Re: No processing/acceptance from dak for some packages?

Nilesh Patra writes: > This looks just... weird. Would someone know why this happens? Someone uploaded a broken .changes file that had different sizes for the same file: +--- | Checksums-Sha256: | [...] | 209dda5709e1a67eab2762013136adc7c3b6977a17a7e3d8a12f5b2c27569875 156580 [...] | Files: |

No processing/acceptance from dak for some packages?

Hi, I have been trying to upload yaggo 1.5.10-5 for more than 12 hours by now. And I have done this several times by now[look here] It gets to the ftp upload server, sits there for a while, and vanishes eventually. There is however no further processing, neither accept, nor reject. I however, t

Re: Slower/no acceptance from dak?

On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 03:11:09AM +0530, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: > I've been facing issues with the acceptance emails for a while and was > wondering if it's known or something, so asking here. AFAIK, nothing is known. > I've uploaded a couple of packages to unstable a while ago but that > didn't m

Slower/no acceptance from dak?

Hello, I've been facing issues with the acceptance emails for a while and was wondering if it's known or something, so asking here. I've uploaded a couple of packages to unstable a while ago but that didn't make it through (at least that's what it looks like). Neither did I get the acceptance mai

Bug#966530: dak: Please CC WNPP bug in reject mails

ld imagine that dak could parse d/changelog for a WNPP bug that is closed by the upload and add it automatically to the mail header. Hint: Some UDD parsers contain code to parse a bug number from the latest changelog paragraph. I'd volunteer to extract this code and attach to this bug repor

Re: distributing .buildinfo files (Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master)

litting as in the regular pool. For the former just > pushing the content through static.d.o should work and dak could push > the content before pushing the mirrors? > > Intuitively I would not care about cryptographic authentication of the > data. After all it can be verified by reb

Re: distributing .buildinfo files (Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master)

for a newly pushed package. * Some way of actually deducing the path to the buildinfo file, either through some sort of redirector or by naming the files in a consistent fashion. Right now the second point does not work with the date-based farm that is used to archive the buildinfo files. It would w

Re: distributing .buildinfo files (Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master)

On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 11:40:53AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > Git is an interesting thought for incremental mirroring. But then it also > seems to be a poor choice for something that is an only growing repository > of data. the nice thing with git is that you get a signed tree for free (or rathe

Re: distributing .buildinfo files (Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master)

On 2017-09-02 23:48, Holger Levsen wrote: On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 07:23:29PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > Not yet. We people from the reproducible team couldn't find a way to > usefully talk to ftp-masters people, whom never replied to any of the > questions in the thread at #763822 (they only

Re: distributing .buildinfo files (Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master)

On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 21:48 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > > So I suppose we talk about 13 GB[1] of static content in about 1.7M > > files. Is that something that could be distributed through > > static.debian.org if there are concerns around inodes for the main > > mirrors? Given that they would b

distributing .buildinfo files (Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master)

On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 07:23:29PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > Not yet. We people from the reproducible team couldn't find a way to > > usefully talk to ftp-masters people, whom never replied to any of the > > questions in the thread at #763822 (they only did some quick comments on > > IRC, and

Lintian auto-reject changes in dak

.org" BTS pseudo- package. You can read more about Lintian autorejects on the ftpmaster webpages [4].) [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-dak/2017/08/msg5.html [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=873489 [2] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/reproducib

Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

On 12 Jul 2017, at 10:30, Ian Jackson wrote: > James Clarke writes ("Re: Bad interaction between > pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on > security-master"): >> Having the _amd64.buildinfo included in a _source.changes created by >> dpkg-ge

Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

James Clarke writes ("Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master"): > On 12 Jul 2017, at 10:30, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Wait, what ? You're telling me that dpkg-genchanges will pick up > > random .buil

Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

James Clarke writes ("Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master"): > Having the _amd64.buildinfo included in a _source.changes created by > dpkg-genchanges -S in a tree which has done a source+binary build is an &g

Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

James Clarke dixit: >file for an amd64 build. Uploading a source-only changes file called >_amd64.changes has been done many times in the past (and used to be what you >would get with pbuilder pre-stretch) and never posed an issue, I guess because >the .changes files were thrown away(?), though I

Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

On Sun, 2017-07-09 at 15:41 +0100, James Clarke wrote: > Now, the issue here is not its presence, but its > name; however, I'd argue this is the correct name for it; it *is* a buildinfo > file for an amd64 build. And that has little to do with what ends up in the archive, unlike o

Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

On Sun, 2017-07-09 at 15:41 +0100, James Clarke wrote: >  You've done the build, so by uploading the _amd64.buildinfo > you are announcing that you were able to produce those build results in the > specified environment, and in theory it allows anyone to compare the buildd's > results to what you c

Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

the .changes files were thrown away(?), though I seem to recall in some cases there were issues? Anyway, I don't especially care whether the _amd64.buildinfo gets renamed (copied) by dpkg-genchanges -S, or whether dak is fixed to allow multiple buildinfo files for the same arch (maybe renamin

Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

On Mon, 2017-07-03 at 20:49 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > On Mon, 2017-07-03 at 19:06 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 07:00:20PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > > [ Correcting ftp-master's email address, but keeping the large list of > > > recipients for some reason. ] >

Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

On Mon, 2017-07-03 at 19:06 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 07:00:20PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > [ Correcting ftp-master's email address, but keeping the large list of > > recipients for some reason. ] > > really…  that's just a ftp-master issue IMHO, definitely not due

Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

On 07/03/2017 07:06 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 07:00:20PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: >> [ Correcting ftp-master's email address, but keeping the large list of >> recipients for some reason. ] > > really… that's just a ftp-master issue IMHO, definitely not due to > debhelp

Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 07:00:20PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > [ Correcting ftp-master's email address, but keeping the large list of > recipients for some reason. ] really… that's just a ftp-master issue IMHO, definitely not due to debhelper much less by pbuilder… > Is the buildinfo actually p

Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

[ Correcting ftp-master's email address, but keeping the large list of recipients for some reason. ] On 2017-07-03 16:00, Ian Jackson wrote: Yves-Alexis Perez writes ("Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master"): Howe

Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

Yves-Alexis Perez writes ("Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master"): > However, I recently did that for an upload targeted at stretch-security, and > unfortunately this caused a problem on security-master, where dak co

Re: Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

> > However, I recently did that for an upload targeted at stretch-security, and > unfortunately this caused a problem on security-master, where dak couldn't > process the build by the amd64 autobuilder because an _amd64.buildinfo file > was already present. It was part of my upload be

Bad interaction between pbuilder/debhelper/dpkg-buildinfo/dpkg-genchanges and dak on security-master

recently did that for an upload targeted at stretch-security, and unfortunately this caused a problem on security-master, where dak couldn't process the build by the amd64 autobuilder because an _amd64.buildinfo file was already present. It was part of my upload because it was included i

Re: Database of all (historic) package versions - dak?

On 14640 March 1977, Philipp Hahn wrote: > I guess would work, but I'm denied > login permission on "mirror.ftp-master.debian.org". Projectb does noit have what you want. -- bye, Joerg

Re: Database of all (historic) package versions - dak?

Paul Wise wrote: >On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Philipp Hahn wrote: > >> do we (or someone else) have a database of all (source-)packages and >> their versions ever released in a Debian suite? > >snapshot.d.o is approximately that, but it doesn't have everything: > >http://snapshot.debian.org/ >

Re: Database of all (historic) package versions - dak?

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Philipp Hahn wrote: > do we (or someone else) have a database of all (source-)packages and > their versions ever released in a Debian suite? snapshot.d.o is approximately that, but it doesn't have everything: http://snapshot.debian.org/ You can interact with it

Database of all (historic) package versions - dak?

