Bug#93435: Need your help!
Hello there! My name is Veronika. I'm from Russia, 28 years old. You may vote for me this way: http://bestrussiabride.info/?idAff=34 Thank You!!! Veronika -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#95926: Need your help!
Hi there, my name's Veronika. I am from Russia, aged 27. You may vote for my profile at this site: http://bestrussiabride.info/?idAff=34 Thank You!!! Veronika -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#452273: marked as done (dpkg-gencontrol: incorrect warning "deb package with udeb specific field Installer-Menu-Item")
Your message dated Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:58:08 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#452273: dpkg-gencontrol: incorrect warning "deb package
with udeb specific field Installer-Menu-Item"
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)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.14.9
Severity: normal
Tags: d-i
During a build of debian-installer-utils, I got the following warnings:
dh_gencontrol -i
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: deb package with udeb specific field
Installer-Menu-Item
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: deb package with udeb specific field
Installer-Menu-Item
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: deb package with udeb specific field
Installer-Menu-Item
However, debian-installer-utils does not contain _any_ deb packages,
only udebs. So the warning is clearly incorrect.
The cause may be that the header saying they are a udeb is in the
control file _after_ the header listing the menu item. The code should
probably allow for that.
Example of the control fields for one of the udebs:
Package: di-utils-shell
Architecture: all
Depends: ${misc:Depends}, di-utils (>= 1.18)
XB-Installer-Menu-Item: 95000
Description: Execute a shell
XC-Package-Type: udeb
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.24-rc3 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages dpkg-dev depends on:
ii binutils2.18.1~cvs20071027-1 The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii cpio2.9-6GNU cpio -- a program to manage ar
ii dpkg1.14.9 package maintenance system for Deb
ii make3.81-3 The GNU version of the "make" util
ii patch 2.5.9-4 Apply a diff file to an original
ii perl [perl5]5.8.8-12 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction
ii perl-modules5.8.8-12 Core Perl modules
Versions of packages dpkg-dev recommends:
ii bzip2 1.0.3-7high-quality block-sorting file co
ii gcc [c-compiler] 4:4.2.1-6 The GNU C compiler
ii gcc-4.1 [c-compiler] 4.1.2-17 The GNU C compiler
ii gcc-4.2 [c-compiler] 4.2.2-3The GNU C compiler
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Joey, I don't think that that the Package-Type field ending up in the
> binary package can be qualified as bloat given that except the filename
> and the origin of the file, udeb can't be identified as such.
Anything that increases the size of the udeb, and thus the runtime
memory footprint of d-i, can be classified as bloat. The d-i team *has*
to worry about bloat, even if you choose to ignore our concerns.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
Bug#457741: Bug#460158: zsh-doc would not install
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:35:57AM +0100, arno renevier wrote: > zsh-doc upgrade did not work today. > I tried to uninstall, and reinstall, and it looks like package is > uninstallable. Here is the output I get with aptitude install zsh-doc: This is bug #457741 on dpkg. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#452273: dpkg-gencontrol: incorrect warning "deb package with udeb specific field Installer-Menu-Item"
reopen 452273 thanks On Friday 11 January 2008, you wrote: > Given the rationale, I'm closing this bug. > > Joey, I don't think that that the Package-Type field ending up in the > binary package can be qualified as bloat given that except the filename > and the origin of the file, udeb can't be identified as such. I'm sorry, but I agree with Joey. There is absolutely no reason why we need the package type in the control file for udebs. They are already 100% identifyable by both section and extention. The way this was implemented basically just ignores the only current official user of the package type field, and is thus not policy compliant. From the PoV of the D-I team this is a real bug that needs to be fixed. Cheers, FJP
Processed: Re: Bug#452273: dpkg-gencontrol: incorrect warning "deb package with udeb specific field Installer-Menu-Item"
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reopen 452273 Bug#452273: dpkg-gencontrol: incorrect warning "deb package with udeb specific field Installer-Menu-Item" Bug reopened, originator not changed. > thanks 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#433477: dpkg-gencontrol -v fails to set ${binary:Version}
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Stephen Gildea wrote:
> When using the "-v" flag of dpkg-gencontrol to set the version number
> of the binary package being built, the subst variable "binary:Version"
> fails to be set correctly. Instead of getting the value specified with
> the -v, it gets the version of the source.
