Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sruthi Chandran
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: node-grunt-legacy-log
Version : 1.0.0
Upstream Author : "Cowboy" Ben Alman (http://benalman.com/)
* URL : http://gruntjs.com/
* License : Expat
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote...
> There are some relevant issues, here.
>
> 1. It does protect against passive snooping *from non-skilled
> attackers*.
Well, yes, no. The tools become better so thinking a few years into
the future sophisticated programs for that purpose might be available t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sruthi Chandran
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: node-grunt-legacy-util
Version : 1.0.0
Upstream Author : "Cowboy" Ben Alman (http://benalman.com/)
* URL : http://gruntjs.com/
* License : Expat
[adding debian-ruby]
On Sunday 23 October 2016 04:23 AM, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> jQuery 3.0 was release back in June, so in principle affected upstreams
> had at least a few months to deal with any fallout. If that's not the
> case, you can refer upstream to this upgrade guide, which documents t
On Nov 11 2016, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> b) This is a serious issue as John D. Rebuilder should be free to choose
>on which architecture to build "src:foo".
>
> Personally, I tend to b) since
>
> * there is no sane way for the maintainer to tell the world which
> architecture should be used
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Other suggestions?
Include information about which packages/issues you are talking about.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Hello,
it is the nature of an arch:all binary package it can be installed on
any architecture regardless on which architecture it has been build.
Given this I deduced I'm at liberty on which architecture I'd want to
rebuild such a package, but I saw disagreement. So I'm asking for
clarification:
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: 1002 (new: 20)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 154 (new: 1)
Total number of packages reque
On 2016-11-10 11:33, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois writes ("Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus"):
> > Ian Jackson (2016-11-09):
> > > What version of sbuild do buildds run ? Ie, supposing that this is
> > > fixed in sbuild in stretch, will this be fixed on the buildds ? Or do
> > > we n
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Scott Kitterman
* Package name: django-redis-sessions
Version : 0.5.6
Upstream Author : Martin Rusev
* URL : http://github.com/martinrusev/django-redis-sessions
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Python
Description
On Nov 10, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> I tried to build the experimental linux package on an armhf machine
> using sbuild. It failed (after 7 hours, sigh) with:
This looks like #843073.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hello,
I tried to build the experimental linux package on an armhf machine
using sbuild. It failed (after 7 hours, sigh) with:
dpkg-shlibdeps: error: no dependency information found for
/usr/lib/ld-linux-armhf.so.3 (used by
debian/linux-kbuild-4.9/usr/lib/linux-kbuild-4.9/scripts/pnmtol
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:39:40PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> I'd prefer if we enhanced apt transports to run a lot more protected
> (preferably under seccomp strict) before any such push for enabling
> https transports in apt. It would reduce the security impact a great
> deal.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Scott Kitterman
* Package name: django-wkhtmltopdf
Version : 3.1.0
Upstream Author : Incuna Ltd
* URL : https://github.com/incuna/django-wkhtmltopdf
* License : MIT/Expat
Programming Lang: Python
Description : Dj
(resending again to the correct addresses; I could never get used to debbugs CC
behaviour.)
Ximin Luo:
> Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> The date from the last sourceful upload should probably still be used
>> for any date/time information included in generated files to ensure
>> they are identical on
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Scott Kitterman
* Package name: django-organizations
Version : 0.8.2
Upstream Author : Ben Lopatin
* URL : https://github.com/bennylope/django-organizations/
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Python
Description :
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016, at 00:28, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The value of HTTPS lies in its protection against passive snooping.
There are some relevant issues, here.
1. It does protect against passive snooping *from non-skilled
attackers*. And this is not being made anywhere clear enough.
2. It is u
Hi,
Quoting Niko Tyni (2016-11-10 10:01:38)
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:34:33AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > can someone please point at a real life/archive example of such a file?
> > (a binNMU .changes file with Binary-Only-Changes field…)
>
> That's in the .buildinfo file (not .changes), a
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: DEP14 policy for two dots"):
> > Ok, can you prepare a patch for DEP-14 then? I'll apply it as it looks like
> > a reasonable extension.
>
> Attached. FYI I intend to implement this in dgit.
