Bug#1041684: ITP: not-ocamlfind -- front-end to ocamlfind to add a few new commands

2023-07-21 Thread Stéphane Glondu
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Stéphane Glondu X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-ocaml-ma...@lists.debian.org * Package name: not-ocamlfind Version : 0.10 Upstream Contact: Chet Murthy * URL : https://github.com/chetmurthy/not-ocamlfind * Lic

Re: proposal: dhcpcd-base as standard DHCP client starting with Trixie

2023-07-21 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:06:57PM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote: > However, there are some significant disadvantages to netplan: > 1) It's an extra layer. You can ignore it when reading the config (at > least if you aren't too surprised by your config ending up in /run). > But it is extra complexity,

Re: 64-bit time_t: an update

2023-07-21 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 12:30:50AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 14:27:21 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > to understand the impact that a change to the size of > > time_t will have on a library's ABI, it must be possible to compile the > > headers that expose that API > Wo

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

2023-07-21 Thread Seth Arnold
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 09:49:48AM +, Bastien Roucariès wrote: > I vaguely remember that someone implement a fuse over uml (user space linux) A similar tool is libguestfs's guestmount tool: https://www.libguestfs.org/guestfs-faq.1.html#why-don-t-you-do-everything-through-the-fuse-filesystem-in

Bug#1041668: ITP: hintview -- Program to view HINT files

2023-07-21 Thread Hilmar Preusse
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Hilmar Preusse X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name: hintview Version : 1.3.1 Upstream Contact: Martin Ruckert * URL : https://hint.userweb.mwn.de/ * License : MIT/X Programming Lang: C Descript

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

2023-07-21 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 10:55:39AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > Unless somebody has a better idea then then my plan is to ship in the > next upload of kmod a file in /etc/modprobe.d/ which uses the blacklist > directive to prevent automatically loading some file system modules. I think this wou

Bug#1041643: ITP: ktls-utils -- TLS handshake utilities for in-kernel TLS consumers

2023-07-21 Thread Ben Hutchings
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Ben Hutchings X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-ker...@lists.debian.org, Steve Dickson , Chuck Lever III * Package name: ktls-utils Version : 0.9 Upstream Contact: kernel-tls-handsh...@lists.linux.dev * URL :

Re: /usr-merge: continuous archive analysis

2023-07-21 Thread Helmut Grohne
Hi, TL;DR: dpkg-statoverride detection cannot be automated, but there are only 5 affected packages. On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 03:34:38PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > * DEP17-P5: dpkg-statoverrides not matching the files shipped. >Possibly, I can extend dumat to cover unconditional statoverrid

Re: How do you cause a re-run of autopkgtests?

2023-07-21 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 21-07-2023 14:20, David Kalnischkies wrote: How is this to be done? Should some automated mechanism for achieving this be added, and if so, where? You already found the retry button from previous replies, but you don't have to click it to get what you want… The migration software of

Re: How do you cause a re-run of autopkgtests?

2023-07-21 Thread David Kalnischkies
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 05:57:23AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > But I see no mechanism for interacting with autopkgtests to force them > to re-run due to the remedy of a defect in the test harness itself. > > How is this to be done? Should some automated mechanism for achieving > this be a

Re: How do you cause a re-run of autopkgtests?

2023-07-21 Thread G. Branden Robinson
At 2023-07-21T13:43:05+0200, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: > On 7/21/23 12:57, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > But I see no mechanism for interacting with autopkgtests to force > > them to re-run due to the remedy of a defect in the test harness > > itself. > > > > How i

Re: How do you cause a re-run of autopkgtests?

2023-07-21 Thread Debian/GNU
On 7/21/23 12:57, G. Branden Robinson wrote: Hi folks, But I see no mechanism for interacting with autopkgtests to force them to re-run due to the remedy of a defect in the test harness itself. How is this to be done? you mean, apart from clicking on the ♻ retry icon? (you probably have to b

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

2023-07-21 Thread Bastien Roucariès
Le vendredi 21 juillet 2023, 10:28:00 UTC Bastien Roucariès a écrit : > Le vendredi 21 juillet 2023, 10:17:13 UTC Marco d'Itri a écrit : > > On Jul 21, Bastien Roucariès wrote: > > > > > Ok found it call mountlo outdated > > > will need a small patch for linux uml, but may be worthwhile > > > La

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

2023-07-21 Thread Bastien Roucariès
Le vendredi 21 juillet 2023, 10:52:17 UTC Bastien Roucariès a écrit : > Le vendredi 21 juillet 2023, 08:55:39 UTC Marco d'Itri a écrit : > > efs > https://pypi.org/project/qnxmount/ claim to mount it. Check > > hfs > https://github.com/0x09/hfsfuse Corrected not supported by this package may be emu

How do you cause a re-run of autopkgtests?

