date:20110503

Re: PPAs for Debian

2011-05-03 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 01:23:12AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> That depends on what you mean by 'issue'.  I think exactly the issues that 
> concern some people in Debian about packages of 'poor quality' being 
> generated 
> in an uncontrolled PPA system are happening with regularity in Ubuntu.  
> Although it doesn't happen every week or anything, it's happened more often 
> than I can recall that someone files a bug in Ubuntu about broken PPA 
> packages 
> done by some random non-developer.  I believe Debian is quite correct to be 
> concerned about the potential for user confusion and damage to Debian's 
> reputation for high quality work.
> 
> PPAs as a developer tool are one thing, PPAs as a tool for random uploads, I 
> think are quite another.

AOL. I think that for Project needs, PPAs accessible only to DDs + DMs
would be a good compromise to avoid "random uploads". It also seems sane
in order to avoid the risk of DOS-ing buildds. It's not too constraining
either as, after all, we won't (and simply can't) block users out there
to set up their own package repositories by means other than PPA.

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, |  .  |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: PPAs for Debian

2011-05-03 Thread Mike Hommey

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 01:23:12AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:16:54 AM Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Julien Valroff  wrote:
> > > Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 00:02:01 (+0200 CEST), René Mayorga a écrit :
> > >> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:30:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > >> > After all, in that  respect what is the difference between that and
> > >> > unofficial APT repositories that many of us already maintain at
> > >> > people.d.o/~something or something.debian.net? Do you want to shut
> > >> > them down as well?
> > >> 
> > >> no, I was expressing over the PPA as an official services that allow
> > >> users to upload any package without any quality control.
> > > 
> > > AFAIU, only DD and DM could create PPA and upload to them. If this is not
> > > the case, then I share your fears.
> > 
> > Usage of the PPA system on LP requires that you agree to the usage
> > terms (not unlike machine usage policies for Debian).
> > 
> > We let non-MOTU upload to their own PPAs (has their name in the URL),
> > and if nonfree (or malicious) packages are uploaded, they can have PPA
> > rights removed.
> > 
> > There's been one issue I can recall, and it was only a very very
> > slight DFSG technicality.
> 
> That depends on what you mean by 'issue'.  I think exactly the issues that 
> concern some people in Debian about packages of 'poor quality' being 
> generated 
> in an uncontrolled PPA system are happening with regularity in Ubuntu.  
> Although it doesn't happen every week or anything, it's happened more often 
> than I can recall that someone files a bug in Ubuntu about broken PPA 
> packages 
> done by some random non-developer.  I believe Debian is quite correct to be 
> concerned about the potential for user confusion and damage to Debian's 
> reputation for high quality work.
> 
> PPAs as a developer tool are one thing, PPAs as a tool for random uploads, I 
> think are quite another.  I'd hate to see Debian make the same mistake that 
> Canonical did in this regard.

Add to that that allowing random people to upload packages to be built
on Debian build daemons is a recipe to have the buildds compromised.

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110504055747.gb3...@glandium.org

Carol Brown has invited you to open a Google mail account

2011-05-03 Thread Carol Brown

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.


  You're Invited to Gmail!

Carol Brown has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

 *Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Carol Brown and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Carol Brown will be notified of your new Gmail
address so you can stay in touch. Learn
moreor get
started
!
Sign 
up

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Re: glibc: causes segfault in Xorg

2011-05-03 Thread Steve M. Robbins

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:10:48AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> Sounds like http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12518
> which is fixed (sort of) by commit 0354e355 (2011-04-01).

Oh my word.  So glibc 2.13 breaks random binaries that happened to
incorrectly use memcpy() instead of memmove()?  What's wrong with the
glibc developers (and Ulrich Drepper in particular)?

I'm with Linus on this: let's just revert to the old behaviour.  A
tiny amount of clock cycles saved isn't worth the instability.

Thanks,
-Steve

P.S.  I tried rebuilding glibc myself locally, but gcc also segfaults
in the process :-(

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: PPAs for Debian

2011-05-03 Thread Scott Kitterman

On Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:16:54 AM Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Julien Valroff  wrote:
> > Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 00:02:01 (+0200 CEST), René Mayorga a écrit :
> >> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:30:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> > After all, in that  respect what is the difference between that and
> >> > unofficial APT repositories that many of us already maintain at
> >> > people.d.o/~something or something.debian.net? Do you want to shut
> >> > them down as well?
> >> 
> >> no, I was expressing over the PPA as an official services that allow
> >> users to upload any package without any quality control.
> > 
> > AFAIU, only DD and DM could create PPA and upload to them. If this is not
> > the case, then I share your fears.
> 
> Usage of the PPA system on LP requires that you agree to the usage
> terms (not unlike machine usage policies for Debian).
> 
> We let non-MOTU upload to their own PPAs (has their name in the URL),
> and if nonfree (or malicious) packages are uploaded, they can have PPA
> rights removed.
> 
> There's been one issue I can recall, and it was only a very very
> slight DFSG technicality.

