Bug#643470: [pkg-dhcp-devel] Bug#643470: Status of isc-dhcp-client
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:48:48AM +, peter green wrote: I just reviewed the most recent email I exchanged with the ISC product manager, and she actually said end of February, although she wasn't a betting woman. So let's wait until March 1 to take stock of the situation. If no 4.2.4 upstream release has been made by March 1, I will check in with them to get an updated timeframe, and if it's anything more than a week or so, I'll repack the tarball. It's now the 5th of match and still no new upstream release. Has any progress with upstream been made? I just heard back that they're running behind schedule by about a month, so I'll proceed with making a release with a stripped tarball to address #645760 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#643470: Bug#643569: Bug#643470: [pkg-dhcp-devel] Bug#643470: Status of isc-dhcp-client
El 7 de març de 2012 20:15, Andrew Pollock apoll...@debian.org ha escrit: I just heard back that they're running behind schedule by about a month, so I'll proceed with making a release with a stripped tarball to address #645760 Please don't forget 643569. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#643470: Bug#643569: Bug#643470: [pkg-dhcp-devel] Bug#643470: Status of isc-dhcp-client
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 09:28:48PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: El 7 de març de 2012 20:15, Andrew Pollock apoll...@debian.org ha escrit: I just heard back that they're running behind schedule by about a month, so I'll proceed with making a release with a stripped tarball to address #645760 Please don't forget 643569. ACK. I'll get this patch in as well. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#643470: [pkg-dhcp-devel] Bug#643470: Status of isc-dhcp-client
I just reviewed the most recent email I exchanged with the ISC product manager, and she actually said end of February, although she wasn't a betting woman. So let's wait until March 1 to take stock of the situation. If no 4.2.4 upstream release has been made by March 1, I will check in with them to get an updated timeframe, and if it's anything more than a week or so, I'll repack the tarball. It's now the 5th of match and still no new upstream release. Has any progress with upstream been made? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#643470: [pkg-dhcp-devel] Bug#643470: Status of isc-dhcp-client
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:48:48AM +, peter green wrote: I just reviewed the most recent email I exchanged with the ISC product manager, and she actually said end of February, although she wasn't a betting woman. So let's wait until March 1 to take stock of the situation. If no 4.2.4 upstream release has been made by March 1, I will check in with them to get an updated timeframe, and if it's anything more than a week or so, I'll repack the tarball. It's now the 5th of match and still no new upstream release. Has any progress with upstream been made? I'll check in with them tomorrow. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#643470: [pkg-dhcp-devel] Bug#643470: Status of isc-dhcp-client
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 21:17:42 -0800, Andrew Pollock wrote: I just reviewed the most recent email I exchanged with the ISC product manager, and she actually said end of February, although she wasn't a betting woman. So let's wait until March 1 to take stock of the situation. If no 4.2.4 upstream release has been made by March 1, I will check in with them to get an updated timeframe, and if it's anything more than a week or so, I'll repack the tarball. Sounds good, thanks Andrew. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#643470: [pkg-dhcp-devel] Bug#643470: Status of isc-dhcp-client
Zumbi: please call off the NMU. I'm now in dialog with the maintainer.
See my other email. Turns out I was grossly generalising, and they're
targeting around the end of the month.
Good to hear there is progress with upstream.
Personally I'd rather see a non-rc buggy version in testing before a new
upstream version (potentially with new rc bugs) is introduced to unstable
but i'll let you make the final call as to whether to upload my work.
How about you just send me a patch against what's in the Git repository (at
head)?
I've forward ported my changes to the head of your git repo. Patch is
attatched.
Note that the patch doesn't contain the repack of the upstream tarball.
(I don't
think diff can represent that). The repacked upstream tarball I prepared is
available from.
