Bug#6486: ujiramak
With the risk of surgery, just 2 capsules a day for visible gains within 1 month http://www.tanktoss.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#459359: dpkg-gensymbols: Provide a way to rely on symbol versioning when generating symbols files
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008, Steve Langasek wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.2 [...] Perhaps to limit the possibilities of abuse, wildcards should only be supported in symbol names if there's an accompanying symbol version (with no wildcard expansion)? What do you mean exactly ? I don't plan to allow wildcards in symbol version. I'm not even sure if I want other wildcards except a single * in symbol names. One can always add the symbol manually in the file and still make use of wildcards for the remaining symbols. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Processed: setting package to dpkg dpkg-dev dselect, tagging 454036
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.12 package dpkg dpkg-dev dselect Ignoring bugs not assigned to: dselect dpkg-dev dpkg tags 454036 + pending Bug#454036: dpkg-dev: dpkg-shlibdeps misses symbols and thus outputs false warnings There were no tags set. Tags added: pending End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#430463: marked as done (Directory /usr/share/doc/dpkg-dev is empty)
Your message dated Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:27:14 +0100 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#430463: Directory /usr/share/doc/dpkg-dev is empty has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) ---BeginMessage--- Package: dpkg-dev Version: 1.14.4 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 12.5 dpkg-dev only comes with an empty /usr/share/doc subdir, without any changelog or copyright. Was this meant to be a symlink to dpkg? -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.21-1-k7 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=en_CA, LC_CTYPE=en_CA (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Versions of packages dpkg-dev depends on: ii binutils 2.17cvs20070426-8 The GNU assembler, linker and bina ii cpio 2.8-1 GNU cpio -- a program to manage ar ii dpkg 1.14.4package maintenance system for Deb ii make 3.81-3The GNU version of the make util ii patch 2.5.9-4 Apply a diff file to an original ii perl [perl5] 5.8.8-7 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction ii perl-modules 5.8.8-7 Core Perl modules Versions of packages dpkg-dev recommends: ii bzip2 1.0.3-7high-quality block-sorting file co pn gcc | c-compiler none (no description available) -- no debconf information ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Version: 1.14.14 On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Frédéric Brière wrote: Do feel free to either close this bug (on account that it is documented deep in the bowels of the policy), or merge it with #156463, whichever is best. dpkg-dev provides a directory instead of a symlink since 1.14.14. And the required scripts to replace the symlink by a directory are in the upcoming 1.14.15. Thus I'm closing this bug. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ ---End Message---
Bug#205011: dpkg-dev: dpkg-source fails on NFS
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Peter Karlsson wrote: Don't use 'soft'. It's broken. Removing it makes no difference. The build still fails. To ensure it wasn't something weird with the build paths, I copied the files to another directory (still NFS), and the build still fails. If I copy the files to a local directory, the build succeeds. Peter, is this something that you can still reproduce ? Looking at the bug log, it really seems like a NFS bug or something very specific to your configuration. I don't really see what dpkg-source could do that that would lead to a failure on NFS... Please close the bug if you can't reproduce it anymore. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Bug#205011: dpkg-dev: dpkg-source fails on NFS
Raphael Hertzog: Peter, is this something that you can still reproduce ? This was inside vmware. I haven't tried this setup in a while, so I am uncertain whether it works or not. -- \\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#459359: dpkg-gensymbols: Provide a way to rely on symbol versioning when generating symbols files
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 02:29:22PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Sat, 05 Jan 2008, Steve Langasek wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.2 [...] Perhaps to limit the possibilities of abuse, wildcards should only be supported in symbol names if there's an accompanying symbol version (with no wildcard expansion)? What do you mean exactly ? I don't plan to allow wildcards in symbol version. I'm not even sure if I want other wildcards except a single * in symbol names. One can always add the symbol manually in the file and still make use of wildcards for the remaining symbols. I mean that wildcards should not be allowed to match symbols that don't have a symbol version. But if there is a symbol version, then for the cases where this is useful at all it seems reasonably safe to me. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#31352: Should be marked as wontfix?
Package: dpkg Followup-For: Bug #31352 Since the Debian project apparently intends to continue distributing non-free software, should this bug be marked as wontfix? Added to this is the fact that an APT frontend generally makes no assumptions about whether something is free or not (consider a third-party repository, which may contain non-free packages but not conform to the Debian archive's naming convention), and also the fact that dselect just isn't very widely used any more anyway. -- Benjamin A'Lee :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subvert Technologies :: http://subvert.org.uk/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#1555: Oldest bug in Debian: any real possibility to keep that bug opened or fix it?
As I mentioned in my blog, this bug is the oldest opened bug in Debian. However, the only information in the BTS is its title: dselect per-screen-half focus request. (this seems common for the oldest bugs in Debian's BTS) Is anyone remembering more than this, which could help deciding if that bug can be fixed (with a new advertizement such as the Dpkg maintenance team fixes the oldest bug in Debian)? In case noone remembers, I think that just closing the bug is the only alternative. Keeping old stuff without any clue to fix it is just a waste. Ian, you seem to be the best candidate for remembering something about that bug, indeed. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#31352: Should be marked as wontfix?
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008, Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: Package: dpkg Followup-For: Bug #31352 Since the Debian project apparently intends to continue distributing non-free software, should this bug be marked as wontfix? Added to this is the fact that an APT frontend generally makes no assumptions about whether something is free or not (consider a third-party repository, which may contain non-free packages but not conform to the Debian archive's naming convention), and also the fact that dselect just isn't very widely used any more anyway. I'm not sure it needs a wontfix though. I see two answers to this bug: - make sure that unknown packages are not displayed as Recommends/Suggests in dselect. That way when non-free is disabled, the user doesn't see them. - make sure that the Enhances: field is properly supported by dselect so that packages can use a reversed relationship to avoid speaking of the non-free part within the free part Although I agree that it's largely irrelevant to focus on dselect nowadays. The same principle should be used in aptitude and apt for instance. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