Hello, do we (or someone else) have a database of all (source-)packages and their versions ever released in a Debian suite? I'm interested in all point releases and also historic suites. For example

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On 09/21/2015 06:12 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >>> (It seems they are implicitly considered a master when updating the >>> bikeshed's ACLs) I would have thought "Owner:" would make more sense >>> than "Master:" fwiw. >> >> Then you end up having

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:14:04PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:39:19PM +0200, Jeffrey Ratcliffe wrote: > > > > Has anyone mentioned git? > > No, nor split. > biff ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biff#Origin_and_name ) Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten l

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:39:19PM +0200, Jeffrey Ratcliffe wrote: > On 23 September 2015 at 00:16, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; umount > > ; sleep > > Has anyone mentioned git? No, nor split. -- "If you're not careful, the new

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On 09/17/2015 05:41 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Hi, On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Please check if I forgot something obvious or if there is some big error in it. Patches/git trees to merge from/... are welcome. Please don't call this feature "Bikesheds" and don't hardcode this nami

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On 23 September 2015 at 00:16, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; umount ; > sleep Has anyone mentioned git? Jeff

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 06:52:41PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Robert Edmonds , 2015-09-17, 15:04: > >Wookey wrote: > [...] > >>Bikeshed is an appropriate name, in the unix tradition of mildly > >>amusing/punny names. > > > >Which tradition would that be? > > > >Out of the few hundred or so Unix [

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:58:15 +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 06:41:53PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > * Joerg Jaspert , 2015-09-17, 13:42: > > >I defined the possible commands for the upcoming bikeshed feature, > > > > It's the first time I hear about the "bikeshed featur

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 06:41:53PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Joerg Jaspert , 2015-09-17, 13:42: > >I defined the possible commands for the upcoming bikeshed feature, > > It's the first time I hear about the "bikeshed feature". Perhaps you should > explain the term first. > > (Believe it or not

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On 14071 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote: >> > For the "Master" and "Uploader" fields, it would probably be nice if >> > you could specify DDs by uid instead of just fingerprint. (Especially >> > so that updates to the keyring were automatically reflected in bikeshed >> > permissions) >> Fingerprin

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

Hi, On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > (It seems they are implicitly considered a master when updating the > > bikeshed's ACLs) I would have thought "Owner:" would make more sense > > than "Master:" fwiw. > > Then you end up having multiple owners. Master IMO shows better what the > in

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 03:48:24PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > That's unusual. Is having multiple packages on a single header also > > valid? eg: > > Package: glibc, systemd, sysvinit > > ? > I think it's cleaner to have one per package tag, but its either that or > only one line, comma-seper

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On 14070 March 1977, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 03:48:24PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> I've updated https://ftp-master.debian.org/users/joerg/README.commands> with >> hopefully not too many new errors. :) > Minor nit (assuming I've got the naming convention right). Tha

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 03:48:24PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > I've updated https://ftp-master.debian.org/users/joerg/README.commands > with hopefully not too many new errors. :) Minor nit (assuming I've got the naming convention right). --- README.commands.orig2015-09-20 17:33:11.75259

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On 09/18/2015 02:51 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 01:29:22PM +0100, Wookey wrote: >> +++ Colin Tuckley [2015-09-18 12:22 +0100]: >>> We certainly (imho) don't want anything in Debian given that description >> >> >> >> Oh yes we do! >> >> > > Should we leave this naming to t

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

filename have to correspond to the signing > key? Ditto the Uploader: field? Dito. > ] This file has to be uploaded to ftp.upload.debian.org. > I presume dak-commands will be queue-able if anyone updates > queued? There's nothing fundamental preventing it, right? Correct.

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

ly matter, or is it just convention though? ] The file needs to be signed by a valid key from the Debian uploader ] keyrings. Does the $login in the filename have to correspond to the signing key? Ditto the Uploader: field? ] This file has to be uploaded to ftp.upload.debian.org. I presume dak-

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

Le jeudi 17 septembre 2015 à 13:42 +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit : > https://ftp-master.debian.org/users/joerg/README.commands Thanks for the documentation (and for the code!). How do you upload a package to a bikeshed? Just set bs-whatever as the suite in the changes file? -- .''`. Joss

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

Hi, Philip Hands wrote: > Colin Tuckley writes: > > > On 18/09/15 22:23, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > >> what the heck bikesheds are. > > > > What you seem to not be understanding, possibly because English is not > > your first language, is that anything associated with the term > > 'bikeshed' is

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 17/09/15 at 15:04 -0400, Robert Edmonds wrote: > > Wookey wrote: > > > +++ Raphael Hertzog [2015-09-17 14:41 +0200]: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > > > Please check if I forgot something obvious or if there is some big > > >

