Re: Bug#873481: jessie-pu: package bind9/9.9.5.dfsg-9+deb8u13.1
Hi release and d-i teams, can we please push this forward please and fast track the via jessie-updates? Both Jessie and Stretch are needed as September 11 is really close. Thanks, O. On 28 August 2017 12:08:39 Ondřej Surý <ond...@debian.org> wrote: Hi Adam, thanks for the quick response. On Mon, Aug 28, 2017, at 11:44, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Control: tags -1 + confirmed d-i On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 11:03 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > this is the jessie counterpart of bind9 update to KSK-2017. > > No other change has been done to the package. Nonetheless, the udeb means that we need a d-i ack. Is there anything I need to do to help the process? +bind9 (1:9.9.5.dfsg-9+deb8u13.1) jessie; urgency=high Upload numbers are simple integers - 1:9.9.5.dfsg-9+deb8u14, please. Lol, I had deb8u14 in the first compilation run, but changed it and recompiled it again :). Cheers, -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server Knot Resolver (https://www.knot-resolver.cz/) – secure, privacy-aware, fast DNS(SEC) resolver
Re: Bug#873481: jessie-pu: package bind9/9.9.5.dfsg-9+deb8u13.1
Version fixed and uploaded. Thanks a lot. Cheers, -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server Knot Resolver (https://www.knot-resolver.cz/) – secure, privacy-aware, fast DNS(SEC) resolver On Thu, Sep 7, 2017, at 19:34, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Control: tags -1 - d-i > > On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 12:08 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > > > thanks for the quick response. > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017, at 11:44, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > [...] > > > +bind9 (1:9.9.5.dfsg-9+deb8u13.1) jessie; urgency=high > > > > > > Upload numbers are simple integers - 1:9.9.5.dfsg-9+deb8u14, > > > please. > > > > Lol, I had deb8u14 in the first compilation run, but changed it and > > recompiled it again :). > > > > With the version corrected to deb8u14, please go ahead. > > Regards, > > Adam
Re: Bug#873481: jessie-pu: package bind9/9.9.5.dfsg-9+deb8u13.1
Hi Adam, thanks for the quick response. On Mon, Aug 28, 2017, at 11:44, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Control: tags -1 + confirmed d-i > > On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 11:03 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > this is the jessie counterpart of bind9 update to KSK-2017. > > > > No other change has been done to the package. > > Nonetheless, the udeb means that we need a d-i ack. Is there anything I need to do to help the process? > +bind9 (1:9.9.5.dfsg-9+deb8u13.1) jessie; urgency=high > > Upload numbers are simple integers - 1:9.9.5.dfsg-9+deb8u14, please. Lol, I had deb8u14 in the first compilation run, but changed it and recompiled it again :). Cheers, -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server Knot Resolver (https://www.knot-resolver.cz/) – secure, privacy-aware, fast DNS(SEC) resolver
isc-dhcpd vs udhcpd
Hi, while revising bind9 udebs, KiBi suggested that non-Linux architectures might be using isc-dhcpd instead of udhcpd due some problems and it might be a good idea to revise the decision now that we have a busybox maintainer? Cheers, -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org>
Re: isc-dhcpd vs udhcpd
Just to rephrase my original request then... Personally, I don't really care about the DHCP client used in d-i, but I do care about complexity in the bind9 packaging. The --without-openssl support will go away (probably in BIND 9.13) and I would rather unify the two sets of libraries into one. If that means shuffling symbols around, so we don't end up with libxml2, libjson and libgeoip in d-i, then I will rather make it happen in upstream So the main difference between export and non-export libraries are: Are these a problem? * krb5 / gssapi # guess this is a problem, as krb5 has not udebs * libcap2 # guess not, there's a udeb These have to definitely go: * libgeoip1 (I have no idea why it's linked to libisc) * libxml2 (I have no idea why it's linked to libisc) Cheers, Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017, at 13:21, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 23.10.2017 09:36, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > while revising bind9 udebs, KiBi suggested that non-Linux architectures > > might be using isc-dhcpd instead of udhcpd due some problems and it > > might be a good idea to revise the decision now that we have a busybox > > maintainer? > > Ubuntu has used dhclient for a long time now in d-i. I think there are > at least two parts to it: a) consistency across architectures - it is > weird to support two completely different implementations and b) > actually use the same implementation than the installed system would > rather than something embedded that has less features. > > I recall times at work where we had severe issues with dhclient not > staying around in the background refreshing the lease. I have no idea if > this is still the case, I just recall that -1 behavior was kind of a > mess. Back then we bumped the lease duration. If picking udhcpc means > that we can address such issues more easily, that's better. > > At the same time people know how to configure dhclient and can use a > similar config as in the installed system. My understanding is that > udhcpc has essentially no options at all (like sending additional DHCP > options). > > netcfg also did not receive that much love in recent times and I wonder > if something more integrated wouldn't be better than the hacks layered > on top of each other to make it work we have today. But at the same time > I know that something modern like systemd-networkd won't work for d-i > either because of architecture consistency. :/ > > Kind regards > Philipp Kern
