On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Holger Wansing wrote:
Am 23. August 2021 07:19:26 MESZ schrieb Tomas Pospisek :
The thing is, if you close a bug report via `Bcc:
-cl...@bugs.debian.org` then the mail that arrives at the
BTS does *not* have the -cl...@bugs.debian.org address in
t
Am 23. August 2021 07:19:26 MESZ schrieb Tomas Pospisek :
>
>The thing is, if you close a bug report via `Bcc:
>-cl...@bugs.debian.org` then the mail that arrives at the
>BTS does *not* have the -cl...@bugs.debian.org address in
>the email header but only in the mail e
On 23.08.21 07:24, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
On 23.08.21 02:35, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2021-08-21 10:36:04 +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
In particular it *seems* to work for him and he doesn't have access
to your
system where things apparently went wrong so it could be really hard
for him
to kno
On 23.08.21 02:35, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2021-08-21 10:36:04 +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
In particular it *seems* to work for him and he doesn't have access to your
system where things apparently went wrong so it could be really hard for him
to know. So what you can do is to try to debug *y
On 23.08.21 02:21, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2021-08-22 23:32:15 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 08:25:41PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
Wouldn't the Bcc'ed email that arrived to the BTS be visible in the bug's
log/archive (on the bug's page (https://bugs.debian.org/989
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 2:31 PM Aivar Annamaa wrote:
> Is here someone, who can meet me in Tartu, Estonia or is willing to
> arrange this over the internet? Perhaps I could sign a statement about
> my identity with Estonian ID card?
I checked the list of lists of Debian locations and there are no
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Eric Dorland
* Package name: golang-github-powerman-deepequal
Version : 0.1.0-1
Upstream Author : Alex Efros
* URL : https://github.com/powerman/deepequal
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Go
Description : Go pack
Luca Boccassi writes:
> On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 07:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This is already the case. Policy 10.1:
>>To support merged-/usr systems, packages must not install files in
>>both /path and /usr/path. For example, a package must not install both
>>/bin/example and /
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 19:02:18 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 12:26:46PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > So, when did you last log into your build chroot to upgrade dpkg and
> > apt first?
> Personally, I never upgrade build chroots between major versions. I
> just use a
On 2021-08-21 10:36:04 +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> In particular it *seems* to work for him and he doesn't have access to your
> system where things apparently went wrong so it could be really hard for him
> to know. So what you can do is to try to debug *yourself* why the upgrade
> went wrong a
On 2021-08-22 23:32:15 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 08:25:41PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> > Wouldn't the Bcc'ed email that arrived to the BTS be visible in the bug's
> > log/archive (on the bug's page (https://bugs.debian.org/989734))?
> It's visible: https://bugs.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Leandro Doctors
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, ldoct...@gmail.com
* Package name: libtools-build-clojure
Version : 0.1.7
Upstream Author : Alex Miller , and others
* URL : https://github.com/clojure/tools.build
* Li
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 12:26:46PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>
> So, when did you last log into your build chroot to upgrade dpkg and
> apt first? And while at that, did you follow the release notes – from
> the future, as they have yet to be written for the release you are
> arguably upgra
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 10:24:56PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> The point of the migration is that /usr/bin will be identical to /bin,
> etc. If they are not identical, then it's not usrmerge as it is
> understood and has been adopted by many upstreams for a decade, it's
> something else that is i
Hi,
On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 12:29 -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> * Ansgar [210822 05:08]:
> > To get a filesystem layout equivalent to merged-/usr via symlinks
> > farming *every* package shipping files in at least /usr/bin,
> > /usr/sbin
> > and possibly some of /usr/lib would need to include symli
On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 12:29 -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> * Ansgar [210822 05:08]:
> > Hi Guillem,
> >
> > On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 00:11 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > There was talk about the huge amount of symlinks required in a
> > > symlink farm setting, but that might have been true for a
>
On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 12:42 +0200, Steve Cotton wrote:
> Am Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 11:21:38AM +0100 schrieb Luca Boccassi:
> > On Sat, 2021-08-21 at 22:57 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > Just like no one had detected the database corruption in Ubuntu
> > > before
> > > I spotted the problem via cod
On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 07:45 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Luca Boccassi writes:
>
> > I've asked this before - I might be very wrong, but I was under the
> > impression that having both /bin/foo and /usr/bin/foo (which is the
> > example mentioned) was already considered RC-buggy and needed
> > fi
On 22.08.21 00:11, Guillem Jover wrote:
I'm personally just not seeing such consensus, despite the attempts of
some to make it pass as so. My perception is that this topic has become
such a black hole of despair, that people that take issue with it, are
simply stepping away.
Possibly. But for
Package: wnpp
Owner: Peymaneh Nejad
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, team+swa...@tracker.debian.org
* Package name: wlsunset
Version : 0.2.0
Upstream Author : Kenny Levinsen
* URL : https://sr.ht/~kennylevinsen/wlsunset
* License
Holger Levsen wrote:
> again, I'm planning an small mass bug filing against obsolete transitional
> packages, which are at least marked "dummy transitional" since the buster
> release,
Thanks for taking care of this!
