Re: Making trixie debootstrap-able again?
On 27/04/2024 00:14, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: Again, I have absolutely no clue regarding the best course of action at this point. I can't even perform clean builds to check what a binNMU in testing would look like, as I can't debootstrap a clean environment (and therefore only tested rebuilds in an existing, devel-oriented, unclean trixie chroot). I am currently looking into making coreutils and systemd (which needs glib2.0) migrate. I hope to have it back in a debootstrapable-step after the weekend. If you are aware of more apckages that need help, please let us know. Other packages that need help (discovered while trying to rebuild packages for the armhf architecture). Source package man-db. man-db is a dependency of debhelper, and the version in testing depends on libgdbm6, preventing build for any package that depend on libgdbm6t64. ``` $ rmadison man-db man-db | 2.12.0-3 | testing | source, amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, ppc64el, s390x man-db | 2.12.1-1 | unstable | source, amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x ``` Binary packages libbpf1 and libbpf-dev, the latest binNMU didn't migrate to testing for armel and armhf, and prevent rebuilding iproute2 ``` $ rmadison libbpf-dev libbpf-dev | 1:1.3.0-2+b1 | testing | amd64, arm64, i386, mips64el, ppc64el, s390x libbpf-dev | 1:1.3.0-2+b1 | unstable | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x ``` Best, -- Arnaud Rebillout / OffSec / Kali Linux Developer
Bug#1069690: bookworm-pu: package libkf5ksieve/4:22.12.3-1+deb12u1
Hi Patrick, On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 09:36:54PM +0200, Patrick Franz wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > Tags: bookworm > X-Debbugs-Cc: delta...@debian.org > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: pu > > [ Reason ] > There is a bug in libkf5sieve where the password instead of the > username is sent when using managesieve and could therefore be > logged on a server as the login will fail. > > [ Impact ] > Potentially sensitive passwords are logged on a server. > > [ Tests ] > Affected user has successfully tested the patched version. > > [ Risks ] > The patch is trivial (1 line is changed) and it's quite obvious > that it was a bug in the first place. > > [ Checklist ] > [x] *all* changes are documented in the d/changelog > [x] I reviewed all changes and I approve them > [x] attach debdiff against the package in (old)stable > [x] the issue is verified as fixed in unstable > > [ Changes ] > 1-line patch to fix the bug. > diffstat for libkf5ksieve-22.12.3 libkf5ksieve-22.12.3 As it is not yet uploaded for bookworm, you might add as well the CVE id reference in the changelog: CVE-2023-52723 . p.s.: I think you can take advantage of the improved workflow for this specific one, if you are sure the package will be accepted as it is from SRM, you can with the proposed update bug filling, along as well already do the upload. (but note, just commenting this with no authrotiy speaking, as not part of the release team) Regards, Salvatore
Processed: bookworm-pu: package pypy3/7.3.11+dfsg-2+deb12u2
Processing control commands: > affects -1 + src:pypy3 Bug #1070218 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package pypy3/7.3.11+dfsg-2+deb12u2 Added indication that 1070218 affects src:pypy3 -- 1070218: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070218 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1070175: RM: salt/3002.6+dfsg1-4+deb11u1
On Wed, 2024-05-01 at 19:46 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 06:29:29PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On Wed, 2024-05-01 at 13:02 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > > Please remove salt in the next Bullseye point release. > > > It was already removed frm unstable for being unsupportable > > > and unmaintained (https:://bugs.debian.org/1069654). > > > > > > There are two related packages which need to be removed > > > alongside, since salt-common depends on them (but which > > > have no other dependencies outside of salt): > > > > > > pytest-salt-factories 0.93.0-1 > > > pytest-testinfra 6.1.0-1 > > > > I'm not doubting whether at least the former should be removed, but > > "salt-common depends on them" isn't a reason to remove things in > > itself. A relationship in the opposite direction certainly would be > > (i.e. "they depend on salt-common"). > > It's actually build dependencies, both pytest-salt-factories and > pytest-testinfra build depend on salt-common. Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification. Regards, Adam
Bug#1070175: RM: salt/3002.6+dfsg1-4+deb11u1
On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 06:29:29PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Wed, 2024-05-01 at 13:02 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > Please remove salt in the next Bullseye point release. > > It was already removed frm unstable for being unsupportable > > and unmaintained (https:://bugs.debian.org/1069654). > > > > There are two related packages which need to be removed > > alongside, since salt-common depends on them (but which > > have no other dependencies outside of salt): > > > > pytest-salt-factories 0.93.0-1 > > pytest-testinfra 6.1.0-1 > > I'm not doubting whether at least the former should be removed, but > "salt-common depends on them" isn't a reason to remove things in > itself. A relationship in the opposite direction certainly would be > (i.e. "they depend on salt-common"). It's actually build dependencies, both pytest-salt-factories and pytest-testinfra build depend on salt-common. Cheers, Moritz
Bug#1070175: RM: salt/3002.6+dfsg1-4+deb11u1
On Wed, 2024-05-01 at 13:02 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Please remove salt in the next Bullseye point release. > It was already removed frm unstable for being unsupportable > and unmaintained (https:://bugs.debian.org/1069654). > > There are two related packages which need to be removed > alongside, since salt-common depends on them (but which > have no other dependencies outside of salt): > > pytest-salt-factories 0.93.0-1 > pytest-testinfra 6.1.0-1 I'm not doubting whether at least the former should be removed, but "salt-common depends on them" isn't a reason to remove things in itself. A relationship in the opposite direction certainly would be (i.e. "they depend on salt-common"). Regards, Adam
Processed: tagging 1070175, cloning 1070175, retitle 1070175 to RM: salt -- RoST; unsupportable; unmaintained ...
