Looks like it was a false alarm, all is normal again at
{http,ftp}.us.debian.org. Is ftp.us.debian.org the master node?
> Same problem now also at {http,ftp}.us.debian.org?
>
> W: Failed to fetch
> bzip2:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-i386_Packages
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Paul Wise [Tue, Mar 15 2011, 08:58:47AM]:
>
> > What was the reason for adding InRelease anyway?
>
> I guess (repeating: *guess*) the main reason is that GPG signature needs
> to be verified for the exact file contents. If you put them int
On 2011-03-15, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Apt would then accept either version.
>
> Of course this only makes sense for unstable which updates regularly.
> For security we might consider doing it also, but re-issue a new
> InRelease a few hours after the first mirror pulse that gets rid of the
> old
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Olivier Berger
* Package name: php-opendocument
Version : 0.2.0
Upstream Author : Christian Weiske , Alexander Pak
* URL : http://pear.php.net/package/OpenDocument
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: PHP
Description
Package: general
Severity: important
Tags: squeeze
I've really no idea, which package(s) are responsible for this problem.
In my log files I can find messages like:
Mar 15 14:56:09 oedibus automount[1983]: set_tsd_user_vars: failed to get group
info from getgrgid_r
As the result the output fro
On 03/13/2011 05:53 PM, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:20:21 +0100
> David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> Unfortunately many mirrors doesn't use the newest version of ftpsync [0]
>> and therefore their two stage update of the mirror is flawed:
>
> I wonder why does anyone package it? If w
On 15/03/11 at 16:05 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 03/13/2011 05:53 PM, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:20:21 +0100
> > David Kalnischkies wrote:
> >> Unfortunately many mirrors doesn't use the newest version of ftpsync [0]
> >> and therefore their two stage update of the mirror
On 03/15/2011 04:17 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Indeed, I don't know why we bother with packages at all.
Thanks for your constructive comment.
--
Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
GPG Finger
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 03/15/2011 04:17 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> Indeed, I don't know why we bother with packages at all.
>
> Thanks for your constructive comment.
He's right though. With packages, you can receive automatic
notification of available updates
On 03/15/2011 04:54 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> On 03/15/2011 04:17 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>> Indeed, I don't know why we bother with packages at all.
>>
>> Thanks for your constructive comment.
>
> He's right though. With packages,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 17:52:31 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> And for packages you either have to do stable updates all the time, or
> add an additional repository, or use unstable on a server. Whatever you
> prefer.
>
Not to mention debian mirrors don't have to run debian.
Cheers,
Julien
--
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:29:08AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:55:47PM +0100, Michael Vogt wrote:
> > One missing feature is that it needs to send along info about the
> > release/arch its looking for or the returned list needs to be extended
> > to include this in
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:52:05 +0200
Message-ID: <87k4g0fc8a@picasso.cante.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
--text follows this line--
> Andreas Barth
>
>
> I agree that starting with the current scripts is for starters. But we
> should do it in a way that is prepared for doi
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I mean, I really don't understand why you can't atleast list the
> other files from the package.
I've added a de-duplication mechanism.
Torsten
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscri
* Jari Aalto (jari.aa...@cante.net) [110315 19:57]:
> What is the status of this ITP opened 2010-10-03, 6 months ago? To my
> understanding winetricks:
> - does not depend on external programs outside of Debian.
>
> - is a single utility that helps quite a bit to install WINE related
>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 13:52, Jari Aalto wrote:
> - is DFSG compliant. The current license is GPL.
Nitpick, but winetricks is LGPL (same as Wine).
> - does not depend on external programs outside of Debian.
Winetricks can do some things without external help (change the
emulated windows
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 04:05:59PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 03/13/2011 05:53 PM, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:20:21 +0100
> > David Kalnischkies wrote:
> >> Unfortunately many mirrors doesn't use the newest version of ftpsync [0]
> >> and therefore their two stage update
On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 11:01 +0100, Torsten Werner wrote:
> we have disabled the contents generator of apt-ftparchive and replaced
> it by a new implementation in dak. There are some visible changes:
[...]
> The new implementation is currently only used for suites that are not
> marked as untouchabl
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Fabrizio Regalli
* Package name: proftpd-mod-tar
Version : 0.3.3
Upstream Author : TJ Saunders
* URL : http://www.castaglia.org/proftpd/modules/mod_tar.html
* License : GPL-2
Description : The mod_tar module suppor
>> git clone https://ftp-master.debian.org/git/archvsync.git>
>> Easy enough to keep updated.
> The point is that every now and then somebody decides to rewrite
> and as a mirror admin i need to find out how the current way will
> work, the current configuration looks like and how to fit it
> into
>> The new implementation is currently only used for suites that are not
>> marked as untouchable. Oldstable and stable will switch during the next
>> point release.
> Have you (or anyone else) verified that any tools in {old,}stable
> parsing contents files are compatible with the new structure (
Hello,
The current best practice for dealing with packages using GNU autotools
(as described in /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz) is to
run autoreconf in a prerequisite of a build target, and to remove its
results in the clean target.
However that README does not give any hints on ho
Dear Marcin,
Marcin Owsiany schrieb am 15.03.2011 23:29:
> However that README does not give any hints on how to best do the
> cleaning. How are others doing it?
in puf we're using dh-autoreconf in the dh(7) sequence, which creates a list of
modified files, backs them up and restores them later ag
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:29:57PM +, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The current best practice for dealing with packages using GNU autotools
> (as described in /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz) is to
> run autoreconf in a prerequisite of a build target, and to remove its
> res
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:29:57 +
Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> The current best practice for dealing with packages using GNU
> autotools (as described
> in /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz) is to run
> autoreconf in a prerequisite of a build target, and to remove its
> results in the cle
On 15/03/11 22:29, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> The current best practice for dealing with packages using GNU autotools
> (as described in /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz) is to
> run autoreconf in a prerequisite of a build target, and to remove its
> results in the clean target.
>
> Howe
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:55:54PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:29:57 +
> Marcin Owsiany wrote:
[...]
> >Since I use (or plan to use) git-buildpackage, I don't have a
> > tarball which could serve as an authoritative whitelist. Thus an
> > additional whitelist refre
Hi,
after this problem came up on irc I thought I would mention it to a
larger audience:
After upgrading to squeeze the dhcp client suddenly started to overwrite
/etc/resolv.conf again while before it was configured not to do so.
Looking into the cause we discovered that the problem is that
dhcp
Peter Pentchev writes:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:45:06AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:40:52PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> > From discussion on IRC earlier this evening, it looks like the most
>> > pragmatic approach will be to get the apt and aptitude sbuild
>> > r
Roger Leigh writes:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 03:36:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:08:18PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 07:42:32PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> > > I disagree here.
>> > > Alternatives in build-* relationships *are*
On a somewhat related note:
If a package is manually installed, then replaced with a transitional
package, then apt should mark the transitional package's dependencies
as manually installed and the transitional package as automatically
installed. Otherwise, when one removes the transitional packa
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes:
> On 02/03/11 04:24, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> It seems to me not worth a mass bug filing. This doesn't seem like
>> something
>> that would affect user's systems. Is there a rationale for imposing this
>> ordering other than puiparts can't deal with it?
>
> If
Mike O'Connor writes:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:41:00 -0500, Scott Kitterman
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 04:53:46 am Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>
>> > If you have non-free enabled and install a package from main, it should
>> > install the dependencies from main. So you should hav
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> don't even use Debian as there system. And then those that do use Debian
> use stable usually (or even oldstable), meaning you have to put every
> update inside there. Good luck, it's not something I want to do.
I would have thought it woul
34 matches
Mail list logo
