Re: Question on libarchive/3.7.4-2 and CVE-2025-1632 patch

On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 01:25:52PM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 11:36:46AM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 09:20:46AM +, Debian FTP Masters wrote: > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > > >

Re: Question on libarchive/3.7.4-2 and CVE-2025-1632 patch

On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 11:36:46AM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 09:20:46AM +, Debian FTP Masters wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > Format: 1.8 > > Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 11:34:57 +0300 > > Source: libarchive >

Re: Question about library package splitting

Hi Guillem, first of all, many thanks for your answer! And sorry for my late reply... On Sat, Sep 07, 2024 at 02:46:13AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Fri, 2024-09-06 at 11:32:55 +0200, Ervin Hegedüs wrote: > > I think ideally upstream would be modified so that this decision can > be made s

Re: Question about library package splitting

Hi! On Fri, 2024-09-06 at 11:32:55 +0200, Ervin Hegedüs wrote: > Here comes the problem: libmodsecurity3 has two types of collection stores: > in-memory and LMDB. It's VERY important: you MUST decide the type of > choosed backend in compilation time, later you can't change it in runtime! I think

Re: Question regarding uscan check on UDD

On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 10:22:29PM -0800, Xiyue Deng wrote: > I noticed a discrepancy of the uscan @ANY_VERSION@ substitute string on > UDD and locally on my bookworm system. That's because UDD is running on bullseye, not on bookworm, with bullseye-backports' version of devscripts (which really re

Re: Question regarding uscan check on UDD

Xiyue Deng writes: > Hi, > > I noticed a discrepancy of the uscan @ANY_VERSION@ substitute string on > UDD and locally on my bookworm system. For example, for magit-popup, > UDD reports error[1] while testing locally it worked for me. On further > inspection, it turns out that the @ANY_VERSION@

Re: Question about source tarballs for packaging

On Sun, 2021-10-10 at 21:40 +, Joshua Peisach wrote: > I'm packaging the V programming language for Debian. However, V is  bit > weird at the moment. It's not really ready for stable production/use. > so for a while it will live in experimental. Currently the way building > it works is that th

Re: Question about source tarballs for packaging

Hi Joshua, Quoting Joshua Peisach (2021-10-10 23:40:54) > we will have to build on weekly tags rather than the current '0.2.4' > tag. Here is the issue. uscan and gbp aren't happy with the tag > because by all means, it isn't a number. One option is to track git commits organized by date, using

Re: Question about source tarballs for packaging

On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 09:40:54PM +, Joshua Peisach wrote: > This doesn't really matter; the above means that we will have to build > on weekly tags rather than the current '0.2.4' tag. Here is the issue. > uscan and gbp aren't happy with the tag because by all means, it isn't a > number. Not

Re: Question Re: Advertising in Packages

> "Paul" == Paul Wise writes: Paul> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 2:22 AM Antonio Russo wrote: >> "Can one advertise non-free services in a Debian package? Is >> doing so a violation of some Debian policy? Paul> There is no specific rule against this, but I feel that Paul> cul

Re: Question Re: Advertising in Packages

Quoting Paul Wise (2021-08-16 05:06:05) > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 2:22 AM Antonio Russo wrote: > > >"Can one advertise non-free services in a Debian package? > > Is doing so a violation of some Debian policy? > > There is no specific rule against this, but I feel that culturally > Debian

Re: Question Re: Advertising in Packages

On Sun, 2021-08-15 at 20:16 -0600, Antonio Russo wrote: > I have a question that I originally posed in debian-vote, but was > directed here instead: > >    "Can one advertise non-free services in a Debian package? Yes. I guess this would be up to the maintainer to decide what is reasonable with t

Re: Question Re: Advertising in Packages

On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 08:04:53 +, "Andrew M.A. Cater" wrote: >On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 09:14:18PM -0600, Antonio Russo wrote: >> I feel like if we are forced to rebrand Debian's browser to ensure user >> freedoms, then we simply must do so. I'd rather support Firefox/Mozilla, >> but I don't thin

Re: Question Re: Advertising in Packages

On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 09:14:18PM -0600, Antonio Russo wrote: > On 8/15/21 9:06 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 2:22 AM Antonio Russo wrote: > > > >>"Can one advertise non-free services in a Debian package? > >> Is doing so a violation of some Debian policy? > > > > Ther