That depends on what you mean by 'issue'.  I think exactly the issues that 
concern some people in Debian about packages of 'poor quality' being generated 
in an uncontrolled PPA system are happening with regularity in Ubuntu.  
Although it doesn't happen every week or anything, it's happened more often 
than I can recall that someone files a bug in Ubuntu about broken PPA packages 
done by some random non-developer.  I believe Debian is quite correct to be 
concerned about the potential for user confusion and damage to Debian's 
reputation for high quality work.

PPAs as a developer tool are one thing, PPAs as a tool for random uploads, I 
think are quite another.  I'd hate to see Debian make the same mistake that 
Canonical did in this regard.

Scott K

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: PPAs for Debian

2011-05-03 Thread Paul Tagliamonte

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Julien Valroff  wrote:
> Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 00:02:01 (+0200 CEST), René Mayorga a écrit :
>> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:30:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> > After all, in that  respect what is the difference between that and 
>> > unofficial APT
>> > repositories that many of us already maintain at people.d.o/~something
>> > or something.debian.net? Do you want to shut them down as well?
>>
>> no, I was expressing over the PPA as an official services that allow users to
>> upload any package without any quality control.
>
> AFAIU, only DD and DM could create PPA and upload to them. If this is not
> the case, then I share your fears.

Usage of the PPA system on LP requires that you agree to the usage
terms (not unlike machine usage policies for Debian).

We let non-MOTU upload to their own PPAs (has their name in the URL),
and if nonfree (or malicious) packages are uploaded, they can have PPA
rights removed.

There's been one issue I can recall, and it was only a very very
slight DFSG technicality.

>
> Cheers,
> Julien
>
> --
>  .''`.   Julien Valroff ~  ~ 
>  : :'  :  Debian Developer & Free software contributor
>  `. `'`   http://www.kirya.net/
>   `-     4096R/ E1D8 5796 8214 4687 E416  948C 859F EF67 258E 26B1
>

Cheers,
Paul

-- 
All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors.

#define sizeof(x) rand()
:wq


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTikZoQCZsO2G3=--rbzgdtpauc3...@mail.gmail.com

Re: PPAs for Debian

2011-05-03 Thread Julien Valroff

Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 00:02:01 (+0200 CEST), René Mayorga a écrit :
> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:30:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > After all, in that  respect what is the difference between that and 
> > unofficial APT
> > repositories that many of us already maintain at people.d.o/~something
> > or something.debian.net? Do you want to shut them down as well?
> 
> no, I was expressing over the PPA as an official services that allow users to
> upload any package without any quality control.

AFAIU, only DD and DM could create PPA and upload to them. If this is not
the case, then I share your fears.

Cheers,
Julien

-- 
  .''`.   Julien Valroff ~  ~ 
 : :'  :  Debian Developer & Free software contributor
 `. `'`   http://www.kirya.net/
   `- 4096R/ E1D8 5796 8214 4687 E416  948C 859F EF67 258E 26B1


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Procedure for re-activating my DD status?

2011-05-03 Thread Cyril Brulebois

Hi,

Mark Johnson  (03/05/2011):
> However, I wasn't able to find any info on how to rejoin the
> organization in the standard documents. Do I simply go through the
> New Maintainer application process as I did initially?

might be that it's a bit uncommon, and maybe under-documented; anyway,
I had that in mind:
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/02/msg8.html

Mraw,
KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Mass GCC 4.6 bug filling (Re: Bug#624997: writerperfect: FTBFS: Style.hxx:36:45: error: 'NULL' was not declared in this scope)

2011-05-03 Thread Matthias Klose

On 05/04/2011 12:24 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:

Hi,

(not a gcc maintainer)

Charles Plessy (04/05/2011):

I just got a bug from you explaining some changes (= more FTBFS)
about 4.6.1. Will there be similar 4.6.x changes in the future ?

my reading of it is that to prevent too many FTBFSes while introducing
4.6 in Debian, some changes were delayed (“reverted through Debian
patches”) until 4.6.1 is released and uploaded.

Assuming you're talking about -Wunused-*, those are mentioned on the
upstream upgrading / porting page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html

Quoting:
| New -Wunused-but-set-variable and -Wunused-but-set-parameter warnings
| were added for C, C++, Objective-C and Objective-C++. These warnings
| diagnose variables respective parameters which are only set in the
| code and never otherwise used. Usually such variables are useless and
| often even the value assigned to them is computed needlessly,
| sometimes expensively. The -Wunused-but-set-variable warning is
| enabled by default by -Wall flag and -Wunused-but-set-parameter by
| -Wall -Wextra flags.

I don't think more changes are planned for the 4.6.x series; you'll
have to wait for 4.7 to get more changes.

yes, thanks for the clarification. bugs for these kind of errors are now filed,
see [1], although I was a bit sloppy scanning the build logs, so there are some
false positives.

Matthias

[1]
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-werror;users=debian-...@lists.debian.org

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dc084bd.9000...@debian.org

76 matches

Mail list logo