On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 03:55:17PM -0500, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> As I said in the announcement message, I have proposed a Merge Request
> against elfutils in order to enable the automatic usage of our
> debuginfod server. I know that there are people who are not comfortable
> with having a
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 01:39:14PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 11:29:52AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Note that the name of the .changes file by the maintainer and the
> > buildd will be the same, and dak will reject it if that .changes
> >
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 02:52:54AM +, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:29 PM Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
> > Would it not be possible to eliminate the need for the second
> > unnecessary upload by requiring two signed .changes files to go into
> > NEW? A signed binary changes whic
On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 08:19:44PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-03-03 at 18:59 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> [...]
> > Most people will actually have at least 2 hardware RNGs: One in
> > the CPU and one in the TPM. We can make the kernel trust those as
> > entr
I think the only sane things are:
- Use a hardware RNG (CPU, TPM, chaos key, ...)
- Credit a seed file stored during the previous boot
- Wait for new entropy from other sources
Note that is can be a combination of all 3.
We currently do not credit the seed file, for various good
reasons. We shoul
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: postfix-mta-sts-resolver
Version : 0.2.4
* URL : https://github.com/Snawoot/postfix-mta-sts-resolver
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: python
Description : Daemon which provides TLS client policy for
Package: wnpp
I'm orphaning libtool.
It currently has 1 RC bug, and the last NMU at least seems to
cause a regression.
Kurt
is
> "unversioned, incomplete, barely documented, and seems to be
> unmaintained" [3]. Kurt Roeckx proposed a patch to add a compatibility
> shim [4], and a number of other projects have done something similar,
> but the OpenSSH developers have explicitly said that they do no
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 09:30:41AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 15 juillet 2017 23:06 +0100, Chris Lamb :
>
> > Dear Niels,
> >
> >> You need the $group parameter (the 5th parameter to the run sub).
> >
> >
> >
> > Bingo, that works. Will tidy a bunch of things up and push it tomorrow.
> >
On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 09:14:47PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > I might upload this soon. The intention is still to ship Buster
> > with TLS 1.0 and 1.1 completly disabled.
>
> Disabled by configuration or disabled by not compiling it in?
With "completly disabled" I mean at build time.
> It'
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 08:35:52PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 05:22:51PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > I wonder if there is a middle way that ensures that all new stuff does
> > go TLS1.2 (or later, whenever), but does allow older stuff still to
> >
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:43:08AM -0700, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> I don't think it was answered... Is there an actual reason that this needs
> to be handled urgently? Is TLSv1.0/v1.1 considered broken?
Yes.
Kurt
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:49:05PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> I read your announcement on d-d-a, but due to moving places
> I couldn't answer.
>
> I consider the unconditional deprecation of TLS 1.0 and 1.1
> a very wrong move.
>
> Be strict with what you are sending out, but
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:41:10AM -0400, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 08:35:52PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 05:22:51PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > I wonder if there is a middle way that ensures that all new stuff does
> &g
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 01:34:53PM +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Aug 09, Sven Hartge wrote:
>
> >> Looking at https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html
> >> there is still a marketshare of ~25% of smartphones based on Android
> >> 5.0 and 5.1 and 16% base
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 05:53:07PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > > This will likely break certain things that for whatever reason
> > > still don't support TLS 1.2. I strongly suggest that if it's not
> > > supported that you add support for it, or get the other side to
> > > add support for it.
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 05:22:51PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> I wonder if there is a middle way that ensures that all new stuff does
> go TLS1.2 (or later, whenever), but does allow older stuff still to
> work. Which isnt the case if they are just disabled.
I could change the default settings t
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:59:20AM +0200, Leon Klingele wrote:
> Does this also apply for libssl?
This applies to libssl1.1 package and everything making use of it.
Kurt
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 05:04:08AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 19:30 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Ben Hutchings writes:
> > > On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 16:09 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > > Daniel Pocock writes:
> > > > > However, at the time when I ran ntpdate, ntp was n
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
Hi,
I could really use some help with the ntp (network time protocol)
package. There have been various bugs filed, and I didn't have the
time to properly look at them and deal with them.