Re: Question Re: Advertising in Packages

On 8/15/21 9:06 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 2:22 AM Antonio Russo wrote: > >>"Can one advertise non-free services in a Debian package? >> Is doing so a violation of some Debian policy? > > There is no specific rule against this, but I feel that culturally > Debian gener

Re: Question Re: Advertising in Packages

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 2:22 AM Antonio Russo wrote: >"Can one advertise non-free services in a Debian package? > Is doing so a violation of some Debian policy? There is no specific rule against this, but I feel that culturally Debian generally doesn't like this. > The details are filed

Re: Question Re: Advertising in Packages

Hi, On 2021-08-15 10:16 p.m., Antonio Russo wrote: > Hello, > > I have a question that I originally posed in debian-vote, but was directed > here instead: > >"Can one advertise non-free services in a Debian package? > Is doing so a violation of some Debian policy? > > Again, if this is

Re: Question about generated dependencies

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:24:02AM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:50:35PM +0200, Boian Bonev wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > Hi All, > > > > While playing with glibc 2.33 (I made a couple of changes on the 2.31-9 > > and built it l

Re: Question about generated dependencies

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:50:35PM +0200, Boian Bonev wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Hi All, > > While playing with glibc 2.33 (I made a couple of changes on the 2.31-9 > and built it locally), I stumbled upon the following generated > dependency in libnih1: > > $

Re: Question for alioth-lists.debian.net status

Shengjing Zhu, > Instead of the lintian issue, the real issue which is underneath > is, what's the status of alioth-lists.debian.net? > > Is it still a short term service[1], or the admin plans to make > it long term? The difference is whether people should look for a > new home. It has been 2 ye

Re: Question for alioth-lists.debian.net status

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 00:51:34 +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > And another question for DSA is, whether the lists.alioth.debian.org > address is expected to work, as long as the alioth-lists.debian.net > exists? > I don't see a reason to break it. Cheers, Julien

Re: Question about embedded Lua

Hello, On 7/25/19 10:27 AM, Kyle Edwards wrote: > 2. Pick a single version of Lua and stick with it forever, missing out > on the benefits of newer versions but retaining backwards compatibility This is the strategy that we've taken for php-luasandbox (uses lua 5.1), used by MediaWiki. The advice

Re: Question about embedded Lua

On Thu, 2019-07-25 at 09:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Tobias Frost writes: > > > > > I think there is another option, as embedding lua is a bad idea for > > the > > reason you have already quoted: There are currently two (three with > > experimental) lua versions available in Debian, so you s

Re: Question about embedded Lua

Tobias Frost writes: > I think there is another option, as embedding lua is a bad idea for the > reason you have already quoted: There are currently two (three with > experimental) lua versions available in Debian, so you should run one of > those. This is especially true if the to-embedded-libra

Re: Question about embedded Lua

Hi Kyle, On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:27:42AM -0400, Kyle Edwards wrote: > Hi all, > > As per Debian policy, programs and libraries are generally not allowed > to embed their own copies of libraries that are present in another > package, in order to avoid duplication of code and to enable security

Re: Question about Debian build infrastructure

Am Mittwoch, den 12.06.2019, 14:02 +0800 schrieb Paul Wise: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:21 AM Benjamin Drung wrote: > > > * I had to patch reprepro to support multiple versions: > > https://github.com/profitbricks/reprepro > > I think it would be very helpful to a lot of derivative distros and >

Re: Question about Debian build infrastructure

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019, Vincent Bernat wrote: > It's https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=570623 > > Maintainer doesn't seem to be interested or have no time to consider the > patch since many years. Another sticking point with reprepro is the lack of Acquire-by-hash support: https://bu

Re: Question about Debian build infrastructure

❦ 12 juin 2019 14:02 +08, Paul Wise : >> * I had to patch reprepro to support multiple versions: >> https://github.com/profitbricks/reprepro > > I think it would be very helpful to a lot of derivative distros and > small or private apt repositories if this patch could be merged > upstream and mad

Re: Question about Debian build infrastructure

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:21 AM Benjamin Drung wrote: > * I had to patch reprepro to support multiple versions: > https://github.com/profitbricks/reprepro I think it would be very helpful to a lot of derivative distros and small or private apt repositories if this patch could be merged upstream a

Re: Question about Debian build infrastructure

Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 06.06.2019, 14:32 -0400 schrieb Kyle Edwards: > Hello all, > > I have been preparing Ubuntu releases for CMake on our own APT > repository for several months now. We did this by preparing our own > repository infrastructure - we have a machine that builds packages, > and >