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On 17/09/15 at 15:04 -0400, Robert Edmonds wrote: > Wookey wrote: > > +++ Raphael Hertzog [2015-09-17 14:41 +0200]: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > > Please check if I forgot something obvious or if there is some big error > > > > in it. Patches/git trees to m

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

Colin Tuckley writes: > On 18/09/15 22:23, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > >> what the heck bikesheds are. > > What you seem to not be understanding, possibly because English is not > your first language, is that anything associated with the term > 'bikeshed' is very *negative*. > > They have strong derog

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On 18/09/15 22:23, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > what the heck bikesheds are. What you seem to not be understanding, possibly because English is not your first language, is that anything associated with the term 'bikeshed' is very *negative*. They have strong derogatory connotations, so much so that I

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

here what the heck bikesheds are. Some people know it from being at DebConf or watching the videos, but thats hardly all of -devel/-dak, so here it goes: Bikesheds are personal suites in an archive provided by the FTPMasters. They have initially been described in [1] and a only slightly mo

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On 14068 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote: > It's a lovely joke but unfortunately the word `bikeshed' already means > something else in a computer/geeky context. So these things > shouldn't be called bikesheds for the same reason that a computer > shouldn't be called `down' or `internet'. > If we wan

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

+++ Jakub Wilk [2015-09-18 18:52 +0200]: > * Robert Edmonds , 2015-09-17, 15:04: > >Wookey wrote: > "less" & "most" (most is great and hardly ever installed on a random box, which is a pity. Try it.) Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

* Robert Edmonds , 2015-09-17, 15:04: Wookey wrote: [...] Bikeshed is an appropriate name, in the unix tradition of mildly amusing/punny names. Which tradition would that be? Out of the few hundred or so Unix [0] and GNU [1] commands listed on Wikipedia, the only vaguely amusing/punning nam

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

* Joerg Jaspert , 2015-09-17, 13:42: I defined the possible commands for the upcoming bikeshed feature, It's the first time I hear about the "bikeshed feature". Perhaps you should explain the term first. (Believe it or not, most debian-devel readers were not at DebConf.) But whatever it's s

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

* Lars Wirzenius , 2015-09-18, 15:51: Should we leave this naming to the people actually doing the work to implement this? Indeed! It's a fundamental rule of Debian do-o-cracy that you should never listen to people who are not doing the work, as they can't possibly be right about anything.

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On Sep 18 2015, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 01:29:22PM +0100, Wookey wrote: >> +++ Colin Tuckley [2015-09-18 12:22 +0100]: >> > We certainly (imho) don't want anything in Debian given that description >> >> >> >> Oh yes we do! >> >> > > Should we leave this naming to the p

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On 2015-09-18 14:03:17 +0100 (+0100), Ian Jackson wrote: [...] > they could be called some other kind of shed or hut or something. [...] While marvellously entertaining, I can only hope that the irony of this protracted debate is not entirely lost on its participants. -- Jeremy Stanley

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

Wookey writes ("Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds"): > It wasn't supposed to be a joke. Bikeshed is an appropriate name, in > the unix tradition of mildly amusing/punny names. It's a lovely joke but unfortunately the word `bikeshed' already means something else in a co

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 01:29:22PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > +++ Colin Tuckley [2015-09-18 12:22 +0100]: > > We certainly (imho) don't want anything in Debian given that description > > > > Oh yes we do! > > Should we leave this naming to the people actually doing the work to implement this? Al

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

+++ Colin Tuckley [2015-09-18 12:22 +0100]: > We certainly (imho) don't want anything in Debian given that description Oh yes we do! (Possibly another British tradition that will be somewhat mysterious to the rest of the world :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantomime#Performance_conventio

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

Someone wrote (I can't work out who in the nested quotes): > There is a strong British tradition, exported to a range of other > countries, of engineers toiling away in garden sheds, inventing > stuff - be it cars, engines, radios, metalwork, carpentry ... > anything someone can produce which req

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Geert Stappers wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:17:22PM +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote: >> * Neil Williams: " Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds" (Thu, 17 Sep 2015 >> 17:44:11 +0100): >> > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:20:21 +0100 Dominic

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:17:22PM +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote: > * Neil Williams: " Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds" (Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:44:11 > +0100): > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:20:21 +0100 Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > > > There is a strong British tradi

