Bug#402011: [m68k] incorrect inline assembly

[Bill.Allombert]

On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 11:47:55AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > With the fixed xulrunner packages I successfully compiled
> > epiphany-browser and with the few websites I tested it even seems to
> > work fine.
> 
> Tha patch contains a bad bugzilla bug reference. Could you point to the
> real one, please ;)

The patch say bz#343687 but it actually refer to Debian bug #343687.
The relevant Mozilla bug is #323114.

(mozilla buglog #323114 include a broken pointer to Debian #343687
which point to Mozilla #343687)

We would very much appreciate to get that patch in Etch. This is one
of the last important bug for the m68k port.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large blue swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#397645: gdm: Metacity and Twm 'sessions' available in the sessions dialog?

[Bill.Allombert]

reassign 397645 metacity
severity 397645 wishlist
retitle 397645 /usr/share/menu/metacity considered harmful
quit

On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 12:33:14PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > We can either be strict about them, asking them to implement the XSM
> > protocol, or simply ask the maintainer to be reasonable about the window
> > manager being usable as a standalone environment - which e.g. metacity
> > and kwin are not. And while I don't know about twm enough, I'm 100% sure
> > these two shouldn't appear in the options proposed by GDM.
> 
> Actually, kwin does not provide a menu entry, and I would suggest
> metacity to do the same. I think that would address this bug.
> 
> I agree that window managers that are unable to start applications by
> themselves (even if only a X terminal) must not be in the debian menu,
> because users are then stuck with a non-functionnal environment.
> 
> So I suggest to reassign this bug to metacity requesting the file
> /usr/share/menu/metacity to be removed.

Accordingly I am reassigning this bug.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large blue swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#401114: debian-archive-keyring: should probably depend on apt >= 0.6

[Bill.Allombert]

On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 11:43:12PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Package: debian-archive-keyring
> Version: 2006.11.22
> Severity: serious
> 
> debian-archive-keyring does not depent on an apt that comes with
> apt-key, so in the course of upgrading from sarge to etch one can
> end up with a system that has only two keys in apt's keyring,
> the signing keys from 2005 and 2006 which are shipped with apt itself.

In my opinion, since apt depends debian-archive-keyring, the proper fix
is to do 'apt-key update' in apt postinst (in supplement to 
doing it in debian-archive-keyring postinst).

Adding a dependency on apt to debian-archive-keyring would create a
circular dependency and would not fix the problem.

This bug is similar to #400935.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large blue swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#368485: amarok get remove during Sarge to Etch upgrade

[Bill.Allombert]

severity 368485 serious
quit
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 06:15:16PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Package: amarok
> Version: 1.4.0-1
> Severity: important
> 
> Hello Adeodato,
> 
> Amarok involves two circular dependencies:

Here are the current dependencies:

amarok  :Depends: amarok-engines | amarok-engine
amarok-engines  :Depends: amarok (= 1.4.4-0.3), amarok-xine
amarok-xine :Depends: amarok (= 1.4.4-0.3), amarok

I bump the severity because during testing this circular dependency can
cause amarok to be removed during Sarge to Etch upgrade, see




Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large blue swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#346282: transferring ownership of conffile to avoid dpkg prompt; incomplete solution

[Bill.Allombert]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:56:27PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> At least 4 major packages are presently affected by conffile prompts
> during upgrades from Sarge to current testing, because the name of the
> package owning some conffile changed.  When dpkg queries "what is the
> md5sum of the old conffile", it probably looks only for md5sums of
> files owned by the old package, and so finds nothing, and the usual
> logic doesn't apply.
> 
> See also bullet 3 of Bill Allombert's message titled "Some bits of
> experience gained from handling upgrade-reports"; this is a similar
> situation:
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/06/msg6.html
> 
> Bill's simple recipe is to remove the conffile in preinst if the
> md5sum of the conffile matches that of the stable version.
> http://dpkg.org/ has an even better example, which plays nicely even
> for upgrades from versions not in the stable release; it works by
> parsing the dpkg status database with sed (and not distinguising
> between which package owns a conffile).

Hello Rene,

We really have to fix this problem before the release.

What can I do so that this bug is finally addressed ?
Would you accept a patch that remove the offending file in the preinst
if the md5sum match the sarge version ?

Cheers,
Bill.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#335259: ssh conffile prompts

[Bill.Allombert]

On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 02:09:02PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> >   http://www.dpkg.org/ConffileHandling
> 
> The problem is that the conffiles have moved to different packages (ssh
> to openssh-{config,server}). The wiki page above doesn't explicitly
> cover this case, although I may be able to work something out from it.

You can also switch to ucf which is much more flexible.

This bug trigger 6 useless dpkg conffiles handling dring the
sarge to etch upgrade.

Cheers,
Bill.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]