But I'm wondering if this wouldn't be a perfect task for a Debian Janitor fix
Hi,
On 22.08.21 16:52, Simon Richter wrote:
The most generic approach would be to have a symlink farming mode in
dpkg, where it has a goal (as defined by a package) to create a symlink
/lib -> usr/lib, but while another package declares /lib to be a
directory, the directory has precedence and
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 08:25:41PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> Wouldn't the Bcc'ed email that arrived to the BTS be visible in the bug's
> log/archive (on the bug's page (https://bugs.debian.org/989734))?
It's visible: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=27
--
WBR, wRA
Hi Mattia,
On 21.08.21 12:06, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 10:36:04AM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On 20.08.21 16:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
My bug report https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734
has been closed again, with no explanations.
https
Hi,
On 22.08.21 18:29, Marvin Renich wrote:
The amount of work is orders of magnitude less than you are
representing. There is no need for the symlink-farm to exactly match
the symlink-dir solution. The union of systems during the symlink-farm
merge and systems after the merge is complete can
* Ansgar [210822 05:08]:
> Hi Guillem,
>
> On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 00:11 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > There was talk about the huge amount of symlinks required in a
> > symlink farm setting, but that might have been true for a scenario
> > where those symlinks would have been handled automatical
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 2:57 AM Luca Boccassi wrote:
>
> updating Lintian would be the best outcome.
The corresponding bug in Lintian [1] will be resolved by changing the
expected prefix for service files to /usr/lib once a backport of
debhelper is available in bullseye, as described here. [
Hi,
On 22.08.21 05:10, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
So with the goal of trying to enumerate possible solutions, it sounds
some combination of:
(a) disallowing moving problematic files between packages, with possibly some
QA tools to enforce this
(b) keeping the next release cycle *short*, say o
Luca Boccassi writes:
> I've asked this before - I might be very wrong, but I was under the
> impression that having both /bin/foo and /usr/bin/foo (which is the
> example mentioned) was already considered RC-buggy and needed fixing?
> Is that not the case?
This is already the case. Policy 10.1
Hi!
I wish to start uploading my program
(https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/thonny) myself and for starters I need
a DD to sign my GPG key.
Is here someone, who can meet me in Tartu, Estonia or is willing to
arrange this over the internet? Perhaps I could sign a statement about
my identity with Esto
Package: general
Severity: wishlist
Dear developers,
As we discussed on -devel(*), it seems that we can enable https for
{deb,security}.debian.org by default. With this bug report, I'll
collect related things and fix it.
- Update mirror list (how?)
- Update security mirror setting in d-i (h
Am Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 11:21:38AM +0100 schrieb Luca Boccassi:
> On Sat, 2021-08-21 at 22:57 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Just like no one had detected the database corruption in Ubuntu before
> > I spotted the problem via code review and analysis (which I guess in
> > your world translates to
On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 11:05:23PM +, Stephan Verbücheln wrote:
> What about HTTP 304 Not Modified?
What about them? Care to give details?
Note that APT nowadays hardly makes requests which can legally be
replied to with 304 as it knows which index files changed (or not)
based on comparing t
On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 11:08 +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> Hi Guillem,
>
> On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 00:11 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > There was talk about the huge amount of symlinks required in a
> > symlink
> > farm setting, but that might have been true for a scenario where
> > those
> > symlinks woul
On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 12:47:51PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Personally, I *don't* have a problem about telling people to manually
> update dpkg, apt, and/or apt-get before they do the next major stable
> release (maybe it's because this is something I do as a matter of
> course; it's not that
On Sat, 2021-08-21 at 23:10 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 02:15:31AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> >
> > The latter is what brought us into a situation where it is no
> > longer safe to
> > move files between packages and between aliased directories in the
> > same
> > upgr
On Sat, 2021-08-21 at 22:57 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-08-21 at 18:47:50 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > On Sat, 2021-08-21 at 16:20 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > I'm not saying the solution which the dpkg maintainers are
> > > proposing
> > > is the only valid solution, but i
Hi,
* Simon Richter [2021-08-22 02:15]:
There are two issues here: dpkg not handling certain corner cases, and
the usemerge package modifying the file system, bypassing dpkg.
Maybe this question has been answered elsewhere, but I keep
wondering: What prevents dpkg from updating/reparing its da
On Sat, 2021-08-21 at 20:45 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 06:47:50PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > My recollection (which might be wrong, but a quick look at release
> > notes seems to support it with 11.04 having multiarch 2 years
> > before
> > Wheezy) is that Canonical l
Hi Guillem,
On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 00:11 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> There was talk about the huge amount of symlinks required in a
> symlink
> farm setting, but that might have been true for a scenario where
> those
> symlinks would have been handled automatically and transparently.
To get a fi
On 2021-08-22 Guillem Jover wrote:
[...]
> The huge majority of files under /lib* (which is the actual bulk of them)
> should require no symlink farms. Many of the ones under /bin and /sbin
> (we are talking about around 240 packages here) might be switchable w/o
> compat symlinks after careful co
41 matches
Mail list logo