Re: Question about Debian build infrastructure

On 2019-06-10 13:09:52 -0400 (-0400), Kyle Edwards wrote: > On Mon, 2019-06-10 at 16:56 +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: [...] > > 6. To allow for easier manual verification of key transitions, > > always sign new keys with their predecessors when creating them. > > We haven't signed the new key at th

Re: Question about Debian build infrastructure

On Mon, 2019-06-10 at 16:56 +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > 2. Don't place all your trust key revocation, instead plan a > rotation schedule so that even if a key falls into the wrong hands > it's more likely users will smell something fishy when they see it > used to sign new artifacts after expira

Re: Question about Debian build infrastructure

On 2019-06-10 11:18:35 -0400 (-0400), Kyle Edwards wrote: [...] > If you're using GPG on the published repository, how does your > repository server handle its signing GPG key? Does someone have to type > in a password every time it wants to publish a package, or is it > unattended, with either an

Re: Question about Debian build infrastructure

On Sat, 2019-06-08 at 02:25 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > Am Do., 6. Juni 2019 um 20:33 Uhr schrieb Kyle Edwards > : > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > I have been preparing Ubuntu releases for CMake on our own APT > > repository for several months now. We did this by preparing our own > > reposit

Re: Question about Debian build infrastructure

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 at 02:25:44 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > Am Do., 6. Juni 2019 um 20:33 Uhr schrieb Kyle Edwards > : > > 2. According to https://wiki.debian.org/BuilddSetup, there seems to be > > a distinction between the build broker (wanna-build) and the build > > workers (buildd). Do eithe

Re: Question about Debian build infrastructure

Am Do., 6. Juni 2019 um 20:33 Uhr schrieb Kyle Edwards : > > Hello all, > > I have been preparing Ubuntu releases for CMake on our own APT > repository for several months now. We did this by preparing our own > repository infrastructure - we have a machine that builds packages, and > a machine that

Re: Question regarding patching in 4.9 kernel

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 02:28:35AM +, Harish Venkatraman wrote: > Hi Ben, > > I am trying to manually back port to Linux 4.9 since in the link I don’t see > a patch provided for 4.9 version. The last version that has this patch is > 4.11, wanted to know if back port of this patch is support

Re: Question regarding patching in 4.9 kernel

Hi Ben, I am trying to manually back port to Linux 4.9 since in the link I don’t see a patch provided for 4.9 version. The last version that has this patch is 4.11, wanted to know if back port of this patch is supported on Linux 4.9 or this patch is supported only from 4.11? Sent from my iPho

Re: Question regarding patching in 4.9 kernel

[Note Reply-to: debian-kernel.] On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 18:00 +, Harish Venkatraman wrote: > Hi, > > I want the following patch to be back ported to 4.9 kernel. Can you > please let me know if it can be back ported to 4.9 kernel? > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/63a6fff353d01da5a22

Re: question about build profile nocheck

Hi, Wookey and Chris, Many thanks for the detailed answer and the links! على الأربعاء 1 تشرين الثاني 2017 ‫23:19، كتب Wookey: > On 2017-11-01 21:46 -0400, Afif Elghraoui wrote: [...] >> Am I mistaken? > > Yes. Somewhat discussed in > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=568897 >

Re: question about build profile nocheck

Hi Afif, Wookey already replied with an excellent answer, but surely: > ifeq (,$(findstring nocheck, $(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS))) > override_dh_auto_test: > commands... > commands... > else > override_dh_auto_test: > endif … is better written as: override_dh_auto_test: ifeq (,$(find

Re: question about build profile nocheck

On 2017-11-01 21:46 -0400, Afif Elghraoui wrote: > Hello, > > The BuildProfileSpec on the wiki [1] defines the `nocheck` profile as: > > > > No test suite should be run, and build dependencies used only for that > purpose should be ignored. Builds that set this profile must also add > `nocheck`

Re: Question about dpkg Re: X facts about Debian - some fact checking and looking for ideas.

at bottom :- On 30/08/2017, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:26:55PM +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote: >> I was under the impression that due to rpm brokeness Debian and >> thereafter dpkg came into being. > > This is entirely wrong. The first entry in dpkg's changelog was in > 1994, a

Re: Question about dpkg Re: X facts about Debian - some fact checking and looking for ideas.