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

* Neil Williams: " Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds" (Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:44:11 +0100): > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:20:21 +0100 > Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 04:39:43PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > > > +++ Raphael Hertzog [2

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:19:57PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > I concur that this sort of wordplay in naming is a *nix tradition; > however, I withhold comment as to whether the name "bikeshed" is > appropriate in this case, as the first I remember hearing about them is > this thread and I don't k

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On 2015-09-17 at 15:04, Robert Edmonds wrote: > Wookey wrote: > >> +++ Raphael Hertzog [2015-09-17 14:41 +0200]: >>> Please don't call this feature "Bikesheds" and don't hardcode >>> this naming in the suggested API. It was funny during one Debconf >>> talk... but it won't be funny in the long t

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

Le jeudi 17 septembre 2015 à 18:52 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : > Not to mention that this bikeshed thread about the Bikeshed name is > going to be both epic and very meta. I herd you like bikesheds… -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `-

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

Wookey wrote: > +++ Raphael Hertzog [2015-09-17 14:41 +0200]: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > Please check if I forgot something obvious or if there is some big error > > > in it. Patches/git trees to merge from/... are welcome. > > > > Please don't call this featu

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

Steve McIntyre writes: > Joerg Jaspert wrote: >>On 14067 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Please check if I forgot something obvious or if there is some big error in it. Patches/git trees to merge from/... are welcome. >>> Please don't call this feature "Bikesheds" and don't hardcode

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 04:39:43PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > It wasn't supposed to be a joke. Bikeshed is an appropriate name, in > the unix tradition of mildly amusing/punny names. Not to mention that this bikeshed thread about the Bikeshed name is going to be both epic and very meta. -- Stefano Z

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

27;t a new name for PPAs or a version of PPAs for Debian. These are official hacking space within the Debian project for packages which - for any number of reasons - just aren't ready to leave the shed yet (or should be put back into the shed to get out of the hair of those trying to

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 04:39:43PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > +++ Raphael Hertzog [2015-09-17 14:41 +0200]: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > Please check if I forgot something obvious or if there is some big error > > > in it. Patches/git trees to merge from/... are welc

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

Joerg Jaspert wrote: >On 14067 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >>> Please check if I forgot something obvious or if there is some big error >>> in it. Patches/git trees to merge from/... are welcome. >> Please don't call this feature "Bikesheds" and don't hardcode this naming >> in the suggested

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

+++ Raphael Hertzog [2015-09-17 14:41 +0200]: > Hi, > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > Please check if I forgot something obvious or if there is some big error > > in it. Patches/git trees to merge from/... are welcome. > > Please don't call this feature "Bikesheds" and don't hardc

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On 14067 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> Please check if I forgot something obvious or if there is some big error >> in it. Patches/git trees to merge from/... are welcome. > Please don't call this feature "Bikesheds" and don't hardcode this naming > in the suggested API. It was funny during

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 02:41:11PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > Please check if I forgot something obvious or if there is some big error > > in it. Patches/git trees to merge from/... are welcome. > > Please don't call this feature "Bikeshe

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

Hi, On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Please check if I forgot something obvious or if there is some big error > in it. Patches/git trees to merge from/... are welcome. Please don't call this feature "Bikesheds" and don't hardcode this naming in the suggested API. It was funny during on

DAK Commands for Bikesheds

Hi, first off I haven't found a "Standard" document documenting the command feature of dak as currently used for DMs, so if there is one, that should be merged with what I wrote up now. Second, the reason why I started writing: I defined the possible commands for the upcoming b

Re: rmadison vs. dak ls

Hi! Am 2013-07-24 08:51, schrieb Ansgar Burchardt: [..] Just out of curiosity: Does that also mean, that a user running 'apt-get source ' may not receive the package version shipped in testing, but one used by an other package? If there is both a source and binary named or requests source fo

Re: rmadison vs. dak ls

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl writes: > * Ansgar Burchardt [130723 11:11]: >> Please also not that the additional source packages included can be at a >> *higher* version than sources included in src_association. This is what >> happened here: grub2_1.99-27+deb7u1 is in jessie, however a package >> e

Re: rmadison vs. dak ls (was: Re: Grub 2.00 in testing?)