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/i/isc-dhcp/isc-dhcp_4.2.2+dfsg.orig.tar.gz
The repacking process I used was basically
Unpack the isc-dhcp tarball
Unpack the embedded bind tarball
delete contrib/zkt/doc/rfc5011.txt doc/rfc and doc/draft
Repack the embedded bind tarball
delete the unpacked files from the bind tarball
Repack the isc-dhcp tarball
diff -urN isc-dhcp/debian/changelog isc-dhcp.new/debian/changelog
--- isc-dhcp/debian/changelog 2012-02-20 10:06:01.0 +
+++ isc-dhcp.new/debian/changelog 2012-02-20 09:44:26.0 +
@@ -1,3 +1,18 @@
+isc-dhcp (4.2.2+dfsg-0.2) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * Repack upstream tarball to remove non-free IETF documents from embedded
+bind tarball. (closes: #645760)
+ * debian/copyright: add reason for repack of upstream tarball
+ * debain/rules: extend clean target to properly cleanup dhcp subdir
+ * debian/patches/apply-bind-fix,
+debian/patches/manual/fix-bind-non-linux.patch:
+fix issues related to embedded bind on kfreebsd (closes: #643569)
+(thanks to Robert Millan for the underlying patch)
+ * debian/control: add patch to build-depends as it is now used directly
+
+ -- Peter Michael Green plugw...@p10link.net Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:26:12 +
+
isc-dhcp (4.2.2-3) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
* debian/control: remove transitional packages
diff -urN isc-dhcp/debian/control isc-dhcp.new/debian/control
--- isc-dhcp/debian/control 2012-02-20 10:06:01.0 +
+++ isc-dhcp.new/debian/control 2012-02-20 09:27:20.0 +
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
Uploaders: Andrew Pollock apoll...@debian.org
Vcs-Git: git://git.debian.org/pkg-dhcp/isc-dhcp.git
Vcs-Browser: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-dhcp/isc-dhcp.git;a=summary
-Build-Depends: debhelper ( 7), dpkg-dev (= 1.13.2), groff, po-debconf, libldap2-dev, libssl-dev, autoconf, automake, pkg-config, hardening-wrapper
+Build-Depends: debhelper ( 7), dpkg-dev (= 1.13.2), groff, po-debconf, libldap2-dev, libssl-dev, autoconf, automake, pkg-config, hardening-wrapper, patch
Standards-Version: 3.9.2
Package: isc-dhcp-server
diff -urN isc-dhcp/debian/copyright isc-dhcp.new/debian/copyright
--- isc-dhcp/debian/copyright 2012-02-20 10:06:01.0 +
+++ isc-dhcp.new/debian/copyright 2012-02-20 09:41:18.0 +
@@ -31,3 +31,7 @@
The Debian packaging is (C) 2008, Andrew Pollock apoll...@debian.org and
is licensed under the GPL, see `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'.
+
+Non-free RFCs and internet drafts were removed from the embedded bind copy in
+the upstream tarball by Peter Michael Green on Sun 19 Feb 2012. See
+http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=645760 for details.
diff -urN isc-dhcp/debian/patches/apply-bind-fix isc-dhcp.new/debian/patches/apply-bind-fix
--- isc-dhcp/debian/patches/apply-bind-fix 1970-01-01 00:00:00.0 +
+++ isc-dhcp.new/debian/patches/apply-bind-fix 2012-02-20 09:23:16.0 +
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+diff -urNad '--exclude=CVS' '--exclude=.svn' '--exclude=.git' '--exclude=.arch' '--exclude=.hg' '--exclude=_darcs' '--exclude=.bzr' isc-dhcp-4.2.2.new~/bind/Makefile isc-dhcp-4.2.2.new/bind/Makefile
+--- isc-dhcp-4.2.2.new~/bind/Makefile 2012-02-18 05:18:50.0 +
isc-dhcp-4.2.2.new/bind/Makefile 2012-02-18 05:21:52.0 +
+@@ -34,6 +34,10 @@
+ echo ${bindsrcdir} already unpacked... ;\
+ else\
+ gunzip -c bind.tar.gz | tar xf - ; \
++ patch -p1 ../debian/patches/manual/fix-bind-non-linux.patch ; \
++ cd $(bindsrcdir) ; \
++ autoconf ; \
++ cd .. ; \
+ fi
+
+ @if test -z ${GMAKE}; then\
diff -urN isc-dhcp/debian/patches/manual/fix-bind-non-linux.patch isc-dhcp.new/debian/patches/manual/fix-bind-non-linux.patch
--- isc-dhcp/debian/patches/manual/fix-bind-non-linux.patch 1970-01-01 00:00:00.0 +
+++ isc-dhcp.new/debian/patches/manual/fix-bind-non-linux.patch 2012-02-20 09:24:02.0 +
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+--- bind/bind-9.8.0-P4/configure.in~ 2011-02-03 06:50:05.0 +0100
bind/bind-9.8.0-P4/configure.in 2011-10-15 12:56:31.911737774 +0200
+@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@
+ # as it
Bug#643470: [pkg-dhcp-devel] Bug#643470: Status of isc-dhcp-client
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 07:29:19PM +, peter green wrote: Currently, the version of isc-dhcp-client in unstable suffers two rc bugs, a FTBFS bug ( 643569 ) and a non-free IETF documents bug ( 645760 ) both related to embedded bind source. Furthermore isc-dhcp-client FTBFS in testing due to bug 643470 (which is fixed in unstable). It has been a month since the lastest post to any of these bug reports Is there any progress on solving these issues in a clean manner? It seems the ideal soloution is to stop embedding bind at all (but that requires changes on the bind side) and second best would be for upstream to make a new upstream release of isc-dhcp-client with an updated bind tarball If not would you consider applying the quick and dirty soloution of simply repacking the upstream tarball to contain a fixed bind tarball? Hello, I have been working with upstream on addressing both of these issues, and I am hopeful that the 4.2.4 release, which is due in the next couple of months, to address these issues. I'm waiting to see how much better that release looks. regards Andrew signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#643470: [pkg-dhcp-devel] Bug#643470: Status of isc-dhcp-client
