Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominik George
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
** Prerequisite for geierlein, ITP #695204 **
* Package name: libjs-forge
Version :
Upstream Author : Digital Bazaar, Inc.
* URL : https://github.com/digitalbazaar
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominik George
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
** Prerequisite for geierlein, ITP #695204 **
* Package name: libjs-gzip
Version : 0.3.1
Upstream Author : T. Jameson Little
* URL : htts://github.com/beatgammit/g
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominik George
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
** Prerequisite for geierlein, ITP #695204 **
* Package name: libjs-jsxml
Version :
Upstream Author : Anton Zorko
* URL : http://jsxml.net
* License : BSD
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Laurent Bigonville
* Package name: adcli
Version : 0.7.1
Upstream Author : Stef Walter
* URL : http://www.freedesktop.org/software/realmd/adcli/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : Tool for perform
I am less critical about it - it just should remain outside Debian. We would
gain a deb-store, I presume. The ties should be more with the respective
program's developers than with us the Debian community. After all, the money
would flow because of the functionality, not because of the availabil
Am 13.06.2013 21:47, schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
> Matthias Klose dixit:
>
>> The Java and D frontends now default to 4.8 on all architectures, the Go
>> frontend stays at 4.7 until 4.8 get the complete Go 1.1 support.
>
> I’d like to have gcj at 4.6 in gcc-defaults for m68k please,
> until the 4.8
Am 13.06.2013 16:46, schrieb Steven Chamberlain:
> Hi,
>
> On 13/06/13 13:51, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> GCC 4.8 is now the default on all x86 architectures, and on all ARM
>> architectures (the latter confirmed by the Debian ARM porters). I did not
>> get
>> any feedback from other port maintaine
Much more often than I do like it, I see bug reports for the toolchain just
pointing to a build log. Then looking at the build log, you often just see
CC ...
CCLD ... (sometimes even colorized)
This doesn't really help when trying to diagnose things, and even for successful
builds it's valuabl
+++ Matthias Klose [2013-06-14 13:35 +0200]:
> Much more often than I do like it, I see bug reports for the toolchain just
> pointing to a build log. Then looking at the build log, you often just see
>
> CC ...
> CCLD ... (sometimes even colorized)
>
> This doesn't really help when trying to d
Hi,
On 14/06/13 13:35, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Much more often than I do like it, I see bug reports for the toolchain just
> pointing to a build log. Then looking at the build log, you often just see
>
> CC ...
> CCLD ... (sometimes even colorized)
>
> This doesn't really help when trying to
On 14/06/2013 13:49, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Matthias Klose [2013-06-14 13:35 +0200]:
>> Much more often than I do like it, I see bug reports for the toolchain just
>> pointing to a build log. Then looking at the build log, you often just see
>>
>> CC ...
>> CCLD ... (sometimes even colorized)
>>
[.
On 2013-06-14, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> I attached a dd-list for the lazy. But note that "false positives are
> possible, especially when building in parallel".
I've just sample-checked 4 packages I'm involved in and 100% of those
four I checked was false positives.
We need a better detection.
But
Matthias Klose writes:
> This doesn't really help when trying to diagnose things, and even for
> successful
> builds it's valuable to have the complete build log, including the parts how
> the
> upstream build system is called from the Debian packaging.
This is a useful goal. However, since fix
Hi,
I completely agree on the goal and disable silent rules where I notice them,
but:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 01:35:34PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> - Change Debian policy to recommend or require verbose build logs.
>#628515
Change buildds.
Do we have autosiging now for all buildds? TTB
On 06/13/2013 04:03 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Daniel Pocock , 2013-06-12, 21:41:
>> #4: Our priorities are our users and free software
>
> In any Debian discussion, given enough time, someone inevitably mentions
> SC§4. Once this occurs, the thread is over, and the person who mentioned
> it has au
Hi
I agree we need good build logs.
On 14-06-13 14:14, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Matthias Klose , 2013-06-14, 13:35:
>> So I'm proposing for jessie:
>>
>> - File and track issues for packages not enabling verbose builds.
>> https://buildd.debian.org/~brlink/bytag/W-compiler-flags-hidden.html
>
> I a
Matthias Klose dixit:
>> I’d like to have gcj at 4.6 in gcc-defaults for m68k please,
>> until the 4.8 one stops FTBFSing.
>
>please send a patch.
For gcc-defaults? I think that one is trivial…
For gcj? I did not take Compiler Design in what two semesters
of Uni I managed until I ran out of mone
On 06/14/2013 06:51 AM, "Steffen Möller" wrote:
> I am less critical about it - it just should remain outside Debian.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "outside Debian"?
> We would gain a deb-store, I presume.
I also don't understand what you mean by "deb-store".
> The ties should be mo
* Matthias Klose [130614 13:36]:
> Verbose build logs allow to analyse package builds and give hints to more
> issues
> regarding the build, especially for the hardening flags. The lintian
> hardening
> checks are incomplete, because they rely on the inspection of the generated
> binaries, whic
On Friday, June 14, 2013 02:31:45, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:42:15 -0400, Chris Knadle
>
> wrote:
> >So right now I think that I probably just didn't know that this had been
> >fixed, because I haven't been using the "split file" configuration for
> >along time. I clearly rememb
GCC-4.8 should become the default on ia64 soon; some other changes are
desirable:
- The transition of gcc-4.8/libgcc1 to libunwind8.
- A removal of the libunwind7 dependency of around 4600 packages on
ia64 - when they are updated next time after the transition. The
libc6.1 should (likely) de
On 31/05/13 08:41, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> A utility to scan syslog and convey important information to the user
> would be much more useful than configuring all mailers in Debian to read
> root's local mail by default. I know how to redirect root's mail
> elsewhere, thank you for not makin
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:49:59 -0400, Chris Knadle
wrote:
>On Friday, June 14, 2013 02:31:45, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:42:15 -0400, Chris Knadle
>> wrote:
>> >So right now I think that I probably just didn't know that this had been
>> >fixed, because I haven't been using the "spl
On 30/05/13 12:15, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes:
>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:06:59PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 05:11:35PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 29 mai 2013 à 16:31 +0200, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino a
écrit :
> Take for
24 matches
Mail list logo
