Re: finally end single-person maintainership

On 17194 March 1977, Luca Boccassi wrote: Simple packages need someone who is responsible and responsive for them in the long run and know there history much more than needing sporadic contributions. ...right up until the point where that "bus factor of 1" moves on/changes priorities/changes

Re: xz backdoor

On 17185 March 1977, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: Didn't DKG start something like this some time ago? Or am I mis-remembering? I also thought I remember some Debian-specific PGP-related document but I couldn't find it. You may remember https://keyring.debian.org/ which has a bunch of links to

Re: Deprecation of /etc/alternatives? (Re: Reaction to potential PGP schism)

On 17086 March 1977, Gioele Barabucci wrote: While we are on the topic of alternatives, I hope to see the maintscript-based /etc/alternatives paradigm deprecated in favor of the package-based X-is-X paradigm introduced by `python-is-python3`. In this scenario gnupg will ship gpg as

Re: Reaction to potential PGP schism

On 17077 March 1977, Stephan Verbücheln wrote: How can Debian deal with this? Should Debian intervene to prevent the worst? We, as Debian, look and wait what comes out. And then *MAY* at some point decide to add (or switch to) a new thing, if that appears better. Also, it will be a high bar

Re: [idea]: Switch default compression from "xz" to "zstd" for .deb packages

On 16988 March 1977, Hideki Yamane wrote: Today I want to propose you to change default compression format in .deb, {data,control}.tar."xz" to ."zst". I want to hear your thought about this. Negative. # Compared to past change to xz proposal (in DebConf12) * More bandwidth * More

Re: Reducing allowed Vcs for packaging?

On 16792 March 1977, Adrian Bunk wrote: for the contents of packages in the archive the ftp team requires that everything is in the preferred form of modification. Yes. Of course. But git or svn or even sccs and rcs is NOT, in any way, preferred for of modification. Only one way of storage

Re: Sunsetting sso.debian.org

Am 2022-10-18 04:52, schrieb Paul Wise: Salsa should be there for git (related) things. NOT as an identity/login provider for Debian There are already Debian services that do not offer any other option for auth than Salsa. Which is bad. And should be changed. Arguably it is probably a good

Re: Sunsetting sso.debian.org

On 16654 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote: I think the minimal solution here, which I'm not volunteering to do, is for tracker.debian.org to gain salsa sso support instead of client cert support. But that isnt neccessarily the best solution. I think it would be better to NOT rely on salsa for

Re: Russian locale on reprotest in Salsa CI?

Am 2022-10-13 10:13, schrieb Andreas Tille: my Russian is a bit rusty but I can understand what I can read here: https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/cimfomfa/-/jobs/3372898#L1249 I'm just a bit astonished to see this locale set. No idea what's wrong here but I think this should be

Re: …/doc …/log: .gz → .zst

On 16595 March 1977, Hakan Bayındır wrote: I’d object that, because after we rotate the logs, we use a lot of z commands, namely zcat, zgrep, zless. Which allows us process many gigabytes of gzip files without extracting them first. So you use zstdcat, zstdgrep, etc.pp, done. -- bye,

Re: Multiple teams maintaining one package (proposal)

On 16310 March 1977, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Salsa access rights include the option to grant access to Debian developers at large, which can be used to permit upload rights for secondary teams (as upload generally requires Debian membership anyway). Salsa lets one team grant rights to

Re: automatic NEW processing [was Re: Need help with Multi-Arch in systemd]

On 16200 March 1977, Michael Lustfield wrote: I do recall that the FTP masters would've been generally open to have such an auto-approver (but maybe I'm wrong), but that no-one stepped up yet to code it up? A few of us came up with some proof of concept designs/models, but we ultimately

Re: Need help with Multi-Arch in systemd

On 16194 March 1977, Simon McVittie wrote: Would it be feasible for dak to have a list of binary package name regexes mapped to a source package and a section/priority, and auto-accept packages from the given source package that match the regex, assigning the given section/priority, without

