Ok, I'm sorry for the long delay since the last reply, I've been very busy
with real life.
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
> I guess your scripts are somehow assuming that if one has an empty
> Depends line, the other has an empty line as well, or something similar.
It only checks on one Packages, not
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.general Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all again,
> I just wrote, another, script which downloads the i386 and amd64 'versions'
> of the packages listed by the script which checks for empty Build-/Depends
> and compares the md5sums (from control.tar
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 07:53:03PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > On 11/01/2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> >> And here's the list of packages which after comparing the md5sum files
> >> show no reason why they aren't arch all:
> >>
> >> Grub Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECT
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 07:18:28PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Before I post the results I'd like to clarify that I've noticed that some of
> the files which differ from arch i386 to arch amd64 are for example the
> compressed Debian package changelog and similar compressed files. Does
>
On 11/01/2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> There "MUST" be something wrong with the package then, how is that
> i386's and amd64's md5sum are exactly the same?
I don't see this that way. There *might* be a problem in your script or
so.
,---[ let's check ]---
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/grub$ wget -q
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 11/01/2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Note that this is the raw output of the script, packages which MUST be
>> arch all (debian-installer is excluded, because of technical reasons)
>> are listed below the list.
>
> *MUST*, ahah.
Sorry, that is more like a "s/MUST/REA
On 11/01/2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Note that this is the raw output of the script, packages which MUST be
> arch all (debian-installer is excluded, because of technical reasons)
> are listed below the list.
*MUST*, ahah.
> And here's the list of packages which after comparing the md5sum fil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello all again,
I just wrote, another, script which downloads the i386 and amd64 'versions'
of the packages listed by the script which checks for empty Build-/Depends
and compares the md5sums (from control.tar.gz) of both packages.
Before I post the
* Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-02 13:17]:
> Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>tess (U)
Fixed: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2008/01/msg00693.html
Thanks for spotting this problem.
--
Rafael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subjec
Michal Čihař wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:58:24 -0600
> Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>libgammu3
>
> Eh?
Seems like it is one of the very few false positives of the old script.
The fresh reports using grep-ctrl instead of a lot
Hi
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:58:24 -0600
Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>libgammu3
Eh?
$ apt-cache show libgammu3 | grep ^Dep
Depends: libbluetooth2 (>= 3.0), libc6 (>= 2.7-1), libgammu-common (>=
1.17.0-1)
--
Michal Čihař | http://ciha
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:58:24PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>clips-common
Fixed now, I'm going to upload a new version (6.24-2) making it arch: all
Javier
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 10:51:16 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> >libdvb-dev (U)
>
> Only ships static libs; no idea why.
That's due to #218387, #226985 and #359697.
regards,
guillem
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Brendan O'Dea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>perl-base
>
> That's a false positive. Please also take a look at Pre-Depends. Or
> simply let off of this effort, the number of false positives is
> enormous.
The automated lis
Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brendan O'Dea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>perl-base
That's a false positive. Please also take a look at Pre-Depends. Or
simply let off of this effort, the number of false positives is
enormous.
Marc
--
BOFH #343:
The ATM board has run out of 10 pound n
James Vega wrote:
> grep-dctrl ! -FDepends -e '.' -a ! -FPre-Depends -e '.' \
> -a ! -FArchitecture all -n -sPackage binary-i386_Packages
This approach is better and far faster than mine, diff'ing the results of
both methods show four less binaries (which all of them are false positives
using my m
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:51:16AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> >libavahi-common-data (U)
>> Ships a GDBM file which is arch-dep; shouldn't ship it in /usr/share
>> though.
> Are those really arch
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 09:50:48AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > "Raphael" == Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Raphael> Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Raphael> dar-static
>
> Raphael> Theodore Y. Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Raphael> e2fsck-static
>
> Both of the
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:51:16AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> >libavahi-common-data (U)
>
> Ships a GDBM file which is arch-dep; shouldn't ship it in /usr/share
> though.
Are those really arch-specific? That's really crap design.
Hamish
--
Hello,
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:17:24PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>antlr (U)
False positive. libantlr-dev includes two static libraries and may not
be arch:any therefor.
