Bug#802917: do not migrate denyhosts to testing: who will do security support?
Hi Helmut, Thanks for showing some care for this package. The main reason for me to want to support denyhosts was the possibility of the synchronisation server. I have since written a (AGPL licensed) replacement for the original, closed source, server, starting from Anne Bezemer's suggestion in Debian bug#622697. I may consider offering to do the security support for denyhosts for at least the stretch support period, but I'm not sure what that would mean exactly. Is the main work in following CNEs for the package and fixing them for Debian (and preferably upstream as well)? Another possibility might be to work with fail2ban upstream to also support my, or another, synchronisation server, but I'm not sure if they would be willing to accept patches to that effect. > * Your upload reintroduces security bug #692229. You're right. I checked whether all Debian patches had been implemented upstream, must have missed this one. > * Due to the removal of denyhosts from Debian, the following bugs were >closed by the ftp masters: > >#395565 #436417 #497485 #514024 #529089 #546772 #597956 #567209 #611756 >#622697 #643031 #720130 #729322 #731963 > >Please evaluate which of them need to be reopened or failing that >reopen all of them. Of course, I was planning to do that. Jan-Pascal
Bug#709877: Fixed in version in debian-mentors
There's a patch fixing this bug in the new release of spotweb, which is currently under review on debian-mentors (http://mentors.debian.net/package/spotweb) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#602697: should not be included in squeeze
On 11/07/2010 11:38 AM, Thomas Koch wrote: Package: solr Severity: serious Tags: squeeze I've written a mail (Remove Solr from Squeeze?) on 2010/10/12 to debian-java and the package's maintainer Jan-Pascal van Best and proposed the removal of solr from Squeeze, mainly because: - it's already outdated a year by now (see bug #602696 ) - it doesn't even include all contribs (see bug #602695 ) - the package has accumulated too many bugs - there doesn't seem to be enough (wo)man power to maintain the package right now on a standard that would make it fit for Debian _stable_ So until nothing else happens, please don't include solr in Debian squeeze. Agreed. Solr is moving too fast, and accumulating too many dependencies (which have their own dependencies, and so on) to be maintained properly right now. Jan-Pascal signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#560611: don't fix but package solr 1.4?
Thomas Koch wrote: The bug seems to be caused by the update of lucene2 from 2.4 to 2.9.1. The highlight component has been moved from lucene core to lucene contrib, but SOLR needs this component and gives only lucene2 = 2.4 as dependency. What's the right way to handle this? Debian stable has solr 1.2, so we could just drop 1.3 and update solr to 1.4 without fixing this issue? Sure. If we can package 1.4, including all dependencies, before the Squeeze release, I that that should be OK. For the short term, changing the depends on either Solr, or including a Breaks: in lucene should do. Jan-Pascal -- Jan-Pascal van Best janpas...@vanbest.org, janpas...@vanbest.eu http://www.vanbest.org/janpascal/ GPG key fingerprint 4617 E5FB C56D ACB6 7C8C DE64 3A4C B270 1A89 CC23 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#534031: Two tests fixed
For the record: two test sets (org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrRequestParserTest and org.apache.solr.util.ContentStreamTest) contain parts that need network access. Those parts have been disabled. Solr now builds in a VM without network access. The other test set failure (org.apache.solr.update.AutoCommitTest) I cannot reproduce (yet). -- Jan-Pascal van Best janpas...@vanbest.org, janpas...@vanbest.eu http://www.vanbest.org/janpascal/ GPG key fingerprint 4617 E5FB C56D ACB6 7C8C DE64 3A4C B270 1A89 CC23 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#516475: lucene2: FTBFS: Test failure
Daniel Schepler wrote: Package: lucene2 Version: 2.4.0+ds1-2 Severity: serious From my pbuilder build log: ... [junit] Testsuite: org.apache.lucene.index.TestIndexInput [junit] Tests run: 2, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 0.053 sec [junit] [junit] Testcase: testRead(org.apache.lucene.index.TestIndexInput): FAILED [junit] expected:[...@] but was:[??] [junit] junit.framework.ComparisonFailure: expected:[...@] but was:[??] [junit] at org.apache.lucene.index.TestIndexInput.testRead(TestIndexInput.java:89) [junit] [junit] [junit] Test org.apache.lucene.index.TestIndexInput FAILED ... BUILD FAILED /tmp/buildd/lucene2-2.4.0+ds1/common-build.xml:384: Tests failed! Total time: 5 minutes 44 seconds make: *** [debian/stamp-ant-check] Error 1 dpkg-buildpackage: failure: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2 Thanks for your report. The build fails for me too now (while it sure didn't when I uploaded this version to unstable). I'll look into it. Jan-Pascal -- Jan-Pascal van Best janpas...@vanbest.org, janpas...@vanbest.eu http://www.vanbest.org/janpascal/ GPG key fingerprint 4617 E5FB C56D ACB6 7C8C DE64 3A4C B270 1A89 CC23 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#488895:
Jeff Breidenbach wrote: But that said, openjdk entered Debian now (yay!). Good. Lucene2 can be moved to main with a build-depends on OpenJDK. Who's got the energy to do it? :) I've checked and lucene2 builds with OpenJDK (and passes all tests :-). Updates are in svn, I'm preparing an upload now. Jan-Pascal signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#488895: please move to main
As far as I can (publically) see the need for contrib arises because it uses libdb-je-java. The main reason is that lucene2 fails a number of unit tests when running with java-gcj-compat, e.g. for the indexing of dates. See bug #468334. This has been deemed serious enough to put lucene2 into contrib. What I thinks needs to be done is look into the unit test failures more closely, try to isolate java-gcj-compat bugs (or at least incompatibilities with sun-java5/6) and try to have those bugs resolved. Unfortunately, that will be quite a bit of work which I don't have time for now. I'm a bit reluctant to move lucene2 into main while we know it doesn't work properly with java-gcj-compat, but I'll let Michael overrule me... Cheers Jan-Pascal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