Thanks, committed to the dep svn r
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 843891 akonadi
Bug #843891 [general] general: mySQL update killed akonadi configuration and
leaves Kmail and KOrganizer and Adressbook unusable
Bug reassigned from package 'general' to 'akonadi'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions
Package: general
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
the mySQL update killed the akonadi configuration and leaves Kmail and
KOrganizer and Adressbook unusable.
i report this to general, for the simple fact, that someone should have checked
in general that this update does not kill importat work
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Scott Kitterman
* Package name: django-maintenancemode
Version : 0.11.2
Upstream Author : Remco Wendt
* URL : http://github.com/shanx/django-maintenancemode
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Python
Description :
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 11:33 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois writes ("Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus"):
> > Ian Jackson (2016-11-09):
> > > What version of sbuild do buildds run ? Ie, supposing that this
> > > is
> > > fixed in sbuild in stretch, will this be fixed on the buildds
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:59:48AM -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> One solution would be to increase SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH by 1 second for every
> binNMU to a package.
>
> Any other ideas?
set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH to the creation time of that changelog.$arch
entry?
--
cheers,
Holger
signat
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:34:33AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:24:38AM -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > > I certainly hope it's part of the .buildinfo file as well, else, for
> > > reproducing binNMUs we would also need to store the .changes files in an
> > > easily a
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
--- Please fill out the fields below. ---
Package name: python-ramlfications
Version: 0.1.9
Upstream Author: Lynn Root, Spotify AB
URL: https://github.com/spotify/ramlfications
License: Apa
Cyril Brulebois writes ("Re: misleading timestamps in binnmus"):
> Ian Jackson (2016-11-09):
> > What version of sbuild do buildds run ? Ie, supposing that this is
> > fixed in sbuild in stretch, will this be fixed on the buildds ? Or do
> > we need to update jessie, or what ?
>
> sbuild on bui
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 10:34 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I'm still confused, thinking that this Binary-Only-Changes field needs
> to be assembled into a file, called changelog.$arch, which is then put
> into the debian directory of the unpacked source package. (And which is
> then not included in
Hi,
Quoting Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (2016-11-10 07:04:55)
> On 10/11/16 10:00, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > The date from the last sourceful upload should probably still be used
> > for any date/time information included in generated files to ensure
> > they are identical on all architectures (or at
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:24:38AM -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > I certainly hope it's part of the .buildinfo file as well, else, for
> > reproducing binNMUs we would also need to store the .changes files in an
> > easily accessable manner… (which we plan to do for .buildinfo files, but
> > no
Hi,
Quoiting Holger Levsen (2016-11-10 07:48:33)
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > > I see. And this changelog.$arch is neither part of the source package,
> > > the .changes file nor the .buildinfo file, it's just included in the
> > > binary packages?
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > I see. And this changelog.$arch is neither part of the source package,
> > the .changes file nor the .buildinfo file, it's just included in the
> > binary packages? Or is it also part of the .changes file?
> It's in .change
On 10/11/16 10:33, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:01:55AM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> These days, a changelog entry is added to a changelog.$arch. This is to avoid
>> problems when co-installing ma:same packages, as the changelog entries
>> will/may
>> differ between
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:01:55AM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> These days, a changelog entry is added to a changelog.$arch. This is to avoid
> problems when co-installing ma:same packages, as the changelog entries
> will/may
> differ between different architectures.
I see. And this cha
On 10/11/16 08:26, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Ian Jackson wrote...
>
>> I think what is really worrying people is the fear that they might
>> miss something, for good reasons, and then find that their work that
>> they care about is thrown out of stretch.
>>
>> It is difficult to address this fear w
On 2016-11-10 10:00 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> The date from the last sourceful upload should probably still be used
> for any date/time information included in generated files to ensure
> they are identical on all architectures (or at least to try to do so).
>
> If you change the date in th
On 10/11/16 10:00, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 10:04 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> On 2016-11-08 22:30 -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
>>> It seems that sbuild indeed re-uses the timestamp from the last
>>> debian/changelog entry in the binNMU changelog entry.
>>
>> This has been
On 10/11/16 00:53, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 10:41:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Is this a recommended recipe ? AIUI a buildd doing a binnmu will not
>> modify the debian/changelog file.
>
> Are you sure? When last I checked, this was not true (it may have
> changed sin
On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 10:04 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2016-11-08 22:30 -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > It seems that sbuild indeed re-uses the timestamp from the last
> > debian/changelog entry in the binNMU changelog entry.
>
> This has been done in an early attempt to make binNMUs co-in
39 matches
Mail list logo
