Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sruthi Chandran
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: node-for-own
Version : 0.1.4
Upstream Author : Jon Schlinkert (https://github.com/jonschlinkert)
* URL : https://github.com/jonschlinkert/for-own
* Licen
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 04:02:48PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> How much effort is it to do an archive rebuild nowadays ? How studly
> a computer (or computers?) do I need.
A few outdated data points:
* a single cheap Odroid-U2 arm SoC needs 51 days
* a beefy crapload-cores, everything-in-RAM mach
Paul Wise writes ("Re: Rebuilds with unexpected timestamps"):
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Could someone point me at some tools, or volunteer to help, or something ?
>
> Check out the wiki page about this:
> https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/ArchiveTesting
Oh, gr
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 at 00:38:22 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The "hello" package still builds after you autoreconf the package,
> but the program no longer knows what version it is (automake tries to
> run build-aux/git-version-gen which is not in the source tarball).
I think that's an upstream bu
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 04:02:48PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>...
> Most of our packages use `make' or something like it. make relies on
> timestamps to decide what to rebuild. It seems that sometimes our
> source packages contain combinations of timestamps (and perhaps stamp
> files) which, in p
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Antti Järvinen
wrote:
> While patching -DOPENSSL_API_COMPAT=0x1010L will help a lot but
> code changes are still required in addition to this flag, many
> applications allocate OpenSSL data-structures in stack and this is not
> supported any more, regardless
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Christoph Ender
* Package name: fizmo-console
Version : 0.7.11
Upstream Author : Christoph Ender
* URL : https://fizmo.spellbreaker.org
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: C
Description : Console-based Z-machine in
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 06:28:41AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> A maintainer would then file "ITR: dasher" and wait for responses before
> requesting RM.
Why wouldn't you orphan first?
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Lev Lamberov
* Package name: elpa-beacon
Version : 1.3.2
Upstream Author : Artur Malabarba
* URL : https://github.com/Malabarba/beacon
* License : GPL-3+
Programming Lang: Emacs Lisp
Description : highlight the c
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Could someone point me at some tools, or volunteer to help, or something ?
Check out the wiki page about this:
https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/ArchiveTesting
> I ask because have found a new way to break packages :-).
Whee!
> What d
How much effort is it to do an archive rebuild nowadays ? How studly
a computer (or computers?) do I need. Could someone point me at some
tools, or volunteer to help, or something ?
I ask because have found a new way to break packages :-).
Most of our packages use `make' or something like it.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 819662 general
Bug #819662 [unknown] Deactivate laptop internal webcam when the LID is closed
Warning: Unknown package 'unknown'
Bug reassigned from package 'unknown' to 'general'.
No longer marked as found in versions unknown.
Ignoring r
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Christoph Ender
* Package name: libfizmo
Version : 0.7.13
Upstream Author : Christoph Ender
* URL : https://fizmo.spellbreaker.org
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: C
Description : Z-Machine interpreter library
Paul R. Tagliamonte writes ("Re: Autogenerated -dbgsym packages made my package
by REJECTed"):
> IIRC it will, it stores seen signature hashes
It did indeed. The error message suggested I re-sign the .changes, so
I did that and uploaded it again and now it has arrived safely in the
NEW queue.
T
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andreas Tille
* Package name: r-cran-backports
Version : 1.0.4
Upstream Author : Michel Lang
* URL : https://cran.r-project.org/package=backports
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: GNU-R
Description : reimplementa
> Well, most upstreams will want to support OpenSSL 1.0 for a little
> while longer (lots of other distributions are still on OpenSSL 1.0
> for the foreseeable future), so any patch that has a chance of
> getting accepted by most upstreams will still need to support 1.0
> as well as 1.1.
True, but
On 10/30/2016 11:03 AM, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:04:21PM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote:
>> Well, ideally it'll compile with both OpenSSL 1.0.2 and 1.1 and
>> therefore be binNMU-able. (This has the advantage that such a
>> patch is much more likely to get accepted by upstr
On 10/30/2016 06:28 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 02:24:20PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
>>
>>> we should have some way to query if anybody would object to a package's
>>> removal?
>>
>> We definitely need better ways to c
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:04:21PM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote:
> Well, ideally it'll compile with both OpenSSL 1.0.2 and 1.1 and
> therefore be binNMU-able. (This has the advantage that such a
> patch is much more likely to get accepted by upstream.) In that
> case you can upload a version that
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Suhail P
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: node-wcwidth.js
Version : 1.0.0
Upstream Author : Woong Jun (http://code.woong.org/)
* URL : http://code.woong.org/wcwidth.js
* License : Expat
Progr
20 matches
Mail list logo