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:26:55PM +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote: > I was under the impression that due to rpm brokeness Debian and > thereafter dpkg came into being. This is entirely wrong. The first entry in dpkg's changelog was in 1994, and rpm's first release was in 1997. Please spend at least

Re: Question about dpkg Re: X facts about Debian - some fact checking and looking for ideas.

On 2017-08-29 23:26:55 +0530 (+0530), shirish शिरीष wrote: [...] > From the wikipedia page it seems the motivation came from SLS - a > derivative of Slackware. [...] Minor correction for you: Slackware was borne out of SLS and not the other way around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softlandin

Re: Re: Question about offerin packages

> How is it better than fbless and fbreader, already in the archive? My reader has the full support of the 2.1 version of the specification, including the tables, links and other. But without styles. And unlike fbreader it written using GTK. I'll give you link to github https://github.com/Cact

Re: Question about offerin packages

On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 06:09:42PM +0300, Mihail Azarov wrote: > Hello. I wrote a book-reader for FB2 > format(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FictionBook). How is it better than fbless and fbreader, already in the archive? > Tell me, how can I offer my package in the debian official repository? If

Re: Question about flashplugin-nonfree

Marcio Souza wrote: > The problem is that most Debian users to update the system using apt-get > update && apt-get upgrade or the like. > Thus the flash plugin is not updated and the security problem will persist. > > I believe that the flash update should be automatic because no update > is a sec

Re: Question about flashplugin-nonfree

2015-10-29 12:42 GMT-02:00 Albino B Neto : > 2015-10-29 9:21 GMT-02:00 Marcio Souza : > > Dear Debian-devel, > > > > Currently, Adobe has released security updates for Adobe Flash Player. > > > > ...These updates address critical vulnerabilities that could potentially > > allow an attacker to take

Re: Question about flashplugin-nonfree

2015-10-29 9:21 GMT-02:00 Marcio Souza : > Dear Debian-devel, > > Currently, Adobe has released security updates for Adobe Flash Player. > > ...These updates address critical vulnerabilities that could potentially > allow an attacker to take control of the affected system. Adobe is aware of > a rep

Re: question about versioned dependencies in debian/control

On 10/22/14 16:57, Simon McVittie wrote: > > 1:2.1.2-0~xgo70+1 is less than 1:2.1.2, because 1:2.1.2 is equal to > 1:2.1.2-0 in version number order, and 0~x is less than 0. > > You can confirm this: > > % dpkg --compare-versions 2-0~x lt 2-0 && echo yes > yes > > I would suggest 1:2.1.

Re: question about versioned dependencies in debian/control

On 22/10/14 14:58, Harald Dunkel wrote: > Depends: ... git-man (>> ${source:Upstream-Version}), > > git (1:2.1.2-0~xgo70+1) unstable; urgency=low 1:2.1.2-0~xgo70+1 is less than 1:2.1.2, because 1:2.1.2 is equal to 1:2.1.2-0 in version number order, and 0~x is less than 0. You can confirm th

Re: question about versioned dependencies in debian/control

PS: The error message is: Setting up git-man (1:2.1.2-0~xgo70+1) ... dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of git: git depends on git-man (>> 1:2.1.2); however: Version of git-man on system is 1:2.1.2-0~xgo70+1. Regards Harri -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.

Re: Question about binNMU and transition, how can this package NOT segfault?

> Il Mercoledì 23 Aprile 2014 10:29, Julien Cristau ha > scritto: > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 09:10:26 +0100, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > >> Another package (just an example) is this one, gambas3 [2] that uses sdlgfx > as B-D >> that has been uploaded on unstable on >> [2014-04-11] Acc

Re: Question about binNMU and transition, how can this package NOT segfault?

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 09:48:35 +0100, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > > > Il Mercoledì 23 Aprile 2014 10:29, Julien Cristau ha > > scritto: > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 09:10:26 +0100, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > > >> Another package (just an example) is this one, gambas3 [2] tha

Re: Question about binNMU and transition, how can this package NOT segfault?