Re: About lintian

On 16128 March 1977, Felix Lechner wrote: With the kind help of the good folks at DSA [1] Lintian's experimental web application—still labeled "beta"—is now the official web presence. [2] Please bear with us as we optimize the deployment and implement additional features for you. Thanks to

Expectation of constructive interaction

to your close circle of friends, and the Community Team. -- For the DAMs, Joerg Jaspert Enrico Zini Jonathan Wiltshire signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Packages in contrib solely because they allow using non-free software

On 16093 March 1977, Dominik George wrote: That surprised me. If a package is free software, in ful laccordance with the DFSG, why is it put into contrib? I can see where this note comes from — the package maintainer does not want to help people install non-free software, a point of view that

Re: Contributing without your real name

On 16055 March 1977, Stephan Lachnit wrote: I never really thought of this, and I'm not sure how much one can contribute to Debian without posting some kind of real name (sorry if that is already answered somewhere). I'm aware that for sponsored work the name doesn't really matter, but can

Re: RFC: courier-webadmin

On 15999 March 1977, Markus Wanner wrote: I'm currently considering to drop the binary package courier-webadmin from the packaged courier suite due to security concerns. This is a CGI binary allowing web based configuration of the Courier MTA. To modify the configuration and restart the

Re: NEW queue almost empty

On 15951 March 1977, Federico Ceratto wrote: If people are interested, there's a little chart I put together: https://people.debian.org/~federico/new_queue/ (It's manually updated because it requires ssh-ing to coccia.d.o) Nice. We do have a whole bunch of graphs here:

Re: Split Packages files based on new section "buildlibs"

On 15949 March 1977, Thomas Goirand wrote: I'm sorry but I don't understand everything here. If we aren't going to have new components like main/contrib/non-free, how will it work? We main contain a new Packages.{gz,xz} file containing these? I'm guessing that it's not just a modification to

Re: Split Packages files based on new section "buildlibs"

On 15949 March 1977, Calum McConnell wrote: The Rust community's expectation seems to be that you would install cargo, and use that to download and build the clap package directly from upstream, without apt/dpkg being involved at all. I don't know that that means we should abandon efforts to

Re: Split Packages files based on new section "buildlibs"

On 15948 March 1977, Paul Wise wrote: Does this include the -dev packages for C/etc libraries? No. I guess it also applies to Haskell and other statically-linked languages. https://wiki.debian.org/StaticLinking StaticLinking itself is not enough. This is about languages where the actual

Split Packages files based on new section "buildlibs"

Hi everybody, Short Reason: Too many packages of no use to our users. Longer reason: Many packages get added to Debian that are of no (direct) use to our users. Each package adds metadata to the indices that needs to be downloaded, processed by tools and also clutters up the whole package list

Re: NEW queue almost empty

On 15946 March 1977, Phil Morrell wrote: There can never be too much of a good thing, so I just wanted to hand out another thank you to the FTP masters (and this year's trainees) Well, the current trainee does seem to have a "damn, nothing there" problem right now. :) -- bye, Joerg

Re: NEW queue almost empty

On 15940 March 1977, Christian Kastner wrote: The NEW queue length is down a single digit, from ~500 not all too long ago. That's an amazing effort by ftp-master that must have consumed a *lot* of energy. It consumed quite a batch of my poor jelly beans. :) < -- bye, Joerg

Re: DAM Key and identity requirements

On 15892 March 1977, Michael Richardson wrote: > A natural person may only have one identity in Debian. > This was effectively enforced before by requiring cross-signing > keys, > and relying on people doing the cross-signing to have key > signing > policies strong

Re: tag2upload service architecture and risk assessment - draft v2

On 15508 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote: First off: I, for personal reasons, am a bit detached right now with anything Debian (though that should change soon). For that reason, I haven't read most of the mail threads, though i skimmed over this one a bit. Scott> Your proposal completely

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

On 15413 March 1977, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Thats ok, end of May is a nice point to take. Thanks for the work and the timeframe for the rest! kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386 have now been moved to debian-ports. As hurd-i386 has been moved earlier, it means that all the 3 architectures have now