Hi! * Ansgar Burchardt [130723 11:11]: [..] > Please also not that the additional source packages included can be at a > *higher* version than sources included in src_association. This is what > happened here: grub2_1.99-27+deb7u1 is in jessie, however a package > embedding a newer version of gru

rmadison vs. dak ls (was: Re: Grub 2.00 in testing?)

nsitions can > too IIRC. It's a matter of perspective. The archive software (dak) has a table that says which source package is in which suite (src_associations). This is what "dak ls" will show for which rmadison was an interface in the past. For a long time this was identical with

Re: dak-roulette activated

On Monday, April 01, 2013 09:32:19 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 04/01/2013 08:37 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Excellent. What's the interval on the cron runs? If we get lucky, this > > could get us to a release really soon. > > > > Scott K > > My understanding is that such cron is set to run

Re: dak-roulette activated

]] Enrico Zini > On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 07:15:39PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > In order to get the release timing for Debian to fit in just one CD > > under such construction, I suggest you take the average size of > > packages and multiply it by the space we need to save. Then we can run >

Re: dak-roulette activated

On 04/01/2013 08:37 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Excellent. What's the interval on the cron runs? If we get lucky, this > could > get us to a release really soon. > > Scott K My understanding is that such cron is set to run once a year, at the same date as today... :) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRI

Re: dak-roulette activated

t similar to Christian Perrier's "bug #x0". There could be an alternative way to look at the problem: if we shoot at random in the archive, larger packages should be easier to hit. dak-roulette should have an option to weight hit probability according to package size. That'll ma

Re: [Debian-uk] dak-roulette activated

On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 01:05:06AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 01:07:32AM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > The residents of #debian-uk are pleased to announce that, in conjunction > > with > > our friendly FTP masters, dak-roulette has just been

Re: dak-roulette activated

Quoting Ansgar Burchardt (ans...@debian.org): > Scott Kitterman writes: > > Excellent. What's the interval on the cron runs? If we get lucky, this > > could > > get us to a release really soon. > > While britney still removes packages from testing that are no longer in > unstable, it only doe

Re: [Debian-uk] dak-roulette activated

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Neil Williams wrote: >> That's a minor issue, are we sure the case when it shoots itself has >> been fully tested? > > That's easy, this isn't a package, so cannot be removed by dak. Can be packaged. Who owns ITP of it? :) -- K

Re: [Debian-uk] dak-roulette activated

gt; with > > > our friendly FTP masters, dak-roulette has just been activated in cron on > > > ftp-master.debian.org targetting unstable and no particular maintainer. > > > > > I enclose the documentation for your reference. > > > > This seems to

Re: [Debian-uk] dak-roulette activated

On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 01:05 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 01:07:32AM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > The residents of #debian-uk are pleased to announce that, in conjunction > > with > > our friendly FTP masters, dak-roulette has just been

Re: dak-roulette activated

packages in testing uninstallable. So dak-roulette might help with RC buggy leaf packages, but is unlikely to fix packages with many reverse dependencies such as, for example, apt. Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe&qu

Re: dak-roulette activated

On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 01:07:32AM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > The residents of #debian-uk are pleased to announce that, in conjunction with > our friendly FTP masters, dak-roulette has just been activated in cron on > ftp-master.debian.org targetting unstable and no particular m

Re: dak-roulette activated

Samuel Thibault dijo [Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:40:56AM +0200]: > Scott Kitterman, le Sun 31 Mar 2013 20:37:38 -0400, a écrit : > > > dak-roulette(1) > > > > Excellent. What's the interval on the cron runs? If we get lucky, this > > could > > get us t

Re: dak-roulette activated

Scott Kitterman, le Sun 31 Mar 2013 20:37:38 -0400, a écrit : > > dak-roulette(1) > > Excellent. What's the interval on the cron runs? If we get lucky, this > could > get us to a release really soon. Which could even fit on just one CD! Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE

Re: dak-roulette activated

On Monday, April 01, 2013 01:07:32 AM Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > The residents of #debian-uk are pleased to announce that, in conjunction > with our friendly FTP masters, dak-roulette has just been activated in cron > on ftp-master.debian.org targetting unstable and no particular m

  1   2   >