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 09:10:26 +0100, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Another package (just an example) is this one, gambas3 [2] that uses sdlgfx > as B-D > that has been uploaded on unstable on > [2014-04-11] Accepted 3.5.2-2 in unstable (low) > gambas3 has no runtime dependency on sdlgfx. Do

Re: [Question] lin-guider: block ITP 727532 by RFS 727618

On 2013-10-30 07:19, James Lukash wrote: > Hello all. I received a message about my ITP bug: > === >> block 727532 by 727618 > Bug #727532 [wnpp] ITP: lin-guider -- Astronomical autoguiding program > 727532 was not blocked by any bugs. > 727532 was not blocking any bugs. > Added blocking bug(s) of

Re: question about build a package

On Tuesday, June 04, 2013 13:40:56, Russ Allbery wrote: > Chris Knadle writes: > > On Tuesday, June 04, 2013 06:31:37, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > >> That's not necessarily true as a result of it being a 1.0 format > >> package (there were ways to use quilt patches with the 1.0 format), but > >> it i

Re: question about build a package

Chris Knadle writes: > On Tuesday, June 04, 2013 06:31:37, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> That's not necessarily true as a result of it being a 1.0 format >> package (there were ways to use quilt patches with the 1.0 format), but >> it is certainly true in this case. > Huh. I don't think I knew quil

Re: question about build a package

On Tuesday, June 04, 2013 06:31:37, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On 04-06-13 04:48, Chris Knadle wrote: > > Unfortunately no: the Postfix source package looks like it's in 1.0 > > format, so there aren't any quilt patches. > > That's not necessarily true as a result of it being a 1.0 format package >

Re: question about build a package

On 04-06-13 04:48, Chris Knadle wrote: > Unfortunately no: the Postfix source package looks like it's in 1.0 format, > so > there aren't any quilt patches. That's not necessarily true as a result of it being a 1.0 format package (there were ways to use quilt patches with the 1.0 format), but it

Re: question about build a package

On Monday, June 03, 2013 09:11:46, Pol Hallen wrote: > Hi all! This is my first post :-) > > I try to patch postfix and I want be sure that my procedure is correct :-) I'd say yes. > apt-get source postfix and I see: > > f 215552 Jun 3 13:35 postfix_2.7.1-1+squeeze1.diff.gz > f 1754 Jun 3 13:

Re: question about build a package

On Monday, June 03, 2013 09:55:06, Rodolfo García Peñas (kix) wrote: > Pol Hallen escribió: > > Hi all! This is my first post :-) > > > > I try to patch postfix and I want be sure that my procedure is correct > > :-) > > > > apt-get source postfix and I see: > > > > f 215552 Jun 3 13:35 postfi

Re: question about build a package

Hi Pol, Your question is more on-topic for the debian-mentors list. You might get more help there. Thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2013060316

Re: question about build a package

> Your question is more on-topic for the debian-mentors list. You might get > more help there. ok! I'll subscribe, thanks! Pol -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.

Re: question about build a package

> probably you should patch the package using "quilt". You have more > info here: http://wiki.debian.org/UsingQuilt and here > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/modify.en.html hello and thanks for your reply :-) I read about quilt. Do you know if there is some problem compile the pack

Re: question about build a package

Pol Hallen escribió: Hi all! This is my first post :-) I try to patch postfix and I want be sure that my procedure is correct :-) apt-get source postfix and I see: f 215552 Jun 3 13:35 postfix_2.7.1-1+squeeze1.diff.gz f 1754 Jun 3 13:35 postfix_2.7.1-1+squeeze1.dsc d 4096 Jun 3 13:35 pos

Re: Question about multiarch

On Lu, 06 mai 13, 12:03:15, Walter Valenti wrote: > Scenario: > > a Intel x64 (T5500) with "Wheezy i386" installed. > It's possible use the multiarch support of dpkg > to migrate to "Wheezy amd64" ? > > (after installation of linux-image-amd64, libc6-amd64) This belongs on debian-user, see http:

Re: Question about multiarch

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 12:03:15PM +0100, Walter Valenti wrote: > a Intel x64 (T5500) with "Wheezy i386" installed. > It's possible use the multiarch support of dpkg > to migrate to "Wheezy amd64" ? > > (after installation of linux-image-amd64, libc6-amd64) Migrating a live system between architec

Re: Re: Question about proper archive area for packages that require big data for operation

Hello Simon! Thank you for these suggestions. On 24/04/13 13:06, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 23/04/13 10:48, Laszlo Kajan wrote: >> free packages that depend on big (e.g. >400MB) free data outside 'main' > > This comes up in the Games Team, too. > > Here are some possibilities you might not have

Re: Question about proper archive area for packages that require big data for operation