It's currently team maintained, but I've been the only one doing
anything the
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:53:31PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> AFAIK there are potentially still similar problems with ARMv5 - lack
> of architcture-defined barrier primitives for C++11 atomics to
> work. (I'd love to be corrected on this if people know better!) This
> is one of the key points h
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:30:13AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016, at 11:06, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:11:09AM +0100, Tino Mettler wrote:
> > > At the end I noticed that Qt will stay at 1.0 (by glancing into the
> > > changelog of the rel
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 10:32:58PM +0100, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2016-11-19 21:06 GMT+01:00 Kurt Roeckx :
>
> > Chacha20 would be a new feature. Following the policy that can't
> > be added in a 1.0.2 version, only bugs get fixed in it.
> >
>
> y
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 06:30:06PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 11/17/2016 12:40 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 07:10:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> >>
> >> The alternative for ChaCha20 would be to adopt Cloudflare's patches[1],
> &
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:18:32PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
> On 18/11/16 22:12, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 09:15:53PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 18/11/16 21:10, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >>> On Fri,
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 09:15:53PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
> On 18/11/16 21:10, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 03:53:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I wanted to try compiling some upstream projects against OpenSS
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 03:53:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
> I wanted to try compiling some upstream projects against OpenSSL 1.1.0
> on jessie, without installing the package though.
>
> I tried the following:
>
> dget -x
> http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/openssl/openssl_1.1.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:22:23PM -0500, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Daniel Pocock wrote:
> > I wanted to try compiling some upstream projects against OpenSSL 1.1.0
> > on jessie, without installing the package though. I tried the following:
> >
> > dget -x
> > http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 07:10:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> The alternative for ChaCha20 would be to adopt Cloudflare's patches[1],
> but that sort of assumes that you are only interested in openssl 1.1 for
> ChaCha20 (and not the other changes).
I'm not willing to maintain such a patch.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 01:23:31PM +0100, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> But who knows which other packages are silently broken the same way?
At least something like that also came up with xmltooling.
It's probably caused by this:
curl_easy_setopt(easy, CURLOPT_SSL_CTX_FUNCTION, &sslCtxFunction_
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 02:02:52PM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
> On miércoles, 2 de noviembre de 2016 10:00:43 A. M. ART Bernhard Schmidt
> wrote:
> > Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > There might also be packages for which
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:49:52PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > If you have any problems feel free to contact us.
> >
> > - are “you” ?
>
> Yes.
or openssl-us...@openssl.org
Kurt
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:26:15PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just random thoughts…
>
> Kurt Roeckx (2016-11-01):
> > I just uploaded OpenSSL 1.1.0 to unstable. There are still many
> > packages that fail to build using OpenSSL 1.1.0. For most packag
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:05:06PM +0200, ni...@thykier.net wrote:
> * If we were to enable -fPIE/-pie by default in GCC-6, should that change
>also apply to this port? [0]
If -fPIE is the default will -fPIC override it?
It will also default to tell the linker to use -pie, but then
don't do
Please ignore this e-mail. It never happened.
Kurt
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 04:15:39AM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote:
> On 06/11/2016 02:30 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > There is an upstream wiki page for this at:
> > https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/1.1_API_Changes
> >
> > If things aren't clear, you have
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 08:33:07PM +0300, Antti Jarvinen wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes:
> > The release of OpenSSL 1.1.0 is getting nearer.
>
> Thanks for the warning, I'm finding myself listed.. For the
> problematic package I maintain the API changes are already fixed
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 07:41:25PM +0200, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> 2016-06-11 14:30 GMT+02:00 Kurt Roeckx :
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The release of OpenSSL 1.1.0 is getting nearer. Some packages
> > will no longer build with the new version without changes. Most
&g
yashi
groonga (U)
Kevin Smith
swift-im (U)
Khalid Aziz
openhpi (U)
Kilian Krause
asterisk (U)
libexosip2 (U)
libzrtpcpp (U)
ptlib (U)
stunserver (U)
yate (U)
Klas Lindfors
yubico-piv-tool (U)
Krzysztof Burghardt
poco
Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy)
light
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: ntpsec
Version : 0.9.1
* URL : https://www.ntpsec.org
* License : NTP / BSD 3-Clause / BSD 4-Clause
Description : a secure, hardened, and improved ntp daemon
I don't actually have the time to work on this cu
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 04:06:51PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 30.07.2015 05:12, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>
> > I'm looking at the bug overview page for src:python3-llfuse
> > (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=python-llfuse). The
> > first thing it lists is the apparentl
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 04:50:42PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Daniel Pocock pocock.pro> writes:
>
> > I looked at the package ssl-cert to try and understand and there I found
> > that it is using /etc/ssl/certs for server certs while other packages
>
> Do NOT do that.