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

On 15381 March 1977, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > It would be nice to have a bit more than 2 weeks to do all of that. Ok. How much? Is 6 or 8 weeks better? I don't think, given how long this is on the table already, it doesn't make much difference if its 2 or 8. Just something thats clear defined

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

On 15371 March 1977, Aurelien Jarno wrote: How is the move to debian-ports supposed to happen? I won't have the time to do anything about it within the 2 weeks. The process to inject all packages to debian-ports is to get all the deb, udeb and buildinfo files from the archives (main and

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

On 15371 March 1977, Samuel Thibault wrote: > It seems to exist there, so probably someone who can upload there and > is interested in hurd-i386 goes and uploads stuff. Within a two-week timeframe only? (while everybody is supposed to be busy fixing RC bugs) I just jumped over old threads -

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

On 15370 March 1977, Samuel Thibault wrote: Today we had our regular FTPMaster meeting and discussed hurd and both kfreebsd architecture and decided to remove them from unstable and experimental 2 weeks from now. Just before the Buster release? That's far from the easiest timing. There is

Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Hi back in August 2018 we discussed architecture inclusion into unstable/experimental. Today we had our regular FTPMaster meeting and discussed hurd and both kfreebsd architecture and decided to remove them from unstable and experimental 2 weeks from now. -- bye, Joerg The sun? That’s the

Re: Removal of 'Valid-Until' tag in archived jessie-backports

On 15360 March 1977, Thomas Walker wrote: Hi, I've noticed that previous release's backports have the 'Valid-Until' tag removed when they are moved to archive.debian.org but that seems to have not happened with 'jessie-backports' (which has a 'Valid-Until' that is well past expiration). I fully

Re: Removal of Wheezy and Jessie (except LTS) from mirrors

On 15353 March 1977, Hideki Yamane wrote: The data is, of course, not lost - the whole of it is synced to archive.debian.org, so if you still need it you will be able to get it from there.[1] Some vendors asks their users to use archive.d.o but maybe archive.d.o doesn't have enough resource

Re: Removal of Wheezy and Jessie (except LTS) from mirrors

On 15348 March 1977, Thorsten Glaser wrote: It would be great if the last state of LTS, ideally with a signature that does not expire for a couple of years¹, were available from archive.d.o as well. Right. I am going to import the wheezy lts foo later into archive.debian.org (into the

Re: Removal of Wheezy and Jessie (except LTS) from mirrors

On 15347 March 1977, Thorsten Glaser wrote: deb http://archive.debian.org/debian wheezy main deb http://archive.debian.org/debian-security wheezy/updates main deb http://archive.debian.org/debian wheezy-updates main deb http://archive.debian.org/debian wheezy-backports main … out of which the

Re: Collaborative decision making with Loomio

On 15111 March 1977, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: >> You can't solve a social problem using technical means. > I do not share your skepticism. We can benefit from imposing some structure > and there is nothing wrong about exploring options to _improve_ the process > while not necessarily aiming at

Re: Collaborative decision making with Loomio

On 15111 March 1977, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > Loomio [1] is a powerful tool to organize decision making. We have a long > standing RFP [2] for Loomio and I hope that with help of Ruby team it can be > packaged without too much effort. It is not the tool here that is the problem. It is the

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

On 15109 March 1977, Adam Borowski wrote: >> It is covered. We explicitly list a number of things that we consider to be >> of higher priority than arbitrary compatibility with third parties (free >> software; our users' needs; creating a developer community that is welcoming >> to all people,

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

On 15102 March 1977, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote: > It has been brought to my attention that this package, its name and > the name of the binaries and further content was deemed offensive. > This was already raised in the past (~2012 IIRC) but the package was > reintroduced and has been in the

Re: uploaded but not processed

On 15029 March 1977, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > The upload will stay in the queue forever until either the key becomes > trusted again and so it can be processed (e.g. you push an update the > the keyring maintainers push it to the live keyring) or an ftp-master > manually moves it out of the way.