On 23/04/13 10:48, Laszlo Kajan wrote: > free packages that depend on big (e.g. >400MB) free data outside 'main' This comes up in the Games Team, too. Here are some possibilities you might not have considered: * Package a small "demo" data-set (enough to test that the package is working correc

Re: Question about proper archive area for packages that require big data for operation

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 09:32:52AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Le mardi, 23 avril 2013 12.23:23, Andreas Tille a écrit : > > I would even go that far that it might make sense to package these data > > and upload it to demonstrate that we should *really* create a solution > > for such cases

Re: Question about proper archive area for packages that require big data for operation

Le mardi, 23 avril 2013 12.23:23, Andreas Tille a écrit : > I would even go that far that it might make sense to package these data > and upload it to demonstrate that we should *really* create a solution > for such cases if they will increase in the number and size of data > packages. Isn't that

Re: Question about proper archive area for packages that require big data for operation

Laszlo Kajan writes: > This email is to continue the discussion about free packages that depend > on big (e.g. >400MB) free data outside 'main'. These packages apparently > violate policy 2.2.1 [0] for inclusion in 'main' because they require > software outside the 'main' area to function. They d

Re: Question about proper archive area for packages that require big data for operation

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:48:05AM +0200, Laszlo Kajan wrote: > > This email is to continue the discussion about free packages that depend on > big (e.g. >400MB) free data outside 'main'. In your practical case is this data say <500MB? Are we talking about compressed or uncompressed data (= >40

Re: Question about PTS web interface

The PTS has a lot of unstable-isms, patches welcome though. Outside the freeze, experimental probably isn't particularly important to inform people about though. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "u

Re: Question about update-initramfs

On 19/01/2013 19:51, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 07:34:15PM +0100, "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" wrote: >> ---8<-- >> uswsusp (0.7-1) unstable; urgency=low >> >> NOTE, by default update-initramfs -u only updates the initramfs of the >> latest kernel. This can

Re: Question about update-initramfs

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 07:34:15PM +0100, "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" wrote: > ---8<-- > uswsusp (0.7-1) unstable; urgency=low > > NOTE, by default update-initramfs -u only updates the initramfs of the > latest kernel. This can lead to incompatibilities between s2disk and > re

Re: Question about update-initramfs

"Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" writes: > Then, what should I do? What is the correct option? > 1. update-initramfs -u > 2. update-initramfs -u -k all I believe the current behavior (without -k all) is more correct. At least, it would be my preference. I think my personal use case is relatively

Re: Question: Packages.xz and Contents-.xz

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Peter Samuelson wrote: > [Hideki Yamane] > > > henrich@hp:/tmp$ du -k Packages.* > > > 6052 Packages.bz2 > > > 5812 Packages.xz > > > henrich@hp:/tmp$ time bzip2 -d Packages.bz2 > > > > > > real 0m0.999s > > > user 0m0.956s > > > sys 0m0.020s > > >

Re: Question: Packages.xz and Contents-.xz

[Hideki Yamane] > > henrich@hp:/tmp$ du -k Packages.* > > 6052Packages.bz2 > > 5812Packages.xz > > henrich@hp:/tmp$ time bzip2 -d Packages.bz2 > > > > real0m0.999s > > user0m0.956s > > sys 0m0.020s > > > > henrich@hp:/tmp$ rm Packages > > henrich@hp:/tmp$ time xz

Re: Question: Packages.xz and Contents-.xz

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 06:56:10PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > > Although xz-utils is currently priority required, it should really go > > back to optional, as dpkg stopped Pre-Depending on it some time ago. > > More like it should b

Re: Question: Packages.xz and Contents-.xz

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 17:11:02 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote: > > 0.8.10.3+squeeze1 does as its changelog tells us. > > Note through that it needs the 'xz' binary for that (as it did for bzip2, > > that changed just yet with the usage of libbz2 now for

Re: Question: Packages.xz and Contents-.xz

On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 17:11:02 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote: > 0.8.10.3+squeeze1 does as its changelog tells us. > Note through that it needs the 'xz' binary for that (as it did for bzip2, > that changed just yet with the usage of libbz2 now for wheezy and as > usual people complain about it …

Re: Question: Packages.xz and Contents-.xz

On 13031 March 1977, David Kalnischkies wrote: > Note also that it is unlikely that ftpmaster will add another compression > file to the archive and mirror folks will be happy about that. So its not > just a "lets add xz" but a "lets replace bz2 with xz" and this might be > a bit more complicated

