Bug#961654: buster-pu: package bzip2/1.0.6-9.2~deb10u1
El 16/09/22 a las 09:39, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort escribió: > Hi Santiago, > > On 15/09/2022 09:52, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > On 14/09/2022 15:42, Santiago R.R. wrote: > > > El 14/09/22 a las 13:58, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort escribió: > > > > On 13/09/2022 16:46, Sylvain Beucler wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > IIUC this is about fixing 2 non-security bugs, that were introduced > > > > > prior to buster's initial release. > > > > > > > > > > I personally don't think this fits the LTS project scope. > > > > > Maybe other LTS members will have a different opinion. > > > > > > > > We've had bugfix updates from time to time. They are rare, but not > > > > forbidden. This should go in a buster suite rather than > > > > buster-security, but > > > > since there's no such suite for LTS, having it in buster-security is the > > > > lesser evil. Of course we shouldn't flood -security with bug fixes, if > > > > that > > > > was necessary we should consider keeping $stable open and handled by > > > > the LTS > > > > team (but that doesn't seem necessary at this point). > > > > > > > > In this case, since the update has been prepared and looks sensible, > > > > I'll go > > > > ahead with the upload if nobody objects. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Emilio. Also consider > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961654#15 > > > > > > Haven't tested yet myself. But I suppose I should apply it in unstable. > > > > For buster I'd rather use what was proposed for buster-pu, as that's > > also what is in bullseye. > > I have uploaded that, with a s/buster/&-security/ in d/changelog, and fixing > your name to be UTF-8. Thanks! , -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#961654: buster-pu: package bzip2/1.0.6-9.2~deb10u1
Hi Santiago, On 15/09/2022 09:52, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: On 14/09/2022 15:42, Santiago R.R. wrote: El 14/09/22 a las 13:58, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort escribió: On 13/09/2022 16:46, Sylvain Beucler wrote: Hi, IIUC this is about fixing 2 non-security bugs, that were introduced prior to buster's initial release. I personally don't think this fits the LTS project scope. Maybe other LTS members will have a different opinion. We've had bugfix updates from time to time. They are rare, but not forbidden. This should go in a buster suite rather than buster-security, but since there's no such suite for LTS, having it in buster-security is the lesser evil. Of course we shouldn't flood -security with bug fixes, if that was necessary we should consider keeping $stable open and handled by the LTS team (but that doesn't seem necessary at this point). In this case, since the update has been prepared and looks sensible, I'll go ahead with the upload if nobody objects. Thanks, Emilio. Also consider https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961654#15 Haven't tested yet myself. But I suppose I should apply it in unstable. For buster I'd rather use what was proposed for buster-pu, as that's also what is in bullseye. I have uploaded that, with a s/buster/&-security/ in d/changelog, and fixing your name to be UTF-8. Cheers, Emilio
Bug#961654: buster-pu: package bzip2/1.0.6-9.2~deb10u1
On 14/09/2022 15:42, Santiago R.R. wrote: El 14/09/22 a las 13:58, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort escribió: On 13/09/2022 16:46, Sylvain Beucler wrote: Hi, IIUC this is about fixing 2 non-security bugs, that were introduced prior to buster's initial release. I personally don't think this fits the LTS project scope. Maybe other LTS members will have a different opinion. We've had bugfix updates from time to time. They are rare, but not forbidden. This should go in a buster suite rather than buster-security, but since there's no such suite for LTS, having it in buster-security is the lesser evil. Of course we shouldn't flood -security with bug fixes, if that was necessary we should consider keeping $stable open and handled by the LTS team (but that doesn't seem necessary at this point). In this case, since the update has been prepared and looks sensible, I'll go ahead with the upload if nobody objects. Thanks, Emilio. Also consider https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961654#15 Haven't tested yet myself. But I suppose I should apply it in unstable. For buster I'd rather use what was proposed for buster-pu, as that's also what is in bullseye. Cheers, Emilio
Bug#961654: buster-pu: package bzip2/1.0.6-9.2~deb10u1
El 14/09/22 a las 13:58, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort escribió: > On 13/09/2022 16:46, Sylvain Beucler wrote: > > Hi, > > > > IIUC this is about fixing 2 non-security bugs, that were introduced > > prior to buster's initial release. > > > > I personally don't think this fits the LTS project scope. > > Maybe other LTS members will have a different opinion. > > We've had bugfix updates from time to time. They are rare, but not > forbidden. This should go in a buster suite rather than buster-security, but > since there's no such suite for LTS, having it in buster-security is the > lesser evil. Of course we shouldn't flood -security with bug fixes, if that > was necessary we should consider keeping $stable open and handled by the LTS > team (but that doesn't seem necessary at this point). > > In this case, since the update has been prepared and looks sensible, I'll go > ahead with the upload if nobody objects. > Thanks, Emilio. Also consider https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961654#15 Haven't tested yet myself. But I suppose I should apply it in unstable. Cheers, -- S signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#961654: buster-pu: package bzip2/1.0.6-9.2~deb10u1