Re: salsa editor omits \n at end of file

On 14991 March 1977, Guus Sliepen wrote: >> Knowing that I will now just go and add an extra empty line at the bottom of >> the text/source code files edited, but, well, maybe there is a bit more >> UNIXish solution to that? > The best solution is to fix salsa. Its not "salsa" nor "salsa editor",

Re: New lintian warning: vcs-deprecated-in-debian-infrastructure

On 14986 March 1977, Ole Streicher wrote: > which IMO proves that a sophisticated "layout" with namespaces or > subdirs is a bad idea for canonical URLs. > Why can't we have a flat name space with redirection > https://git.debian.org/ > (or similar) that just redirects to the proper real

Re: New lintian warning: vcs-deprecated-in-debian-infrastructure

On 14984 March 1977, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> That was announced several times and it will not reside. > Why? Lack of volunteers maintaining a redirector, or new service > incompatible with indirections, or? Multiple things, and it ended up a decision we took at the meeting in Hamburg.

Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process

On 14969 March 1977, Gert Wollny wrote: > Sure thing, I'll give it a try. Since I'm not familiar with the dak > code, would you be so kind to point me to the functions and variables > (if available) that are there to > - extract or hold the bugs listed in the last changelog entry, > - query

Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process

On 14967 March 1977, Gert Wollny wrote: I so like proposals from people who have never ever done any of the work they propose something one. BUt hey... > (1) Given that all new source package come with an ITP bug, when a > package must be rejected, the FTP team could CC this bug in the >

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On 14963 March 1977, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> I wonder why you think "a single ftpmaster". We are a team. We closely >> coordinate what we do and how we do it. When one of us rejects, the team >> rejects - it just happens to be a random one of us doing it. Others do >> not need to get involved

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On 14963 March 1977, Pirate Praveen wrote: > 1. If a single ftp master is in disagreement, there should be a team > decision (in previous cases of disagreement also, other team members did > not get involved). I wonder why you think "a single ftpmaster". We are a team. We closely coordinate what

Re: Extended Long Term Support for Wheezy

On 14954 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > - for ftpmasters, can we keep wheezy/updates on security.debian.org for > one year more? (it might be possible to archive wheezy and drop it from > the main mirror, that would be a clear sign to everybody that something > important changed, and

Re: FTBFS with parallel make

On 14929 March 1977, Philipp Hahn wrote: > we (Univention GmbH) rebuild packages (from Debian-Jessie or newer) > using "-j8". Several builds failed, but work when I use "-j1": > With all the reproducible build stuff going on, I think it would be nice > if someone™ can also donate CPU time to

Re: Marking bugs as pending for salsa.d.o

On 14907 March 1977, Byung-Hee HWANG "(황병희, 黃炳熙)" wrote: > Joerg Jaspert <jo...@debian.org> writes: >> I'm on it, code lives in https://salsa.debian.org/salsa/webhook > Your code looks so beautiful, i am a fan for Ruby. No idea which code you have been reading, are

Re: Marking bugs as pending for salsa.d.o

On 14907 March 1977, Rafael Laboissière wrote: > In the Git repositories of packages that I maintain at alioth.d.o, a > script [*] is called in the post-receive hook for tagging the bugs > listed in the meta tag "Closes:" of gbp-dch as "pending". > Is there a way to have a similar integration

Re: salsa.debian.org (git.debian.org replacement) going into beta

On 14899 March 1977, Philip Rinn wrote: > Is it true (and intended) that -guest users can't create projects within > teams/groups they are member of? Or am I missing something? [I was not able to > create a project within the Debian Science Team] Those rights depend on the access level you have

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

On 14864 March 1977, Iain R. Learmonth wrote: > This option is defined in the source code as "Define to 1 to replace > politically incorrect insults with less offensive ones." and so by not > defining this option, the package is explicitly built to be offensive. > Obviously we should allow for a

Re: ftp master uploads disappearing?

