From changelog [1]:
>* No longer ship cacert.org certificates. Closes: #718434, LP: #1258286
[...]
FWIW there is an article about it on
http://lwn.net/Articles/590879/
c
On 23 March 2014 17:30, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> - Wrong key used for signing. Make sure you use the one in the
>Debian keyring.
>
It looks good to me. Oh wait, thought I checked, but seems I somehow used
my old key.
Will retry. Thanks.
--
Brian May
Hi,
Brian May writes:
> Yesterday I uploaded the latest version of dar to Debian, using dput.
The log for queued says:
Mar 22 02:44:41 /dar_2.4.12-1_amd64.changes has bad PGP/GnuPG signature!
As we don't keep files with bad signatures, I cannot tell what was wrong
in this case, but the usual pr
I've just noticed that cacert.org certificates was removed from
"ca-certificates" a month ago. From changelog [1]:
* No longer ship cacert.org certificates. Closes: #718434, LP: #1258286
I'm disappointed by this decision and from #718434 I don't get
a clear picture what is wrong with cacert.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 01:50:16AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Russ Allbery, le Sat 22 Mar 2014 17:12:49 -0700, a écrit :
> > Samuel Thibault writes:
> > > Steve Langasek, le Sat 22 Mar 2014 12:43:56 -0700, a écrit :
> > >> Um, no, build-depending on virtual packages is absolutely allowed.
>
Le Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 04:07:33PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> Hi Guillem and everybody,
>
> I agree with your suggestions.
>
> If there are no further comments I will submit the media type after
> correcting the points below.
For the record, here is the latest version.
Have a nice day,
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014, peter green wrote:
> Also ECDSA shares with DSA the serious disadvantage over RSA that
> making signatures on a system with a broken RNG can reveal the key.
I believe that we should avoid ECDSA gnupg keys and subkeys like the plague
for the time being.
You'd most likely get E
Samuel Thibault writes:
> Russ Allbery, le Sat 22 Mar 2014 17:12:49 -0700, a écrit :
>> Only if there is more than one package providing the same virtual
>> package. If there is only one, the buildds will pick that one.
> I don't think so.
See how libjpeg-dev has been handled for some time.
>
Russ Allbery, le Sat 22 Mar 2014 17:12:49 -0700, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault writes:
> > Steve Langasek, le Sat 22 Mar 2014 12:43:56 -0700, a écrit :
>
> >> Um, no, build-depending on virtual packages is absolutely allowed.
>
> > Yes, but something has to make the buildd pick up one package whic
Yesterday I uploaded the latest version of dar to Debian, using dput.
brian@falidae:~/tree/debian/dar/dar-2.4.12$ cat
../dar_2.4.5.debian.1-1_amd64.ftp-master.upload
Successfully uploaded dar_2.4.5.debian.1-1.dsc to ftp.upload.debian.org for
ftp-master.
Successfully uploaded dar_2.4.5.debian.1.ori
Samuel Thibault writes:
> Steve Langasek, le Sat 22 Mar 2014 12:43:56 -0700, a écrit :
>> Um, no, build-depending on virtual packages is absolutely allowed.
> Yes, but something has to make the buildd pick up one package which
> provides it. It won't decide by itself which one to choose.
Only
Steve Langasek, le Sat 22 Mar 2014 12:43:56 -0700, a écrit :
> Um, no, build-depending on virtual packages is absolutely allowed.
Yes, but something has to make the buildd pick up one package which
provides it. It won't decide by itself which one to choose.
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jelmer Vernooij
* Package name: golang-testify-dev
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : Mat Ryer and Tyler Bunnel
* URL : http://github.com/stretchr/testify
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Go
Description : A sacred e
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 01:11:10PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> The following packages have been in BD-Uninstallable buildd state for a
> very long time. This is because they build-depend on the libphobos-dev
> virtual package instead of an actual package such as libphobos-4.4-dev
> or libphobos
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 14:40:20 +0100, Peter De Wachter wrote:
> On 22-03-14 13:11, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The following packages have been in BD-Uninstallable buildd state for a
> > very long time. This is because they build-depend on the libphobos-dev
> > virtual package inst
Peter De Wachter, le Sat 22 Mar 2014 14:40:20 +0100, a écrit :
> GDC is build on all architectures but Phobos
> currently only works on x86. (I believe ARM support is coming soon.)
Would it also work on x86 kfreebsd & hurd?
> All these packages have:
> Depends: gdc, libphobos-dev
>
> This wo
On 22-03-14 13:11, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The following packages have been in BD-Uninstallable buildd state for a
> very long time. This is because they build-depend on the libphobos-dev
> virtual package instead of an actual package such as libphobos-4.4-dev
> or libphobos-4.8-dev.
I
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:00:12PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>>> I thought about it a bit, and i'm not sure it's an information every
>>> bug report should have. I suspect there are few packages which are
>>> directly impacted by the possible different init system Debian has,
I think it should
Hello,
The following packages have been in BD-Uninstallable buildd state for a
very long time. This is because they build-depend on the libphobos-dev
virtual package instead of an actual package such as libphobos-4.4-dev
or libphobos-4.8-dev. These packages want to rather build-depend on
libphobo
19 matches
Mail list logo