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 01:54:40PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Your top-commit looks very similar to the one from Santiago on [1]. I'd > rather use that to give him credit as he proposed the fix first (plus using > CPPFLAGS seems more correct for this flag). In addition to that, the commit > misses his follow-up fix in [2]. I'm going to consider that last debdiff > from him for an upload to buster. Thanks in any case for looking at it (and > coming up with a similar fix) and for testing the update. No problem, thank you! - Chris
Bug#961654: buster-pu: package bzip2/1.0.6-9.2~deb10u1
On 13/09/2022 16:46, Sylvain Beucler wrote: Hi, IIUC this is about fixing 2 non-security bugs, that were introduced prior to buster's initial release. I personally don't think this fits the LTS project scope. Maybe other LTS members will have a different opinion. We've had bugfix updates from time to time. They are rare, but not forbidden. This should go in a buster suite rather than buster-security, but since there's no such suite for LTS, having it in buster-security is the lesser evil. Of course we shouldn't flood -security with bug fixes, if that was necessary we should consider keeping $stable open and handled by the LTS team (but that doesn't seem necessary at this point). In this case, since the update has been prepared and looks sensible, I'll go ahead with the upload if nobody objects. Cheers, Emilio
Bug#961654: buster-pu: package bzip2/1.0.6-9.2~deb10u1
Hi Chris, On 14/09/2022 05:48, Chris Frey wrote: On the other hand, the fix has been known since 2019 and looks like a prime problem for an LTS newbie volunteer like me. I have created the fix based on the Debian/bzip2 repo, the fix is in the debian/buster branch. git clone http://digon.foursquare.net/debian-buster-bzip2/.git Your top-commit looks very similar to the one from Santiago on [1]. I'd rather use that to give him credit as he proposed the fix first (plus using CPPFLAGS seems more correct for this flag). In addition to that, the commit misses his follow-up fix in [2]. I'm going to consider that last debdiff from him for an upload to buster. Thanks in any case for looking at it (and coming up with a similar fix) and for testing the update. Cheers, Emilio [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=961654;filename=bzip2_1.0.6-9.2~deb10u2.debdiff;msg=5 [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=961654;filename=bzip2_1.0.6-9.2~deb10u2.debdiff;msg=10 I have tested it on a 32bit buster, and it works on +2g files. I do not have privileges to push this to any server yet, so feel free to tweak the changelog and claim it as your own, whoever wishes to upload it. - Chris On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 04:46:14PM +0200, Sylvain Beucler wrote: Hi, IIUC this is about fixing 2 non-security bugs, that were introduced prior to buster's initial release. I personally don't think this fits the LTS project scope. Maybe other LTS members will have a different opinion. Cheers! Sylvain Beucler Debian LTS Team On 13/09/2022 15:27, Santiago R.R. wrote: El 10/09/22 a las 19:11, Adam D. Barratt escribió: On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 11:56 +0200, Santiago R.R. wrote: Since 1.0.6-9, bzip2 was built without the -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 CPPFLAG, and so it's not able to handle > 2GB files in 32-bit archs. See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=944557 I've uploaded a fixed version to unstable yesterday. It would be great to fix it also in buster. Please, consider the attached debdiff. Would it be OK for you to upload it? Apologies for apparently letting this sit unanswered. (FTR there was a reply from a non-SRM member 18 months ago.) And I am sorry I missed that answer. The final point release for buster has now happened, so any further updates to packages in buster will need to be handled via LTS. I'm therefore going to close this request now. [snip] I am forwarding this to the LTS folks, so they can decide about this change.
Bug#961654: buster-pu: package bzip2/1.0.6-9.2~deb10u1
On the other hand, the fix has been known since 2019 and looks like a prime problem for an LTS newbie volunteer like me. I have created the fix based on the Debian/bzip2 repo, the fix is in the debian/buster branch. git clone http://digon.foursquare.net/debian-buster-bzip2/.git I have tested it on a 32bit buster, and it works on +2g files. I do not have privileges to push this to any server yet, so feel free to tweak the changelog and claim it as your own, whoever wishes to upload it. - Chris On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 04:46:14PM +0200, Sylvain Beucler wrote: > Hi, > > IIUC this is about fixing 2 non-security bugs, that were introduced prior to > buster's initial release. > > I personally don't think this fits the LTS project scope. > Maybe other LTS members will have a different opinion. > > Cheers! > Sylvain Beucler > Debian LTS Team > > On 13/09/2022 15:27, Santiago R.R. wrote: > > El 10/09/22 a las 19:11, Adam D. Barratt escribió: > > > On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 11:56 +0200, Santiago R.R. wrote: > > > > Since 1.0.6-9, bzip2 was built without the -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 > > > > CPPFLAG, and so it's not able to handle > 2GB files in 32-bit archs. > > > > See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=944557 > > > > > > > > I've uploaded a fixed version to unstable yesterday. It would be > > > > great > > > > to fix it also in buster. Please, consider the attached debdiff. > > > > Would it be OK for you to upload it? > > > > > > > > > > Apologies for apparently letting this sit unanswered. (FTR there was a > > > reply from a non-SRM member 18 months ago.) > > > > And I am sorry I missed that answer. > > > > > > > > The final point release for buster has now happened, so any further > > > updates to packages in buster will need to be handled via LTS. I'm > > > therefore going to close this request now. > > [snip] > > > > I am forwarding this to the LTS folks, so they can decide about this > > change.