On 14812 March 1977, Attila Szalay wrote: > For me, the uploaded package was disappeared when I accidentally used a > wrong gpg kez to sign it. It was also mine, just an old, 1024 bit long one. > In that case I received nothing back about the upload. That works as designed. As the upload queue

Re: salsa.debian.net

On 14771 March 1977, Florian Weimer wrote: > I received some key SSH import notices from salsa.debian.net, but I > didn't request anything. > Is this harmless, or is something fishy going on? Harmless, sorry. Salvatore guessed right, and the mails had been a mistake at that point. -- bye,

Re: Call for volunteers: FTP Team

On 14768 March 1977, Philip Hands wrote: >> ...Well, in keeping with the Toy Story theme, FTW Masters is >> worshipped by the Squeezes (packages alien to the archive) and at the >> time of a "Win" a package new to the archive is selected as for the >> "World". Finally, New Maintainers tremble

Re: Call for volunteers: FTP Team

On 14767 March 1977, Jonathan Carter wrote: >> it has been quite a while since the last call for volunteers, so here is >> an update: Yeah, we still need people, and we want you. Well, that is, >> if you are a Debian Developer, for this. If you are not and want to >> help, read the last paragraph

Call for volunteers: FTP Team

Hello Debian world, it has been quite a while since the last call for volunteers, so here is an update: Yeah, we still need people, and we want you. Well, that is, if you are a Debian Developer, for this. If you are not and want to help, read the last paragraph please. Ever felt compelled to do

Re: OpenSSL disables TLS 1.0 and 1.1

On 14757 March 1977, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > I've just uploaded a version of OpenSSL to unstable that disables > the TLS 1.0 and 1.1 protocol. This currently leaves TLS 1.2 as the > only supported SSL/TLS protocol version. Thats nice for any environment where on can freely define that everything

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: "Ask HN: What do you want to see in Ubuntu 17.10?"

On 14635 March 1977, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > Maybe I'm just exceedingly unlucky, but I have yet to find a laptop > where all of the following works: > - Suspend > - Hibernate > - Airplane-mode Hotkey (especially hard apparently) > - Volume Hotkeys > - Brightness Hotkeys > - Suspend/hibernate

Re: "RoQA" RM bugs

> we have human ftpmasters You sure? When did u last check? How thouroughly?  Not good enough, I'm sure. -- bye, Joerg

Re: alias type forwarders WAS: SPAM

On 14603 March 1977, Geert Stappers wrote: >> The debian lists work. Alioth currently wouldn't, I think, but software >> could be upgraded. >> It has a different problem which is way worse: It breaks usual alias >> type forwarders, which are used *a lot* within Debian. > What are the ideas about

Re: SPAM

On 14602 March 1977, Vincent Danjean wrote: >> That would be the next step, DMARC, which is SPF plus DKIM plus some >> extra DNS records. And DMARC then allow to tell other mail servers (that >> follow DMARC) to get rid (spamfilter) mail that aren't from what your >> DNS says it should be from (or

Re: SPAM

On 14602 March 1977, Philip Hands wrote: > I guess we could help the mail servers of the recipients of the initial > messages make that decision if we did SPF for debian.org, but I guess > that the lack of SPF probably indicates that this is very hard to do > with our distributed setup. With the

Re: Can we kill net-tools, please?

On 14533 March 1977, Marco d'Itri wrote: dak override net-tools net optional I: Will change priority from important to optional Continue (y/N)? y dak override iproute2 iproute2 is in section 'net' at priority 'important' Whoever wants net-tools can have it by simply installing it - or getting

Re: Thanks to ftpmasters for being so responsive

On 14534 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote: >> If everybody agrees that >> - new versions of packages shall be only uploaded to experimental >> - uploads to testing will only be done on request of the RT or with >> really new packages >> - everything else can be rejected >> processing would

Re: Crowd funding campaign to package browserify in debian

On 14530 March 1977, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> While its good (for someone) that this work is done, and hooray if it >> can be sponsored by crowdfunding, I dont think that this list is the >> proper place for it. > 2. I think -devel is right place for discussing a problem that goes > beyond a

Re: Crowd funding campaign to package browserify in debian

On 14529 March 1977, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> We are onto our second round of crowd funding >> https://www.generosity.com/community-fundraising/debian-browserify-2 > gulp is now accepted in main. If we get more support for the campaign, > we hope to continue packaging more nodejs build tools (next

Re: which JavaScript dependencies really need a separate package?