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 13:22:27 -0800, Andrew Pollock wrote: I have been working with upstream on addressing both of these issues, and I am hopeful that the 4.2.4 release, which is due in the next couple of months, to address these issues. I'm waiting to see how much better that release looks. Hrm. I'd very much appreciate a fix in sid sooner than next couple of months, if possible. At least for the ftbfs. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#643470: [pkg-dhcp-devel] Bug#643470: Status of isc-dhcp-client
Hello, I have been working with upstream on addressing both of these issues, and I am hopeful that the 4.2.4 release, which is due in the next couple of months, to address these issues. I'm waiting to see how much better that release looks. Speaking both as someone trying to get the armhf port into shape and more generally we would really like to get the rc bugs fixed sooner than the next couple of months. Especially as 4.1.1-P1-17 (in testing) has a FTBFS bug on all architectures so we can't do a binnmu in testing. I have prepared a NMU to fix the rc bugs in isc-dhcp-client by the most direct approaches and was in the processor of discussing it's sponsorship to delayed/5 with Hector Oron (i'm not a dd yet) when I received your mail. I appreciate the work I have put into this NMU will be thrown away when the ultimate soloution of eliminating the embedded code copy is implemented but I still thing the NMU is worth doing so we can get armhf teting into shape sooner rather than later. The package I'm in the process of trying to get NMU'd is at http://mentors.debian.net/package/isc-dhcp Please tell me if you are happy with the NMU so I can upload it promptly. Alternatively if you have problems with the NMU then please point them out to me so I can prepare a fixed NMU. Until/unless I get a response I plan to go through with the plan of a NMU to delayed/5. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#643470: [pkg-dhcp-devel] Bug#643470: Status of isc-dhcp-client
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:33:52PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 13:22:27 -0800, Andrew Pollock wrote: I have been working with upstream on addressing both of these issues, and I am hopeful that the 4.2.4 release, which is due in the next couple of months, to address these issues. I'm waiting to see how much better that release looks. Hrm. I'd very much appreciate a fix in sid sooner than next couple of months, if possible. At least for the ftbfs. I just reviewed the most recent email I exchanged with the ISC product manager, and she actually said end of February, although she wasn't a betting woman. So let's wait until March 1 to take stock of the situation. If no 4.2.4 upstream release has been made by March 1, I will check in with them to get an updated timeframe, and if it's anything more than a week or so, I'll repack the tarball. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#643470: [pkg-dhcp-devel] Bug#643470: Status of isc-dhcp-client
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:03:17PM +, peter green wrote: Hello, I have been working with upstream on addressing both of these issues, and I am hopeful that the 4.2.4 release, which is due in the next couple of months, to address these issues. I'm waiting to see how much better that release looks. Speaking both as someone trying to get the armhf port into shape and more generally we would really like to get the rc bugs fixed sooner than the next couple of months. See my other email. Turns out I was grossly generalising, and they're targeting around the end of the month. Especially as 4.1.1-P1-17 (in testing) has a FTBFS bug on all architectures so we can't do a binnmu in testing. I have prepared a NMU to fix the rc bugs in isc-dhcp-client by the most direct approaches and was in the processor of discussing it's sponsorship to delayed/5 with Hector Oron (i'm not a dd yet) when I received your mail. I appreciate the work I have put into this NMU will be thrown away when the ultimate soloution of eliminating the embedded code copy is implemented but I still thing the NMU is worth doing so we can get armhf teting into shape sooner rather than later. The package I'm in the process of trying to get NMU'd is at http://mentors.debian.net/package/isc-dhcp Please tell me if you are happy with the NMU so I can upload it promptly. Alternatively if you have problems with the NMU then please point them out to me so I can prepare a fixed NMU. How about you just send me a patch against what's in the Git repository (at head)? I've got an unreleased 4.2.2-3 in there that I've been working on. Until/unless I get a response I plan to go through with the plan of a NMU to delayed/5. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