Bug#961654: buster-pu: package bzip2/1.0.6-9.2~deb10u1
Hi, IIUC this is about fixing 2 non-security bugs, that were introduced prior to buster's initial release. I personally don't think this fits the LTS project scope. Maybe other LTS members will have a different opinion. Cheers! Sylvain Beucler Debian LTS Team On 13/09/2022 15:27, Santiago R.R. wrote: El 10/09/22 a las 19:11, Adam D. Barratt escribió: On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 11:56 +0200, Santiago R.R. wrote: Since 1.0.6-9, bzip2 was built without the -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 CPPFLAG, and so it's not able to handle > 2GB files in 32-bit archs. See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=944557 I've uploaded a fixed version to unstable yesterday. It would be great to fix it also in buster. Please, consider the attached debdiff. Would it be OK for you to upload it? Apologies for apparently letting this sit unanswered. (FTR there was a reply from a non-SRM member 18 months ago.) And I am sorry I missed that answer. The final point release for buster has now happened, so any further updates to packages in buster will need to be handled via LTS. I'm therefore going to close this request now. [snip] I am forwarding this to the LTS folks, so they can decide about this change.
Bug#961654: buster-pu: package bzip2/1.0.6-9.2~deb10u1
Hi, El 10/09/22 a las 19:11, Adam D. Barratt escribió: > On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 11:56 +0200, Santiago R.R. wrote: > > Since 1.0.6-9, bzip2 was built without the -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 > > CPPFLAG, and so it's not able to handle > 2GB files in 32-bit archs. > > See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=944557 > > > > I've uploaded a fixed version to unstable yesterday. It would be > > great > > to fix it also in buster. Please, consider the attached debdiff. > > Would it be OK for you to upload it? > > > > Apologies for apparently letting this sit unanswered. (FTR there was a > reply from a non-SRM member 18 months ago.) And I am sorry I missed that answer. > > The final point release for buster has now happened, so any further > updates to packages in buster will need to be handled via LTS. I'm > therefore going to close this request now. [snip] I am forwarding this to the LTS folks, so they can decide about this change. Cheers, -- S signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#961654: buster-pu: package bzip2/1.0.6-9.2~deb10u1
On 2020-07-21 16:53:23 [+0200], Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > diff -Nru bzip2-1.0.6/debian/rules bzip2-1.0.6/debian/rules > --- bzip2-1.0.6/debian/rules 2019-06-24 22:16:40.0 +0200 > +++ bzip2-1.0.6/debian/rules 2020-07-21 10:31:21.0 +0200 > @@ -14,6 +14,9 @@ > DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS := hardening=+all > DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND := -Wall -Winline > DEB_CPPFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND := -D_REENTRANT > +# This -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 is needed to make bzip2 able to handle > > 2GB-size > +# files in 32-bit archs. See #944557 > +DEB_CPPFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND += -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 Isn't the preferred way to add "future=+lfs" to DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS ? > include /usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk > > include /usr/share/dpkg/pkg-info.mk Sebastian
Bug#961654: buster-pu: package bzip2/1.0.6-9.2~deb10u1
On Wed, 27 May 2020 11:56:07 +0200 "Santiago R.R." wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > Tags: buster > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: pu > > Dear Release Managers, > > Since 1.0.6-9, bzip2 was built without the -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 > CPPFLAG, and so it's not able to handle > 2GB files in 32-bit archs. > See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=944557 > > I've uploaded a fixed version to unstable yesterday. It would be great > to fix it also in buster. Please, consider the attached debdiff. > Would it be OK for you to upload it? > > I've confirmed the issue is solved in an armhf machine running buster. … Dear RM, I would like to include another important bug fix in this upload. Attached you can find a refreshed debdiff that also address #965309 in buster: https://bugs.debian.org/965309 Would it be OK to upload it? Thanks, -- Santiago diff -Nru bzip2-1.0.6/debian/changelog bzip2-1.0.6/debian/changelog --- bzip2-1.0.6/debian/changelog2019-07-10 21:17:52.0 +0200 +++ bzip2-1.0.6/debian/changelog2020-07-21 10:36:47.