>
> It is useful to have an accurate binary:Version when you want to have
> the -dev package depend on the library (= ${binary:Version}).
It's not necessarily as evident as you make it look like. Usage of -v is
only required when the version of the binary package doesn't match the
version of the source package... and when you use ${binary:Version} you
want to refer to the version of another binary package (ie not the one
currently handled by dpkg-gencontrol) and why would you assume that the
other binary package shares the same version than the package currently
treated ? It might well be that the other binary package shares the same
version as the source package.
Though, given the use cases we have for those variables and given the
official definition of that variable in deb-substvars(5), I think this
change should probably be done.
Other opinions are welcome of course...
Can you tell us for which package you needed this change?
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Bug#452273: marked as done (dpkg-gencontrol: incorrect warning "deb package with udeb specific field Installer-Menu-Item")
Your message dated Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:00:22 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#452273: dpkg-gencontrol: incorrect warning "deb package
with udeb specific field Installer-Menu-Item"
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)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.14.9
Severity: normal
Tags: d-i
During a build of debian-installer-utils, I got the following warnings:
dh_gencontrol -i
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: deb package with udeb specific field
Installer-Menu-Item
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: deb package with udeb specific field
Installer-Menu-Item
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: deb package with udeb specific field
Installer-Menu-Item
However, debian-installer-utils does not contain _any_ deb packages,
only udebs. So the warning is clearly incorrect.
The cause may be that the header saying they are a udeb is in the
control file _after_ the header listing the menu item. The code should
probably allow for that.
Example of the control fields for one of the udebs:
Package: di-utils-shell
Architecture: all
Depends: ${misc:Depends}, di-utils (>= 1.18)
XB-Installer-Menu-Item: 95000
Description: Execute a shell
XC-Package-Type: udeb
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.24-rc3 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages dpkg-dev depends on:
ii binutils2.18.1~cvs20071027-1 The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii cpio2.9-6GNU cpio -- a program to manage ar
ii dpkg1.14.9 package maintenance system for Deb
ii make3.81-3 The GNU version of the "make" util
ii patch 2.5.9-4 Apply a diff file to an original
ii perl [perl5]5.8.8-12 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction
ii perl-modules5.8.8-12 Core Perl modules
Versions of packages dpkg-dev recommends:
ii bzip2 1.0.3-7high-quality block-sorting file co
ii gcc [c-compiler] 4:4.2.1-6 The GNU C compiler
ii gcc-4.1 [c-compiler] 4.1.2-17 The GNU C compiler
ii gcc-4.2 [c-compiler] 4.2.2-3The GNU C compiler
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Guillem Jover wrote:
> It's not included and has never been, because only the ones with B are.
> But now it's explicit given that dpkg-gencontrol supports the
> field. Package-Type should have been XB- from the beginning. That
> information is pertinent to the binary package and not to the changes
> file. Also this way dpkg-deb will be able to automatically select the
> correct extension, for example. So if there's no other argument I'll
> close the bug report tomorrow or so.
>
> Note that apart from the warning the current udebs should build as
> before.
>
> > Should we start converting to use "Package-Type"?
>
> Sure.
Given the rationale, I'm closing this bug.
Joey, I don't think that that the Package-Type field ending up in the
binary package can be qualified as bloat given that except the filename
and the origin of the file, udeb can't be identified as such.