On 14526 March 1977, Daniel Pocock wrote: > - For those JavaScript libs that have complicated build systems that are > not (yet) supported on Debian, is it reasonable for a package like > homer-ui to simply include the intermediate product of the build, just > before it is minified, into the

Re: Release impact of introducing a new archive section?

On 14518 March 1977, Josh Triplett wrote: >> (my first thought was a canonical online location, but these tools may >> not want that at runtime and can't rely on it at build time, but maybe >> that should be the source used for the package) > Packaging this data (section names, short descriptions,

Re: Release impact of introducing a new archive section?

On 14516 March 1977, Josh Triplett wrote: > I've now written and submitted all of these patches. Thanks! Lets give it some time for them to get into packages and then we add sections. Please ping again, so it doesnt get forgotten. -- bye, Joerg

Re: Release impact of introducing a new archive section?

On 14515 March 1977, Josh Triplett wrote: >> while at it, please also add a section for golang package, we have over >> 500 in the archive already: > I don't see any bug filed on ftp.debian.org requesting such a section. > Could you please do so, with a short and long description of the new >

Re: Release impact of introducing a new archive section?

On 14515 March 1977, Josh Triplett wrote: >> Longer version: I think we should patch the tools first and /if/ we are >> in time before the release, we can add the sections. To my knowledge, >> there are basically no ill effects of tools knowing sections that does >> not yet exist. > That's a good

Re: Archive changes - indices compression and checksums

On 14490 March 1977, Steve McIntyre wrote: >>as started in March[1] we have just adjusted unstable to no longer >>generate gzip compressed Packages/Sources files. We plan to wait about a >>week before adjusting testing too. >>Additionally we turned off SHA1 checksums for the (In)Release files for

Re: Browserified files and DFSG

On 14490 March 1977, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> I have referred this to CTTE >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830978 > grunt is now available in main, a big part of this issue is resolved, Thanks for that work to all who did it. -- bye, Joerg

Re: call for participation - Debian contributors survey, 1st ed.

On 14484 March 1977, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Participation in the survey is completely anonymous, with no logging of > any provenance information (e.g., IP address, HTTP referrer), and all > questions are optional. No logging or name is needed, with the set of questions in this survey one

FTP Master move, second try | Upload queue

Hi first a short announce: Saturday (that is, 29th of October) we give it another shot of moving the ftp-master host, so expect another bit of downtime there. More importantly: With the changes to the upload queues I announced just yesterday, we turned off ftpd on the ftp-master host. Anyone who

Re: [Pkg-dns-devel] Bug#833309: "Browserified" stuff (knot-resolver-module-http: please package embedded epoch.js separately)

On 14466 March 1977, Ondřej Surý wrote: > to stop you from bickering on and on, the build script can be > reconstructed > just from reading gulpfile.js and would consist of installing ruby-sass, > coffeescript and node-uglify and running: > #!/bin/sh > # I absolutely new nothing about gulp,

Re: [Pkg-dns-devel] Bug#833309: "Browserified" stuff (knot-resolver-module-http: please package embedded epoch.js separately)

>> On 14458 March 1977, W. Martin Borgert wrote: >> > If I package a compiler and put y.tab.c in the package, drop >> > grammar.y in d/m-s/, would it be OK or not? >> If you come up with a good reason for it, yes. But I doubt you would >> find one here. > Let's say I need a special tool to compile

Re: "Browserified" stuff

On 14457 March 1977, Martín Ferrari wrote: >> It is not useless, and contrib is way different than any random >> repository out there. > I am not sure about that. We discourage people from using contrib, and > don't promise much support. Whereas upstream can offer the latest > package always. >

Re: [Pkg-dns-devel] Bug#833309: "Browserified" stuff (knot-resolver-module-http: please package embedded epoch.js separately)

On 14458 March 1977, W. Martin Borgert wrote: >> Dunno. It would be great if the line wasn't challenged just to prove a >> point > I don't think tincho nor myself want to challenge a line, we > would like to know where it is :~) > If I package a compiler and put y.tab.c in the package, drop >