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,13 @@ +bzip2 (1.0.6-9.2~deb10u2) buster; urgency=medium + + * Append -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 variable to buildflags, to renable handling +big files in 32-bit archs (Closes: #944557) + * debian/patches/40-bzdiff-l.patch: Fix bzdiff does not work when comparing +two bzip2 compressed files. Thanks to Joey Schulze . +(Closes: #965309) + + -- Santiago Ruano Rincón Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:36:47 +0200 + bzip2 (1.0.6-9.2~deb10u1) buster; urgency=medium * Rebuild for buster diff -Nru bzip2-1.0.6/debian/patches/40-bzdiff-l.patch bzip2-1.0.6/debian/patches/40-bzdiff-l.patch --- bzip2-1.0.6/debian/patches/40-bzdiff-l.patch2019-06-24 22:16:40.0 +0200 +++ bzip2-1.0.6/debian/patches/40-bzdiff-l.patch2020-07-21 10:32:51.0 +0200 @@ -2,10 +2,14 @@ This patch is far from sufficient. See the bug log for details. Bug-Ubuntu: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bzip2/+bug/735675 Origin: ubuntu, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bzip2/+bug/735675 +Reviewed-by: Santiago Ruano Rincón +Last-Update: 2020-07-20 a/bzdiff -+++ b/bzdiff -@@ -24,7 +24,11 @@ +Index: bzip2/bzdiff +=== +--- bzip2.orig/bzdiff bzip2/bzdiff +@@ -24,7 +24,11 @@ FILES= for ARG do case "$ARG" in @@ -18,12 +22,3 @@ *) if test -f "$ARG"; then FILES="$FILES $ARG" else -@@ -54,7 +58,7 @@ - exit 1 - } - bzip2 -cdfq "$2" > "$tmp" --bzip2 -cdfq "$1" | $comp $OPTIONS - "$tmp" -+bzip2 -cdfq "$1" | $comp "$OPTIONS" - "$tmp" - STAT="$?" - /bin/rm -f "$tmp";; - diff -Nru bzip2-1.0.6/debian/rules bzip2-1.0.6/debian/rules --- bzip2-1.0.6/debian/rules2019-06-24 22:16:40.0 +0200 +++ bzip2-1.0.6/debian/rules2020-07-21 10:31:21.0 +0200 @@ -14,6 +14,9 @@ DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS := hardening=+all DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND := -Wall -Winline DEB_CPPFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND := -D_REENTRANT +# This -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 is needed to make bzip2 able to handle > 2GB-size +# files in 32-bit archs. See #944557 +DEB_CPPFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND += -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 include /usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk include /usr/share/dpkg/pkg-info.mk signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#961654: buster-pu: package bzip2/1.0.6-9.2~deb10u1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: buster User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu Dear Release Managers, Since 1.0.6-9, bzip2 was built without the -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 CPPFLAG, and so it's not able to handle > 2GB files in 32-bit archs. See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=944557 I've uploaded a fixed version to unstable yesterday. It would be great to fix it also in buster. Please, consider the attached debdiff. Would it be OK for you to upload it? I've confirmed the issue is solved in an armhf machine running buster. Cheers, -- Santiago diff -Nru bzip2-1.0.6/debian/changelog bzip2-1.0.6/debian/changelog --- bzip2-1.0.6/debian/changelog2019-07-10 21:17:52.0 +0200 +++ bzip2-1.0.6/debian/changelog2020-05-27 10:18:11.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +bzip2 (1.0.6-9.2~deb10u2) buster; urgency=medium + + * Append -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 variable to buildflags, to renable handling +big files in 32-bit archs (Closes: #944557) + + -- Santiago Ruano Rincón Wed, 27 May 2020 10:18:11 +0200 + bzip2 (1.0.6-9.2~deb10u1) buster; urgency=medium * Rebuild for buster diff -Nru bzip2-1.0.6/debian/rules bzip2-1.0.6/debian/rules --- bzip2-1.0.6/debian/rules2019-06-24 22:16:40.0 +0200 +++ bzip2-1.0.6/debian/rules2020-05-27 09:58:14.0 +0200 @@ -14,6 +14,9 @@ DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS := hardening=+all DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND := -Wall -Winline DEB_CPPFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND := -D_REENTRANT +# This -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 is needed to make bzip2 able to handle > 2GB-size +# files in 32-bit archs. See #944557 +DEB_CPPFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND += -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 include /usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk include /usr/share/dpkg/pkg-info.mk signature.asc Description: PGP signature