I think Guillem's decision is okay. Of course, this warning is sort of
bogus until all packages have been converted to the official name. We
could add a work-around to check for XC-Package-Type but it doesn't seem
really necessary to me as the lack of Package-Type doesn't cause any
further problem except this warning. So use this warning just as a
reminder that you should switch to the new name.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
--- End Message ---
Processed: tagging 323606, tagging 459815, tagging 26554
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.12 > tags 323606 + pending Bug#323606: dpkg-dev: [manual] Clarify -b option of dpkg-source (than /debian is allowed) There were no tags set. Tags added: pending > tags 459815 + pending Bug#459815: dpkg-source -x: "compression" is not defined in %Dpkg::EXPORT_TAGS Tags were: sid Bug#460037: Upgrade to dpkg 1.14.15 breaks dpkg-dev 1.14.14 but doesn't conflict Tags added: pending > tags 26554 + pending Bug#26554: request for control file parsing functions for external use 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]
Processed: tagging 459815
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.12 > tags 459815 + sid Bug#459815: dpkg-source -x: "compression" is not defined in %Dpkg::EXPORT_TAGS There were no tags set. Bug#460037: Upgrade to dpkg 1.14.15 breaks dpkg-dev 1.14.14 but doesn't conflict Tags added: sid > 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]
Processed: reassign 460037 to dpkg-dev, forcibly merging 459815 460037
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.12 > reassign 460037 dpkg-dev Bug#460037: Upgrade to dpkg 1.14.15 breaks dpkg-dev 1.14.14 but doesn't conflict Bug reassigned from package `dpkg' to `dpkg-dev'. > forcemerge 459815 460037 Bug#459815: dpkg-source -x: "compression" is not defined in %Dpkg::EXPORT_TAGS Bug#460037: Upgrade to dpkg 1.14.15 breaks dpkg-dev 1.14.14 but doesn't conflict Forcibly Merged 459815 460037. > 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#460037: Upgrade to dpkg 1.14.15 breaks dpkg-dev 1.14.14 but doesn't conflict
forcemerge 459815 460037
thanks
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Devin Carraway wrote:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.14.15
> Severity: normal
>
> On upgrading to dpkg 1.14.15 without upgrading dpkg-dev (APT held it
> back because of the implied install of lzma), package builds began
> failing thusly:
>
> dpkg-source -b quelcom-0.4.0
> "compression" is not defined in %Dpkg::EXPORT_TAGS at /usr/bin/dpkg-source
> line 6
> main::BEGIN() called at /usr/share/perl5/Dpkg.pm line 6
> eval {...} called at /usr/share/perl5/Dpkg.pm line 6
> Can't continue after import errors at /usr/bin/dpkg-source line 6
> BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /usr/bin/dpkg-source line 6.
> dpkg-buildpackage: failure: dpkg-source -b quelcom-0.4.0 gave error exit
> status 255
>
> ... on explicitly upgrading dpkg-dev also, dpkg-source worked again.
Already reported, merging bugs.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Bug#460037: Upgrade to dpkg 1.14.15 breaks dpkg-dev 1.14.14 but doesn't conflict
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.14.15
Severity: normal
On upgrading to dpkg 1.14.15 without upgrading dpkg-dev (APT held it
back because of the implied install of lzma), package builds began
failing thusly:
dpkg-source -b quelcom-0.4.0
"compression" is not defined in %Dpkg::EXPORT_TAGS at /usr/bin/dpkg-source line
6
main::BEGIN() called at /usr/share/perl5/Dpkg.pm line 6
eval {...} called at /usr/share/perl5/Dpkg.pm line 6
Can't continue after import errors at /usr/bin/dpkg-source line 6
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /usr/bin/dpkg-source line 6.
dpkg-buildpackage: failure: dpkg-source -b quelcom-0.4.0 gave error exit status
255
... on explicitly upgrading dpkg-dev also, dpkg-source worked again.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.21-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages dpkg depends on:
ii coreutils 5.97-5.7 The GNU core utilities
ii libc6 2.7-5 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
dpkg recommends no packages.
-- no debconf information
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