Re: Question: Packages.xz and Contents-.xz

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:10:13 +0900 Hideki Yamane wrote: > Just a question, is there any reason not provide Packages.xz and > Contents-.xz in package repository? I cannot find any information > about it, so please tell me. A stable release freeze is not the time to go changing stuff like this

Re: Question about debian experimental.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 (This thread is better suited for debian-mentors, setting mail-followup-to accordingly) Le 08/10/2012 18:30, Andrej N. Gritsenko a écrit : > Hello! > > I have a question. Since maintainers of LXDE are extremely busy > last few months I would like t

Re: Question about debian experimental.

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Andrej N. Gritsenko wrote: > I have a question. Since maintainers of LXDE are extremely busy last Perhaps you would like to join the LXDE package maintainers team and help them out? They don't appear to be using the pkg-lxde group on alioth though, so best con

Re: Question about debian experimental.

Andrej N. Gritsenko wrote: [new LXDE] >So question is - may it be possible to upload them into experimental > or I have still to bother maintainers? I feel sorry to do that again. Hello, an upload to experimental needs to be signed by a Debian Developer[1], there is no real difference to upl

Re: question about section and name of a manpage

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:47:38PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote: > Hi, > > In short, I would like to describe environment variables that > can modify the behavior of a library. > How should I name the manpage ? libXX ? libXX.so ? libXX.so.1 ? XX ? I think libXX is preferable (allows for the p

Re: question about section and name of a manpage

Vincent Danjean, le Wed 12 Sep 2012 22:47:38 +0200, a écrit : > In short, I would like to describe environment variables that > can modify the behavior of a library. > How should I name the manpage ? libXX ? libXX.so ? libXX.so.1 ? XX ? I'd say libXX.so, like we have ld.so. Samuel -- To UNSU

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > So you don't support for instance 1.0~git20120503, then? (the git > snapshot from today of what will become 1.0) They would probably call it 1.0_git20120503 since apparently they don't believe in the _ field seperator. -- Len So

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

]] Thibaut Paumard > Le 04/05/12 00:29, Peter Samuelson a écrit : > > > > [Patrick Lauer] > >> 1.0_pre20120503 maybe > > > > That'd be wrong if you expect a real _alpha, _beta or _pre of the given > > version in the future. I think in that case you'd need something like > > 1.0_alpha_alpha2012

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

Le 04/05/12 00:29, Peter Samuelson a écrit : > > [Patrick Lauer] >> 1.0_pre20120503 maybe > > That'd be wrong if you expect a real _alpha, _beta or _pre of the given > version in the future. I think in that case you'd need something like > 1.0_alpha_alpha20120503 or 1.0_alpha_pre20120503. > 1

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

[Patrick Lauer] > 1.0_pre20120503 maybe That'd be wrong if you expect a real _alpha, _beta or _pre of the given version in the future. I think in that case you'd need something like 1.0_alpha_alpha20120503 or 1.0_alpha_pre20120503. There's something to be said for imposed structure, but in this

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

]] Patrick Lauer > 1.0_pre20120503 maybe, but why package a snapshot like that when you can > just have a "live" packages that checks out and builds from git directly > ... (and have that updated whenever it tickles your fancy) A prerelease isn't a snapshot in my nomenclature. (As for the rest,

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

Patrick Lauer writes: > On 05/04/12 00:14, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> So you don't support for instance 1.0~git20120503, then? (the git >> snapshot from today of what will become 1.0) > What a weird idea. > 1.0_pre20120503 maybe, but why package a snapshot like that when you can > just have a "

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

On 05/04/12 00:14, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Patrick Lauer > >> Not this decade - we're ahead of the pack, as usual ;) > So you don't support for instance 1.0~git20120503, then? (the git > snapshot from today of what will become 1.0) > What a weird idea. 1.0_pre20120503 maybe, but why package

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

]] Patrick Lauer > Not this decade - we're ahead of the pack, as usual ;) So you don't support for instance 1.0~git20120503, then? (the git snapshot from today of what will become 1.0) -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, em

Re: smaller than 0 but not negative (Re: question about "Conflicts:"

On 05/03/12 23:16, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: >> RPM has now support for ~ in latest git. > oh shiny! thanks for that pointer! anybody know by chance whether gentoo is > jumping on this too? Not this decade - we're ahe

  1   2   3   4   >