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 1070175 + bullseye Bug #1070175 [release.debian.org] RM: salt/3002.6+dfsg1-4+deb11u1 Added tag(s) bullseye. > clone 1070175 -1 -2 Bug #1070175 [release.debian.org] RM: salt/3002.6+dfsg1-4+deb11u1 Bug 1070175 cloned as bugs 1070198-1070199 > retitle 1070175 RM: salt -- RoST; unsupportable; unmaintained Bug #1070175 [release.debian.org] RM: salt/3002.6+dfsg1-4+deb11u1 Changed Bug title to 'RM: salt -- RoST; unsupportable; unmaintained' from 'RM: salt/3002.6+dfsg1-4+deb11u1'. > retitle -1 RM: pytest-salt-factories -- RoST; only needed for to-be-removed > salt Bug #1070198 [release.debian.org] RM: salt/3002.6+dfsg1-4+deb11u1 Changed Bug title to 'RM: pytest-salt-factories -- RoST; only needed for to-be-removed salt' from 'RM: salt/3002.6+dfsg1-4+deb11u1'. > retitle -2 RM: pytest-testinfra -- RoST; only needed for to-be-removed salt Bug #1070199 [release.debian.org] RM: salt/3002.6+dfsg1-4+deb11u1 Changed Bug title to 'RM: pytest-testinfra -- RoST; only needed for to-be-removed salt' from 'RM: salt/3002.6+dfsg1-4+deb11u1'. > user release.debian@packages.debian.org Setting user to release.debian@packages.debian.org (was a...@adam-barratt.org.uk). > usertags -1 + rm There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: rm. > usertags -2 + rm There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: rm. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1070175: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070175 1070198: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070198 1070199: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070199 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: bookworm-pu: package ansible-core/2.14.16-0+deb12u1
Processing control commands: > affects -1 + src:ansible-core Bug #1070193 [release.debian.org] bookworm-pu: package ansible-core/2.14.16-0+deb12u1 Added indication that 1070193 affects src:ansible-core -- 1070193: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070193 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1065309: transition: gnat (12 -> 13 + time_t64)
Hi Nicholas I think the builds are on track, except for: libtemplates-parser FTBFS on arch:all [1] gprbuild FTBFS on arch:any [2] libgnatcoll, libgnatcoll-bindings and libgnatcoll-db are blocked by the builds of gprbuild Regards Graham [1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libtemplates-parser=sid [2] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=gprbuild=sid
Processed: RM: salt/3002.6+dfsg1-4+deb11u1
Processing control commands: > affects -1 + src:salt Bug #1070175 [release.debian.org] RM: salt/3002.6+dfsg1-4+deb11u1 Added indication that 1070175 affects src:salt -- 1070175: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070175 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1070175: RM: salt/3002.6+dfsg1-4+deb11u1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: s...@packages.debian.org Control: affects -1 + src:salt User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Please remove salt in the next Bullseye point release. It was already removed frm unstable for being unsupportable and unmaintained (https:://bugs.debian.org/1069654). There are two related packages which need to be removed alongside, since salt-common depends on them (but which have no other dependencies outside of salt): pytest-salt-factories 0.93.0-1 pytest-testinfra 6.1.0-1 Cheers, Moritz
Bug#1070121: nmu: coreutils_9.4-3 (trixie), pam_1.5.2-9.1 (trixie)
On 30/04/2024 21:44, Simon McVittie wrote: coreutils_9.4-3.1 and pam_1.5.3-7 aren't currently migrating to trixie for whatever reason. Because debootstrap doesn't currently know about versioned Provides, I think it would be useful to get versions of these packages in trixie that have been rebuilt against the 64-bit time_t ABIs and package names. If the versions in trixie don't migrate imminently, please consider: nmu coreutils_9.4-3 . ANY . trixie . -m "rebuild against libssl3t64" nmu pam_1.5.2-9.1 . ANY . trixie . -m "rebuild against libdb5.3t64" I tried to rebuild coreutils 9.4-3 in the Kali Linux suite "kali-dev" (based on Debian testing), and for the **armhf** architecture. The thing is, in the build chroot there is coreutils+libssl3 already installed. Then apt needs to install the build depends for coreutils, ie. libssl-dev that depends on libssl3t64. And of course, for armhf and armel, libssl3t64 is not co-installable with libssl3, so the build fails straight there. Can't even install the build deps. I suppose it's not a surprise for those familiar with the matter. And the NMU suggested by Simon would probably work for other architectures, maybe it's better than nothing. Best, -- Arnaud Rebillout / OffSec / Kali Linux Developer