Cheers,
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subjec
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>gstreamer0.10-gnonlin-dev
Fixed in SVN (useless package dropped).
>libavahi-common-data (U)
Ships a GDBM file which is arch-dep; shouldn't ship it in /usr/share
though.
>libdvb-dev (U)
Only ships static libs; no idea why.
>sys
> "Raphael" == Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raphael> Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Raphael> dar-static
Raphael> Theodore Y. Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Raphael> e2fsck-static
Both of these (and maybe others) are false positives.
--
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 16:32:48 -0500, James Vega wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 02:17:08PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > Parts of it are pretty ugly (and the Packages-fetching part isn't there),
> > but I'm attaching it anyway.
>
> Tying together grep-dctrl and dd-list would probably b
On Wednesday 02 January 2008 22:18, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Raphael Geissert schrieb:
> > Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >tracker-dbg
>
> Currently tracker-dbg holds the debugging symbols for the binary
> packages: tracker, tracker-search-tool, libtrackerclient0 and
> libtracker-gtk0.
> I
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:18:46PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> So, what's the proper solution to that? Cluttering the archive with a
> load of -dbg packages or leave it as is?
The solution I took for the Vim packages was to have ORed Depends on all
of the binary packages that the -dbg package co
On 02/01/2008, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Now, adding a Depends on all those 4 binary packages in tracker-dbg
> seems wrong to me. I don't want to force people to install
> tracker-search-tool if they only want to debug tracker.
What about being a bit more subtle and play around with Recommends: (or
m
Raphael Geissert schrieb:
>
> Just to clarify to everybody, the list was screwed up by dd-list (my bad,
> didn't see the '-b' option part). Thanks to Adeodato for pointing that out.
> So, here's the list of binary packages (attachment is dd-list -u again).
>
> Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 02:17:08PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Parts of it are pretty ugly (and the Packages-fetching part isn't there),
> but I'm attaching it anyway.
Tying together grep-dctrl and dd-list would probably be a cleaner
approach. I haven't done a thorough comparison to your lis
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 09:39:17PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Raphael Geissert a écrit :
> > Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/01/2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >>> Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have empty
> >>> Depends line.
> >> After a third thought, I still
On 02/01/2008, Colin Watson wrote:
> While the breakage would be obvious in the case of packages containing
> ELF binaries, […]
Not necessarily, one could remember of RC bugs opened for some months
due to arch: all packages containing shared objects, and its maintainer
wondering what was happening
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> I fail to see why. Imagine for example a -dev package providing only .h
> files, but depending on the architecture. It has to be Architecture: any
> and does not need to Depends on a package.
I know I'm hidding behind my 'the results may contain many false positives'
st
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:06:21PM -0500, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:17:24 -0600, Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Hello all, I've written a script which tries to detect packages which
> > should be architecture all based on the fact that they don't contain a
> > De
Hubert Chathi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe you want to make this into a lintian test?
The reason not to do a general lintian test is exactly...
> This package only contains data files (makefile snippets, shell scripts,
> etc.), but the contents of the data files vary depending on what
> a
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:58:24PM +, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>libgss-dbg (U)
>>shishi-dbg (U)
>
> rrght...
>
-dbg package without a Depends? that sounds like a bug (please read my first
message).
Depends: sishi
Depe
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 08:04:44PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:58:24PM +, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>>> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>libgss-dbg (U)
>>>shishi-dbg (U)
>> rrght...
> Though after a
Raphael Geissert a écrit :
> Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
>> On 02/01/2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>> Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have empty
>>> Depends line.
>> After a third thought, I still fail to see what that has to do with
>> being Architecture: all or any.
>>
>
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 02/01/2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have empty
>> Depends line.
>
> After a third thought, I still fail to see what that has to do with
> being Architecture: all or any.
>
Quoting my self (first message):
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'll consider your message as sent (won't verify timestamps) before I
clarified the situation both by mail and on IRC.