2023-07-21 Thread G. Branden Robinson
Hi folks, Regarding: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/groff ...progress of groff into testing is blocked because autopkgtests went bonkers, failing on every architecture. This was due to a change in a groff diagnostic message not getting scraped away by dgit, which was using a regex to match the

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

2023-07-21 Thread Bastien Roucariès
Le vendredi 21 juillet 2023, 08:55:39 UTC Marco d'Itri a écrit : > efs https://pypi.org/project/qnxmount/ claim to mount it. Check > hfs https://github.com/0x09/hfsfuse > hfaplus https://github.com/0x09/hfsfuse > qnx6 Fuse ro filesystem https://pypi.org/project/qnxmount/ better support then kernel

Bug#1041610: ITP: iotas -- Simple mobile-friendly note taking application

2023-07-21 Thread Arnaud Ferraris
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Arnaud Ferraris X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, aferra...@debian.org * Package name: iotas Version : 0.2.1 Upstream Contact: Chris Heywood * URL : https://gitlab.gnome.org/cheywood/iotas * License : GPL Pro

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

2023-07-21 Thread Bastien Roucariès
Le vendredi 21 juillet 2023, 10:17:13 UTC Marco d'Itri a écrit : > On Jul 21, Bastien Roucariès wrote: > > > Ok found it call mountlo outdated > > will need a small patch for linux uml, but may be worthwhile > > Last version seems to be outdated 0.6 and carried by slitaz distribution. > > May be

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

2023-07-21 Thread Bastien Roucariès
Le vendredi 21 juillet 2023, 09:49:48 UTC Bastien Roucariès a écrit : > Le vendredi 21 juillet 2023, 08:20:12 UTC Matthew Garrett a écrit : > Hi > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 07:56:12PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > Package: src:linux > > > Severity: normal > > > > > > You are totally correct. >

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

2023-07-21 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Jul 21, Bastien Roucariès wrote: > Ok found it call mountlo outdated > will need a small patch for linux uml, but may be worthwhile > Last version seems to be outdated 0.6 and carried by slitaz distribution. > May be time to revive it It looks like a good long term solution, but as long as th

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

2023-07-21 Thread Bastien Roucariès
Le vendredi 21 juillet 2023, 09:49:48 UTC Bastien Roucariès a écrit : > Le vendredi 21 juillet 2023, 08:20:12 UTC Matthew Garrett a écrit : > Hi > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 07:56:12PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > Package: src:linux > > > Severity: normal > > > > > > You are totally correct. >

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

2023-07-21 Thread Martin Steigerwald
Hi Marco, hi, Marco d'Itri - 21.07.23, 10:55:39 CEST: > On Jul 21, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > You are totally correct. > > > Kernel team, please blacklist HFS/HFS+ for automounting. > > > > Isn't this a userland policy decision? udisks will happily trigger a > > module load for hfsplus if udev

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

2023-07-21 Thread Bastien Roucariès
Le vendredi 21 juillet 2023, 08:20:12 UTC Matthew Garrett a écrit : Hi > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 07:56:12PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > Package: src:linux > > Severity: normal > > > > You are totally correct. > > Kernel team, please blacklist HFS/HFS+ for automounting. > > Isn't this a userlan

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

2023-07-21 Thread Magissia
If an official procedure to disable the driver completely is documented and hosted from an official debian server it would be, in my opinion, an acceptable solution. Users would have a copy-pastable procedure to disable HFS if the risk is intolerable to them, sysadmin would have an official page t

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

2023-07-21 Thread Magissia
Looks reasonable. Le vendredi 21 juillet 2023 à 10:55 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > On Jul 21, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > You are totally correct. > > > Kernel team, please blacklist HFS/HFS+ for automounting. > > > > Isn't this a userland policy decision? udisks will happily trigger > >

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

2023-07-21 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Jul 21, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > You are totally correct. > > Kernel team, please blacklist HFS/HFS+ for automounting. > Isn't this a userland policy decision? udisks will happily trigger a > module load for hfsplus if udev has identified it, and I don't think > there's a trivial mechanism

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

2023-07-21 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 07:56:12PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > Package: src:linux > Severity: normal > > You are totally correct. > Kernel team, please blacklist HFS/HFS+ for automounting. Isn't this a userland policy decision? udisks will happily trigger a module load for hfsplus if udev has i