>
> It's causing trou
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 06:18:16PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> - There is no trust path from your already-installed distribution to the
> "archive" package (yes, I did sign the gpg keys; no, I don't consider
> that enough).
There are 2 popular methods for this:
- Have an "app store". We w
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 01:59:16PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> You can see the `options' file I passed, below. I have not verified
> the Secretary's quorum calculation.
devotee did a quorum calculation, but i will need to recalculate
it since there are DDs that don't have a key in the keyring.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:42:34PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> A couple of questions for people who know low-level things:
>
> * Of Debian's architectures (official and otherwise), which ones are
> known/defined/designed to be OK with unaligned accesses from
> user-space, and which ones (ca
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 06:12:46PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Neil McGovern writes ("Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system
> coupling"):
> > Indeed, unfortunately so. Given the rather rushed nature though, it
> > would be nice to try and work out a way of avoiding having to do this
>
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:41:15AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo writes ("Re: Determining, ad hoc, whether
> someone is a DD"):
> > Not a primary source, but perhaps this is of some use, it is in general
> > a nice overview and easy to lookup by name or username. In pa
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:38:49PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've recently packaged subsurface 4.2 for experimental, because it depends on
> libgit2 which is in experimental...
>
> I think you might want to read these posts:
> http://lists.hohndel.org/pipermail/subsurface/2014-A
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:16:12AM +0200, Ondrej Surý wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014, at 09:54, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > 01.08.2014 11:37, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > as a first step towards source-only uploads, the archive will now accept
> > > source-only uploads provided the f
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 08:49:26AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Kibi wrote:
> >Joachim Breitner (2014-07-13):
> >>Am Sonntag, den 13.07.2014, 13:02 +0200 schrieb Cyril Brulebois:
> >> >> [10]https://www.debian.org/intro/organization
> >>not really helpful. It links to
> >> [11]https://buildd.de
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 05:41:41AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> I take a somewhat different philosophical position, which is that it's
> impossible to make something moron-proof, because morons are
> incredibly ingenious :-), and there are legitimate times when you
> might indeed want more than
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 08:54:14AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 02:03:06PM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> >
> > maybe this will help in the future:
> >
> > http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2014/07/17/235
>
> Latest version of the patch:
>
> http://lists.op
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 02:09:55PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I plan to try and get them to use symbol versioning, at least on
> > those platforms that support it. This will probably be just like
>
> Thank
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 08:36:30PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mike Hommey:
> > Well, it kind of is. Because those versioned symbols in openssl come
> > from a debian patch, afaict. So while debian may be fine (as long as all
> > build-rdeps have been rebuilt since openssl got those v
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 02:15:13PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:53:45PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > There are a number of reasons for that, but one has been that I was
> > unhappy about the perceived 'closedness' of the project
>
>
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:53:45PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
>
> Hi Kurt,
>
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:25:47PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > What are you doing with the binaries, include files, man pages,
> > ...? Will they conflict with the ones from openssl?
>
&
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 01:51:00PM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx
>libtool
==> libtool_2.4.2-1.7.arch-all.unusedbd <==
gfortran=4:4.8.2-4
gfortran Depends on gfortran-4.8, and that is being used.
>openssl (U)
==> openssl_1.0.1g-4.arch-all.unusedbd <
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:32:27PM +0200, Ondrej Surý wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014, at 14:27, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > If your disagreement with the FTP team is unresolvable, and if you have
> > time, maybe you can try to open a ticket for a resolution by the Technical
> > Com
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 02:34:27PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Simon McVittie , 2014-06-17, 13:20:
> >It should be possible to make a CA certificate that is only considered to
> >be valid for the spi-inc.org and debian.org subtrees, and then trust the
> >assertion that SPI control that certificate
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:23:58AM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> device is inferiour to the random devices on OpenBSD/MirBSD, so you
> should seed the aRC4 state with additional random bytes:
As far as I know, OpenBSD stopped using (A)RC4 for their
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:01:19PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Vincent Danjean , 2014-06-10, 16:27:
> >>In healpix-cxx, I'm getting warnings from dh_shlibdeps about missing
> >>OpenMP symbols. See, for example, this excerpt from
> >>https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=healpix-cxx&arch=
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 11:39:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > How can we make the transition smooth ?