Re: [Pkg-dns-devel] Bug#887407: bind9: uninstallable udebs
Hi, oh, I hadn't realized that lmdb will get auto-detected and therefore the ./configure for udebs needs --without-lmdb. Fixing in next upload. Cheers, Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018, at 04:11, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Source: bind9 > Version: 1:9.11.2+dfsg-9 > Severity: serious > Tags: d-i > Justification: uninstallable packages > > [ Please keep debian-boot@ in copy of your replies. ] > > Hi, > > There are new issues with your udebs: > - libdns-export169-udeb and libisc-export166-udeb now depend on >liblmdb0, which isn't a udeb. > - that makes other udebs uninstallable, including isc-dhcp-client-udeb. > > Probably an issue since bind9 1:9.11.2+dfsg-6, but you seem to have > performed 4 uploads in less than 12 hours, and our automated tools don't > have a sufficient granularity to pinpoint the exact revision for sure. > > > Cheers, > -- > Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)<https://debamax.com/> > D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant > > ___ > pkg-dns-devel mailing list > pkg-dns-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org > https://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-dns-devel
Fwd: Re: [Pkg-dns-devel] Bug#887407: bind9: uninstallable udebs
-- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> - Original message - From: Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> To: Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org>, 887...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: [Pkg-dns-devel] Bug#887407: bind9: uninstallable udebs Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:57:57 +0100 Hi, oh, I hadn't realized that lmdb will get auto-detected and therefore the ./configure for udebs needs --without-lmdb. Fixing in next upload. Cheers, Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018, at 04:11, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Source: bind9 > Version: 1:9.11.2+dfsg-9 > Severity: serious > Tags: d-i > Justification: uninstallable packages > > [ Please keep debian-boot@ in copy of your replies. ] > > Hi, > > There are new issues with your udebs: > - libdns-export169-udeb and libisc-export166-udeb now depend on >liblmdb0, which isn't a udeb. > - that makes other udebs uninstallable, including isc-dhcp-client-udeb. > > Probably an issue since bind9 1:9.11.2+dfsg-6, but you seem to have > performed 4 uploads in less than 12 hours, and our automated tools don't > have a sufficient granularity to pinpoint the exact revision for sure. > > > Cheers, > -- > Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)<https://debamax.com/> > D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant > > ___ > pkg-dns-devel mailing list > pkg-dns-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org > https://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-dns-devel
Re: [Pkg-dns-devel] What to do with isc-dhcp-client-udeb?
Hi KiBi, I would also love to get rid of the isc-dhcp-client-udeb, but so far the message from the busybox team was that the dhcp client there doesn't compile there and needs some upstream work to get it working. (As a matter of fact, the busybox doesn't compile at all on kfreebsd-* and hurd-i386 right now.) As for the BIND libraries and libatomic. There has been some effort to replace the custom atomic code with a C-provided counterpart - it also fixes the mips deadlocks. But generally, I would prefer to move all BIND libraries into "custom" namespace, so the libraries are not used by anything else, and either: a) use the custom copy of the libraries inside isc-dhcp b) prepare separate package for the lib-udeb that would follow the BIND 9.11 development (BIND 9.11 is to be supported for next 4 years) and then remove those AND isc-dhcp from Debian. The upcoming ISC-DHCP release 4.4.0 is ought to be the _last_ major upgrade, see: https://www.isc.org/blogs/isc-dhcp-the-last-branch/ And if porting udhcpc to kFreeBSD proves to be much work, then perhaps porting dhclient from OpenBSD might be an option? Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018, at 16:20, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Hi bind9 people, > > I've just gotten this: > > > Subject: udeb uninstallability trend: worse (+18/-) > udeb uninstallability watcher <debian-boot@lists.debian.org> (2018-01-22): > > Newly-broken packages in testing > > isc-dhcp-client-udeb armel mips mipsel > > libdns-export169-udebarmel mips mipsel > > libirs-export160-udebarmel mips mipsel > > libisc-export166-udebarmel mips mipsel > > libisccc-export160-udeb armel mips mipsel > > libisccfg-export160-udeb armel mips mipsel > > > > Uninstallability trend: worse (+18/-0) > > Uninstallability count: 397 > > I happened to have missed its unstable counterpart, because those come in > batches, depending on the current buildd status of packages. I thought the > “Newly-broken” packages for armel, mips, and mipsel were an artifact of > late builds. > > I don't know anything about this libatomic1; but from a look at the 0013 > patch, it seems to be a need for a platform rather than for a feature… > > Anyway, I'm not sure what to do with isc-dhcp-client-udeb; it's getting > broken on a regular fashion, and its purpose was mainly for non-Linux > ports AFAICR. > > I'm not sure how BSD is doing these days; maybe hurd is the only user > left? > > > Cheers, > -- > Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)<https://debamax.com/> > D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant > ___ > pkg-dns-devel mailing list > pkg-dns-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org > https://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-dns-devel > Email had 1 attachment: > + signature.asc > 1k (application/pgp-signature)
