Bug#924712: marked as done (crypt() not available _XOPEN_SOURCE is defined)

2019-08-31 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Sat, 31 Aug 2019 15:04:06 +0200
with message-id <20190831130406.ga31...@aurel32.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#924712: crypt() not available _XOPEN_SOURCE is defined
has caused the Debian Bug report #924712,
regarding crypt() not available _XOPEN_SOURCE is defined
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
924712: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=924712
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.28-8
Severity: serious

Hi,

The crypt.3 manpage, state that _XOPEN_SOURCE should be define for
crypt() to be available.

But it looks that it's currently the opposite, if _XOPEN_SOURCE is
defined, the function cannot be found.

This actually looks like a regression compared to stretch.

Regards,
Laurent Bigonville

-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers unstable-debug
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_BE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_BE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), 
LANGUAGE=fr_BE:fr (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages manpages-dev depends on:
ii  manpages  4.16-1

manpages-dev recommends no packages.

Versions of packages manpages-dev suggests:
ii  man-db [man-browser]  2.8.5-2

-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2019-08-25 15:51, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 13:46:36 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
> 
> > * Francesco Poli:
> > 
> > > Hello everyone,
> > > I am sorry to ask, but... I cannot understand what's the status of
> > > [this bug report].
> > >
> > > [this bug report]: 
> > >
> > > A serious bug for libc6-dev without any apparent activity since last
> > > March?  Sure there must have been some hidden progress that I cannot
> > > see.
> > 
> > We provided a solution acceptable to the reporter.  I do not think
> > further action is needed on the glibc side.  The manual page needs to
> > be updated to reflect the change, but that's not part of glibc.
> 
> OK, good.
> Thanks for your prompt reply!
> 
> Why is the bug report being kept open, though?
> Should it be reassigned to package manpages-dev and fixed there?

manpages-dev doesn't provide the manpage for crypt(3) anymore. It is now
provided by libcrypt2-dev. The crypt functions are getting removed from
the glibc and will be provided by this external library. I guess we'll
do the transition after getting glibc 2.29 into unstable.

As the version provided by libcrypt2-dev doesn't have the reported
issue, I am closing the bug.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno  GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---

Bug#935507: marked as done (message should say how to enable not seeing this message anymore)

2019-08-31 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Sat, 31 Aug 2019 15:17:26 +0200
with message-id <20190831131726.gb31...@aurel32.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#935507: message should say how to enable not seeing 
this message anymore
has caused the Debian Bug report #935507,
regarding message should say how to enable not seeing this message anymore
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
935507: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=935507
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libc6
Version: 2.29-0experimental1

The message seen in the image
https://i.stack.imgur.com/UmlmT.png
seen in
https://serverfault.com/questions/238679/unable-to-force-debian-to-do-unattended-install-libc6-wants-interactive-confi
should also mention how to make it not ask ever again.

That way people wouldn't need to search Google for the answer.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
control: found -1 glibc/2.13-20 

On 2019-08-23 20:43, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Package: libc6
> Version: 2.29-0experimental1
> 
> The message seen in the image
> https://i.stack.imgur.com/UmlmT.png
> seen in
> https://serverfault.com/questions/238679/unable-to-force-debian-to-do-unattended-install-libc6-wants-interactive-confi
> should also mention how to make it not ask ever again.
> 
> That way people wouldn't need to search Google for the answer.

The question "Restart services during package upgrades without asking?"
is shown by debconf with priority critical the first time a restart is
needed. If it is not presented to you, it's because "no" has been
answered in the past.

The way to manage debconf has no place in the questions asked by glibc.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno  GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net--- End Message ---

Bug#924712: crypt() not available _XOPEN_SOURCE is defined

2019-08-31 Thread Francesco Poli 
On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 15:04:06 +0200 Aurelien Jarno wrote:

> On 2019-08-25 15:51, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 13:46:36 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
> > 
> > > * Francesco Poli:
> > > 
> > > > Hello everyone,
> > > > I am sorry to ask, but... I cannot understand what's the status of
> > > > [this bug report].
> > > >
> > > > [this bug report]: 
> > > >
> > > > A serious bug for libc6-dev without any apparent activity since last
> > > > March?  Sure there must have been some hidden progress that I cannot
> > > > see.
> > > 
> > > We provided a solution acceptable to the reporter.  I do not think
> > > further action is needed on the glibc side.  The manual page needs to
> > > be updated to reflect the change, but that's not part of glibc.
> > 
> > OK, good.
> > Thanks for your prompt reply!
> > 
> > Why is the bug report being kept open, though?
> > Should it be reassigned to package manpages-dev and fixed there?
> 
> manpages-dev doesn't provide the manpage for crypt(3) anymore.

Oops, I hadn't noticed that.
Thanks a lot for clarifying!

> It is now
> provided by libcrypt2-dev. The crypt functions are getting removed from
> the glibc and will be provided by this external library. I guess we'll
> do the transition after getting glibc 2.29 into unstable.
> 
> As the version provided by libcrypt2-dev doesn't have the reported
> issue, I am closing the bug.

Good, thanks for stepping in!

Bye.


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgpJJ4HF3VsfR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#939048: transition: glibc

2019-08-31 Thread Aurelien Jarno 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

Dear release team,

I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.29. It is available in
experimental for a bit more than 2 weeks and there is no known issue or
regression. It has been built successfully on all release architectures
and most ports architectures. It fails to build on alpha, ia64 and
sparc64 due to a few testsuite issues that are being investigated or
need to be investigated and which do not looks really worrying. It
doesn't build on kfreebsd-*, but this has been the case for a few
glibc releases already.

As glibc is using symbol versioning, there is no soname change. That
said a few packages are using libc internal symbols and have to be
rebuilt for this transition (some packages only on some architectures):
 - apitrace
 - bro
 - dante
 - gcc-9
 - gcc-snapshot
 - glibc
 - libnih
 - libnss-db
 - unscd

Ben file:

Here is the corresponding ben file:
  title = "glibc";
  is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<