Hi,
Quoting Kurt Roeckx (2014-07-09 00:36:37)
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 01:51:00PM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > Kurt Roeckx
> >libtool
>
> ==> libtool_2.4.2-1.7.arch-all.unusedbd <==
> gfortran=4:4.8.2-4
>
> gfortran Depends on gfortran-4.8, and that is being used.
indeed this is the
[For the future, it's generally better to file bug reports about this
kind of thing. As luck would have it I manage to read -devel
occasionally ...]
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 02:21:12PM +0200, Heimo Stranner wrote:
> I use a self compiled linux kernel (make-kpkg) with a somewhat unusual
> name (/bo
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 06:22:49AM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek (2014-07-08 00:07:29)
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:14:44PM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > > Nevertheless, those "false positives" that were generated this way are
> > > still useful to be later marked w
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 01:51:00PM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx
>libtool
==> libtool_2.4.2-1.7.arch-all.unusedbd <==
gfortran=4:4.8.2-4
gfortran Depends on gfortran-4.8, and that is being used.
>openssl (U)
==> openssl_1.0.1g-4.arch-all.unusedbd <==
m4=1.4.17-4
>From th
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 03:57:20PM -0400, Eric Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 06:57:02AM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:31:12AM -0400, Eric Cooper wrote:
> > > Since Debian package names must already be unique, we ought to be able
> > > to leverage that to avo
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 06:57:02AM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:31:12AM -0400, Eric Cooper wrote:
> > Since Debian package names must already be unique, we ought to be able
> > to leverage that to avoid having to fight over which package gets to
> > claim which binary
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:31:12AM -0400, Eric Cooper wrote:
> Since Debian package names must already be unique, we ought to be able
> to leverage that to avoid having to fight over which package gets to
> claim which binary name.
>
> What about making it into a user's install-time decision,
> ra
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Harlan Lieberman-Berg"
* Package name: libnanomsg-raw-perl
Version : 0.02
Upstream Author : Florian Ragwitz
* URL : https://metacpan.org/pod/NanoMsg::Raw
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: Perl / XS
Description
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 05:18:21PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/08/2014 16:57, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > Of course, from there we would also need an APT repository from where to
> > actually get the uploaded packages. I remember a discussion about
> > turning the incoming locat
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le mardi 08 juillet 2014 à 11:31 -0400, Eric Cooper a écrit :
>> Since Debian package names must already be unique, we ought to be able
>> to leverage that to avoid having to fight over which package gets to
>> claim which binary name.
>>
>> What about making it into
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 09:43:02AM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Do you think I should fill bugs for all non-empty packages that were
> already found? Or do you think there is another high chance of false
> positives for that kind of packages too?
The only other likely sources of false positiv
Le mardi 08 juillet 2014 à 11:31 -0400, Eric Cooper a écrit :
> Since Debian package names must already be unique, we ought to be able
> to leverage that to avoid having to fight over which package gets to
> claim which binary name.
>
> What about making it into a user's install-time decision,
>
Le mardi 08 juillet 2014 à 09:04 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014, Eric Cooper wrote:
> > What about making it into a user's install-time decision, rather than
> > a developer's packaging-time decision?
>
> Any user who wants to can override the rename by using dpkg-divert.
Bu
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014, Eric Cooper wrote:
> What about making it into a user's install-time decision, rather than
> a developer's packaging-time decision?
Any user who wants to can override the rename by using dpkg-divert.
--
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
We were
Since Debian package names must already be unique, we ought to be able
to leverage that to avoid having to fight over which package gets to
claim which binary name.
What about making it into a user's install-time decision,
rather than a developer's packaging-time decision?
As a proof of concept,
Hi,
On 07/08/2014 16:57, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Of course, from there we would also need an APT repository from where to
> actually get the uploaded packages. I remember a discussion about
> turning the incoming location into a proper APT repository, but I don't
> know in which stage that effor
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 10:06:58AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had some workshop at LSM[1] and I was mentioning autopkgtest as new
> and interesting feature. To my astonishment the audience was not
> perfectly happy that it might last some time until a package test is
> performed and
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 03:06:14AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > How will it handle an existing value in that field? In the future, we
> > might have other forms of test suite, thus requiring different items in
> > the Testsuite: field. What happens when there is already
> >
> > Testsuite: fo
On 07/08/2014 02:19 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 11:16:37PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Unless I'm mistaking, there's no sign that the PHP license prevents
>> derivative work (even under a different license for your patch, if you
>> feel like it).
>
> It's my reading t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I use a self compiled linux kernel (make-kpkg) with a somewhat unusual
name (/boot/vmlinuz-3.15.4+ and /boot/initrd.img-3.15.4+) on debian sid.
It worked previously (sadly I can't be more precise here) but today
update-grub ran into a loop where
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 11:12:23PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 9:48 AM, costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Steffen and all,
> >
> > today while talking with a backbox project administrator I discovered that
> > popular tools such as openvas directly calls th
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sophie Brun
* Package name: lpctools
Version : 1.04
Upstream Author : Nathael Pajani
* URL : http://git.techno-innov.fr/?p=lpctools;a=summary
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : Interface to NXP LPC
Charles Plessy writes:
> Here the surprise would come only if there were a system that is set
> up for both the purpose of bioinformatics and security port scanning,
> without the users being aware that there can be one or the other
> alternative installed. I think that it is very unlikely.
I th
Hi Charles,
Quoting Charles Plessy (2014-07-08 13:24:34)
> We also have to consider that large multi-user, multi-purpose systems
> are becoming rare because it is easier to have virtual servers,
> chroots, and other container solutions. To the practical possibility
> of needing both programs a
Hi Charles,
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Here, both programs have narrow and non-overlaping user bases, and are
> not installed on fresh standard Debian systems.
>
> This said, you made a good point that one has to consider if programs
> can be accidentally called with root priviledges, and what wil
Hi Lars,
thanks for your well-argumented and detailed position on this subject. The
problems that you describe can be roughly summarised by “principle of least
surprise” and “slippery slope”. In this particular case, I quite disagree with
the first, but of course can not entirely dismiss the sec
Le mardi 08 juillet 2014 à 08:13 +0900, Norbert Preining a écrit :
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > If they don’t need any of the systemd features, I guess they don’t need
> > any of its reverse dependencies either.
>
> Rubbish. I want network-manager, but I don't want systemd.
Norbert Preining wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jul 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> If they donât need any of the systemd features, I guess they donât need
>> any of its reverse dependencies either.
>
>Rubbish. I want network-manager, but I don't want systemd.
I donât, but I want most KDE packages, so
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andreas Tille
* Package name: r-bioc-genomicalignments
Version : 1.0.2
Upstream Author : Hervè Pagès, Valerie Obenchain, Martin Morgan
* URL :
http://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/GenomicAlignments.html
* License
Hi,
I had some workshop at LSM[1] and I was mentioning autopkgtest as new
and interesting feature. To my astonishment the audience was not
perfectly happy that it might last some time until a package test is
performed and the developer gets some response. Since I think that the
person who raised
Hi,
Quoting Steve Langasek (2014-07-07 20:22:42)
> Ah. No, it only means that the package build does not *fail* if the
> build-dependency is removed. That is not the same thing as saying that the
> build-dependency is not used.
>
> It would of course be better if packages were resilient against
31 matches
Mail list logo