>
> > I have a package.install file that contains a line
> > /usr/lib/perl5/
>
> Build-Depends on perl (>= 5.20) would make the transition smooth for users
> and the buildds. The only drawba
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:34:12AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> previously on this list people contributed:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 07:07:45PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > But meanwhile, OpenBSD developers are extensively cleaning up OpenSSL
> > > 1.0.1g.
> >
>
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:38:52AM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>
> They've ripped out this whole PRNG now to use the one from their own libc:
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libssl/src/crypto/rand/rand_lib.c.diff?r1=1.14;r2=1.15
And I think just a change like that might wo
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 07:07:45PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> But meanwhile, OpenBSD developers are extensively cleaning up OpenSSL
> 1.0.1g.
One of the problems with anything from OpenBSD is that they only
care about OpenBSD, and if you want to use that fork you'll
actually have
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 08:29:37AM +0100, Ondrej Surý wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014, at 21:33, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > Ondrej Surý dijo [Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 08:10:47PM +0100]:
> > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014, at 19:13, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > > > As keyring maintainers, we no longer consider 1024D keys to
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 08:10:47PM +0100, Ondrej Surý wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014, at 19:13, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > As keyring maintainers, we no longer consider 1024D keys to be
> > trustable. We are not yet mass-removing them, because we don't want to
> > hamper the project's work, but we defini
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 03:15:24PM +0100, Ondrej Surý wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't really want to open another can of worms, but what's the opinion
> of non-Linux ports maintainers on default init?
>
> Or maybe I should turn it another way:
>
> If we have working OpenRC on kFreeBSD and GNU Hurd, can
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 08:31:56AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 01/20/2014 09:34 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> >
> >> wait, what? Do you have any vendor statements to support this 20%
> >> extra space?
> >
> > Flash is basically probabilist
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 08:12:40PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Debian ist still relying heavily on GnuTLS 2.12.x, and I do not think
> this is sustainable for much longer.
>
> State of Play:
> -
> In July 2011 with version 3.0 [1] GnuTLS switched to Nettle as only
> support
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:20:40PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> Overall, I would therefore prefer option 1 (not the option I expected to
> prefer when I started analysing this!), because as far as I can see it
> will unblock cross-building for both packages that need /usr/bin/libtool
> and those
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:20:40PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 06:14:07PM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> > The correct solution is for libtool package to be marked as
> > "multi-arch: allowed" without splitting this tiny package into two
> > even smaller packages.
>
>
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 08:59:53AM -0600, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Clint Adams wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 03:50:06AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> >> Apart from the termination clause, the GPLv2 is far more concise,
> >> I don't see tivoization as a probl
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 05:59:35PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> On 12/28/2013 04:15 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> >> On 12/28/2013 03:53 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09A
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> On 12/28/2013 03:53 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> >> As one of the "GPL v2 only" proponents, I take affront. I choose to
> >> license what little software I release as
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 02:38:50PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Steve Langasek dixit:
>
> >of GPLv3, and explicitly did not. In fact, the system library exception is
> >now defined even more narrowly than for GPLv2, so that it now covers only
> >language runtime libraries. I think this was a
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:32:27PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> severity 726009 serious
> thanks
>
> This remains a serious bug. Your package, which previously built on
> multiple architectures, is now failing to build due to memory exhaustion.
> While in some circumstances it is permissible t
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 11:44:26PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Dear developpers,
>
> Is there other people still using gpm intensively (the console mouse selection
> system) ? The Debian package is unmaintained and the upstream project is not
> very active either.
I do, but I don't have any h
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 11:54:55AM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
>
> The current proposal about Depends/Conflicts/Provides is the following:
> ICD Loader:
> ===
> Section: libs
> Multi-Arch: same
> Architecture: any
> Provides: libopencl1
> Conflicts: libopencl1
> Replaces: libopencl1
> Su
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 08:11:10PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The next point release for "wheezy" (7.2) is scheduled for Saturday
> October 12th. Stable NEW will be frozen during the preceding weekend.
Can you please clarify what is acceptable for uploads to proposed
updates to get
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:31:38PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > A self-signed cert's signature algorithm really isn't that
> > important. You either trust that cert or you don't.