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
> Maybe there's rather a bug in your process. Instead of speaking of
> “plenty of greps”, you might want
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 09:11:40PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 08:04:44PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:58:24PM +, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >libgss-dbg (U)
> > >shishi-dbg (U)
> >
> > r
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 08:16:21PM +, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 02/01/2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have empty
> > Depends line.
>
> After a third thought, I still fail to see what that has to do with
> being Architecture: all or a
On 02/01/2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have empty
> Depends line.
After a third thought, I still fail to see what that has to do with
being Architecture: all or any.
--
Cyril Brulebois
pgp8jGHoiH4cw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:58:24PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>
> Just to clarify to everybody, the list was screwed up by dd-list (my bad,
> didn't see the '-b' option part). Thanks to Adeodato for pointing that out.
> So, here's the list of binary packages (attachment is dd-list -u again).
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 08:04:44PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:58:24PM +, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >libgss-dbg (U)
> >shishi-dbg (U)
>
> rrght...
Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have emp
Hello Joey,
Joey Hess wrote:
> Interesting idea, though so few packages lack dependencies that it won't
> catch much. Perhaps grepping for package that don't depend on any shared
> libraries would catch more?
>
Nice idea, though I'll first wait for everybody to read my last message
(Message-ID:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:17:24 -0600, Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello all, I've written a script which tries to detect packages which
> should be architecture all based on the fact that they don't contain a
> Depends field. This is usually bug either because of a missing
> Depend
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:58:24PM +, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>libgss-dbg (U)
>shishi-dbg (U)
rrght...
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOO
On 02/01/2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Forgot to mention that, based on the binary-amd64 Packages file of the
> main, contrib and non-free sections.
> I didn't check the content of the packages because that's something
> linda/lintian should do
Wondering why, I asked what they were supposed to
Interesting idea, though so few packages lack dependencies that it won't
catch much. Perhaps grepping for package that don't depend on any shared
libraries would catch more?
Raphael Geissert wrote:
> maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>klibc
>linux-2.6 (U)
heh
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:38:32PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hello Kurt,
>
> Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:17:24PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I've written a script which tries to detect packages which should
> >> be
> >> architecture all base
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just to clarify to everybody, the list was screwed up by dd-list (my bad,
didn't see the '-b' option part). Thanks to Adeodato for pointing that out.
So, here's the list of binary packages (attachment is dd-list -u again).
Anibal Avelar (Fixxxer) <[E
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:17:24PM +, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>klibc
>linux-2.6 (U)
OMG, I wish we knew about this before, we clearly would have saved a
_lot_ of buildd time.
Seriously, did you even _read_ the list you just submitted ? at least
Hello Cyril,
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hm, what about checking their *content*? What about listing *binary*
> packages?
Forgot to mention that, based on the binary-amd64 Packages file of the main,
contrib and non-free sections.
I didn't check the content of the packages because that's something
li
> My first suggestion is to list binary packages instead of source.
> What about listing *binary* packages?
That would be the doing of dd-list alone, it seems.
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato a
On 02/01/2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > Your list seems to contain alot of packages that do have a Depends
> > field.
>
> Like which one? I used a lot of grepping so maybe something was left
> in.
Take any random package, let's say icecc:
$ apt-cache show icecc|grep ^Depends:
Depends: libc6 (
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:17:24PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>db (U)
>zsh
My first suggestion is to list binary packages instead of source.
Then I could say that db4.6-doc is already arch:all
and that zsh-static is a false positive.
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Hello Kurt,
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:17:24PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I've written a script which tries to detect packages which should be
>> architecture all based on the fact that they don't contain a Depends
>> field.
>
> Your list seems to con
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:17:24PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've written a script which tries to detect packages which should be
> architecture all based on the fact that they don't contain a Depends field.
Your list seems to contain alot of packages that do have a Depends
On 02/01/2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hello all,
Maw.
> I've written a script which tries to detect packages which should be
> architecture all based on the fact that they don't contain a Depends
> field. This is usually bug either because of a missing Depends or
> because the package should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello all,
I've written a script which tries to detect packages which should be
architecture all based on the fact that they don't contain a Depends field.
This is usually bug either because of a missing Depends or because the
package should be Archit
59 matches
Mail list logo
