Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Arnaud Rebillout
* Package name: golang-github-dmcgowan-go-tar
Version : 0.0~git20170718.2e2c512-1
Upstream Author : Derek McGowan
* URL : https://github.com/dmcgowan/go-tar
* License : BSD-3-clause
Programming Lang: Go
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 21 février 2018 07:07 +0100, Alexander Wirt :
>
> > No, backports doesn't have official security support in the meaning that
> > the team is tracking and looking after security issues in backports.
> > Nevertheless every backporter has to care abou
❦ 21 février 2018 07:07 +0100, Alexander Wirt :
> No, backports doesn't have official security support in the meaning that
> the team is tracking and looking after security issues in backports.
> Nevertheless every backporter has to care about security, we do expect that
> uploaders care about t
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 20 février 2018 09:05 +0200, Arto Jantunen :
>
> >> Moreover, backports do not accept security patches. You can only push a
> >> version in testing (or unstable). Notably, if the version in testing is
> >> not easily backportable (because of new de
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Arnaud Rebillout
* Package name: golang-github-stevvooe-ttrpc
Version : 0.0~git20180205.d452837-1
Upstream Author : Stephen Day
* URL : https://github.com/stevvooe/ttrpc
* License : Apache-2.0
Programming Lang: Go
Des
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:10 AM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> It's sometimes hard to explain why we need updated software...
Perhaps it helps to point out where Debian and users are placed in the
ecosystem of software, hardware, technology and society and the
pressures that each actor places on other act
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:27 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> And without security support for its dependencies, no reproducible build
> system, etc.
That isn't necessarily the case for Flatpak, it all depends on who is
doing the build and what their policies and procedures are.
--
bye,
pabs
https:
On 14954 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> - for ftpmasters, can we keep wheezy/updates on security.debian.org for
> one year more? (it might be possible to archive wheezy and drop it from
> the main mirror, that would be a clear sign to everybody that something
> important changed, and
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 22:42:46 +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > some of the LTS sponsors are looking to extend the support period of
> > Debian 7 Wheezy (from a few months up to a full year).
> >
> > Our question is whether this can be done on debian.org infrastructur
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> some of the LTS sponsors are looking to extend the support period of
> Debian 7 Wheezy (from a few months up to a full year).
>
> Our question is whether this can be done on debian.org infrastructure.
LTS has a clearly defined scope, while this is essentially contracting
w
If you have done a nontrivial merge of debian/patches/*, I'd like to
hear from you. This is because I have a theory about how this can be
done in a way that does not involve editing, or worse, resolving
conficts in, diffs.
I would like some test cases for experimenting with various algorithms
to
Philipp Kern dijo [Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 09:18:13AM +0100]:
> Putting security support over all else is surely how some people see it. But
> some upstreams also complain if you are going to ship ancient versions
> because the most recent ones contain all of the fixes. It's certainly more
> work to v
Raphael Hertzog dijo [Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 03:19:59PM +0100]:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2018, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> > > - we could relax our requirements and have a way to document the
> > > limitations of those packages (wrt our usual policies)
> >
> > Which requirements are you referri
Michael Meskes dijo [Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:44:40PM +0100]:
> > I'd strongly urge you to reconsider packaging this project, for
> > three main reasons:
> >
> > * It relies upon the external VPNGate.net site/service. If this
> > goes away in the lifetime of a stable Debian release users
Philipp Hahn writes (""apt-get source snappy" pulls Extra-Source-Only 1.1.4-1
in Debian-Stretch?"):
> today I encountered the strange situation, that Debian-Stretch
> officially has 1.1.3-3, but if I do a "apt-get source snappy" I get 1.1.4-1:
Andreas has answered your actual question, but I woul
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.general Philipp Hahn wrote:
> Hello APT developers,
> today I encountered the strange situation, that Debian-Stretch
> officially has 1.1.3-3, but if I do a "apt-get source snappy" I get 1.1.4-1:
[...]
> So how can I tell "apt-get source" to pull the "right" version,
Hello APT developers,
today I encountered the strange situation, that Debian-Stretch
officially has 1.1.3-3, but if I do a "apt-get source snappy" I get 1.1.4-1:
> $ LANG=C apt-get -d --print-uris source snappy
> Reading package lists... Done
> Need to get 1498 kB of source archives.
> 'http://de
Hi
How would you organize and call it in the wiki name space, ELTS,
extended LTS, LTS? Would you use the normal LTS name space and make no
difference? LTS is on the one side the name for the support after
oldstable and on the other side the general name for LTS and ELTS.
Greets
Jens Korte
Am Tu
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 04:02:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> You were talking about flatpak.
>
> The whole point of flatpak is that the same app is equally integrated
> in all Linux distributions.
And without security support for its dependencies, no reproducible build
system, etc.
Dᴏ ɴᴏᴛ ᴡᴀɴᴛ
[ Bcc to ftpmasters, wanna-build team, DSA team, LTS team, security team
to catch their attention ]
Hello,
some of the LTS sponsors are looking to extend the support period of
Debian 7 Wheezy (from a few months up to a full year). Some of the LTS
sponsors (notably Plat'Home, Toshiba) are also m
Hi all,
This e-mail isn't in reply to any specific e-mail in this thread but I
like to add some words that may or may not inspire others for ideas.
It is my intent to soon start working¹ on the Debian bikesheds (or
Debian's PPA). Depending on requirements and use cases we may be able to
use those
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:56:04AM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > > Right, and that's why we were talking about stuff like flatpak that
> > > bring the application with its dependencies, more or less like a
> > > container.
> >
> > That's a better solution for such cases than shipping the softwa
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: ro...@debian.org
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: node-acorn-node
Version : 1.3.0
Upstream Author : Renée Kooi
* URL : https://github.com/browserify/acorn-node
* License : Apache-2.0
Programmi
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 07:21:21PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> adequate has an incompatible-licenses tag that probably could be used
> for this. Just install all rdeps of cups and check all packages on the
> system with adequate.
piuparts.debian.org does this automatically (obviously only for stuff
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> I thought there might be something that could be done here.
adequate has an incompatible-licenses tag that probably could be used
for this. Just install all rdeps of cups and check all packages on the
system with adequate.
--
bye,
pabs
> > Right, and that's why we were talking about stuff like flatpak that
> > bring the application with its dependencies, more or less like a
> > container.
>
> That's a better solution for such cases than shipping the software
> in Debian.
>
> And it's distribution-agnostic, meaning it can be pro
On 19/02/2018 20:42, Michael Meskes wrote:=
>> Various other packages in stable won't work with the latest Node.js
>> and will also require upgrading.
>>
>> In the Node.js ecosystem it is par for the course when upgrading
>> a package breaks countless reverse dependencies.
> Right, and that's why
27 matches
Mail list logo