>
> Surely this wo
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:51:06PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > The problem in the referenced URI is that gnutls refuses to tolerate
> > a less secure DH key size. Here, gnutls refuses to tolerate a less
> > secure hash algorithm.
>
> I think gnutls by default has a min
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:29:30AM -0400, James Cloos wrote:
>
> The root problem (pardon the pun) is that cacert's root certificate is
> signed with md5 and gnutls doesn't like that.
A self-signed cert's signature algorithm really isn't that
important. You either trust that cert or you don't.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:13:59AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> >
> > I could see a *huge* load on this pool for this reason.
>
> If so, so what? We are not short of bandwidth and we do have contacts
> and offers from CDNs which will make serving this Not A Problem(TM).
So should we take tha
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 09:07:48PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 22:01:33 +0530
> Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>
> > Taking this topic forward, I also reached out to upstream folks,
> > asking them to fix these build errors on various architectures.
> >
> > I already did an uploa
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 08:23:28AM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
>
> Indeed. So maybe mdns is to blame here for part of the trouble? Can you
> verify that really the last mdns4 entry makes up for the difference?
mdns has always been a problem in my expierence. I thought there
was a bug open about
On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 02:30:33PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Continuing on from the "boot ordering and resolvconf" thread;
> cc:ed to Helmut in case this gets filtered again; bcc:ed to
> 683...@bugs.debian.org since this is relevant for how that
> issue is addressed...
A related bug is #582916
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:39:05PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > I think any open source project can ask that
>
> Indeed, however, for a project like Debian it would probably require
> some changes in their service or at
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 11:36:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Alexandre Rebert wrote:
>
> > We found the bugs using Mayhem [1], an automatic bug finding system
> > that we've been developing in David Brumley's research lab for a
> > couple of years. We recently ran
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 05:35:35PM +0200, Ondrej Surý wrote:
> > fabien boucher
> > libjson0-dev : json-c
> > /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libjson.so
>
> Also a false positive - this is result of json to json-c library name
> transition made by upstream and the symlink is kept there to a
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:10:39PM +0200, Anton Gladky wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I have a proposal to give a permission to all DDs to restart builds on
> failing archs e.g. execute "gb-command".
>
> I think, most of developers are clever enough to define, whether the
> built failed "accidentally" an
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:41:47PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx dixit:
>
> >If you add that requirement, it can be upto 24 bit smaller than
> >time_t. But as far as I know, there is no such requirement. In
>
> Sure. As I was saying, software in practice w
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:37:45PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx dixit:
>
> >tm_year should be an int, not a time_t or long. Note that it
>
> POSIX says it "must" be a long...
It doesn't say so here. It has it as an int.
Also note that time_t d
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:49:00AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Russ Allbery debian.org> writes:
>
> > Be aware that x32 has sizeof(time_t) > sizeof(long), so you should expect
>
> So has MirBSD/i386 (since 2004-06-19) and NetBSD (since roughly a year).
>
> Most frequent thing is format spec
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 07:34:21AM -0400, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 11:54:49AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> > cmake from sid makes it even harder. RelWithDebInfo now contains
> > -DNDEBUG ... I have to source-upload all my packages :(
> >
> > $ grep NDEBUG ChangeLog.manua
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:32:29PM +0200, Dennis van Dok wrote:
> The point I'd like to raise is that the current model of CA
> certificates seems to take an all-or-nothing approach: either a CA is
> trusted (for whatever purpose) or not. For the IGTF CAs, this may not
> be the right approach.
One
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:39:06PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:53:43PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > There was a GSoC project in 2012 about generating sysvinit scripts from
> > systemd .service files. Was there some communication about its outcome?
>
> I had a look
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 08:03:33AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>
> I'd use a PPA-style package repository of some sort, and then advertise
> it to people might want to try that version of the package.
Then it makes more sense to upload it to experimental to me.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 08:49:51PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>
> Releases are important
> --
>
> Releases are important to many, perhaps most, of our users. Hackers
> and hardcore powerusers don't necessarily care about them, of course,
> but most others do. A released vers
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 05:27:01AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:46:02AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > What I think should be fixed is the fact that it doesn't
> > appear in the filename. I never understood why they
> > don't. Did I miss something?
>
> Having a colon
1 - 100 of 397 matches
Mail list logo