Re: "Browserified" stuff

On 14456 March 1977, Martín Ferrari wrote: > On 09/10/16 23:56, Adam Borowski wrote: > >> Another issue is, as mentioned in the TC discussion, the inability to fix >> any non-trivial security bugs in stable. I can't quite imagine the Security >> Team hunting for a specific old version of grunt

Re: "Browserified" stuff

On 14455 March 1977, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sat, Oct 08, 2016 at 10:45:08PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> we had a discussion inside the FTP Team about the "browserified js" >> issue. We understand that "browserified" refers to various changes to >>

"Browserified" stuff

severity 817092 serious thanks Hi we had a discussion inside the FTP Team about the "browserified js" issue. We understand that "browserified" refers to various changes to the original source, from concatenating multiple (local and remotely fetched) files together, arbitary transformations (down

Re: Archive changes

On 14247 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > I've just activated a few changes to the archive we talk(ed) about for a > long time. And while it is not exactly the start of this release cycle, > it should still work out nicely (so one hopes). Tuesday to now - i think the majority of wh

Re: Archive changes

Am 2016-03-16 01:20, schrieb Steve McIntyre: I've just activated a few changes to the archive we talk(ed) about for a long time. And while it is not exactly the start of this release cycle, it should still work out nicely (so one hopes). As of now, InRelease/Release files, Packages and

Re: Archive changes

Am 2016-03-16 08:32, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli: >To test it, this is limited to experimental. We hope nothing breaks on it, >but lets try for a few days. If that works out, we should adjust >unstable, and another short time later coordinate with the release team >to adjust testing, so it ends

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 14173 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Is there any use case that requires supporting unmerged systems? > Someone has already mentioned mounting /usr ro. But one generally has > to keep /etc rw. I don't think that the right way to address this is > to make /etc a mount point. No, /etc can

New file in / of our mirros

Hi, in response to bug#752134 I implemented a little sha256sums $(find|grep) logic to create a file "extrafiles" in the top level of our mirror tree. The intention is to list all files that, unlike Packages and their files, aren't otherwise verifyable via existing signatures already. This

Re: Bug#808767: ITP: apt-transport-gs -- APT transport for repositories privately held on GCS

On 14164 March 1977, Marcin Kulisz wrote: >> * Marcin Kulisz (kuLa) , 2015-12-22, 16:07: >> >* Package name: apt-transport-gs >> s/gs/gcs/ ? > Honestly I'm not sure about it (I mean package name not the change). I don't > really mind to change it to gcs. > I called package

Re: Rename security suite to *-security

On 14160 March 1977, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > Seems like a good plan. I'm assuming that people using the old style > configuration on the new release would get an error message (and not a > silent lack of updates); or even better: that they are automatically > redirected to the new locations.

Re: Upcoming version of apt-file - using apt-acquire and incompatibilities

On 14154 March 1977, Paul Wise wrote: >> http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/dists/experimental/main/Contents-source.diff/> >> >> They now appear. > Thanks, there are still some missing though: > testing main/contrib/non-free > unstable/experimental contrib/non-free They get generated whenever

Re: Upcoming version of apt-file - using apt-acquire and incompatibilities

On 14153 March 1977, Paul Wise wrote: > Looks like Contents-source.diffs don't exist on the mirrors, filed a > bug against ftp.d.o: > http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/Contents-source.diff/ (404) > https://bugs.debian.org/807727

Re: An abrupt End to Debian Live

On 14121 March 1977, Fernando Toledo wrote: >> [ I don't know why this post is not showing up on planet.debian.org: >> https://danieltmp.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/an-abrupt-end-to-debian-live/> I >> am sending it here by mail now. ] > I'm part of developer team for Huayra GNU/Linux [1] a debian

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) >>

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 na

Re: DAK Commands for Bikesheds

On 14070 March 1977, Anthony Towns 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. > dcut from dput-ng uses $login-$timestamp rather than "EPOCH" per se. Does > this actually matter, or is it just

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >