On 09/05/24 at 13:57 -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> First, I should say that I am painfully aware of how long it takes to run
> lintian on large
> packages. When working on qtwebengine-opensource-src it takes my system
> (Ryzen 7
> 5700G) about 2 hours to build the package and about half an
On 29/03/24 at 23:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Antonio Russo writes:
> > But, I will definitely concede that, had I seen a commit that changed
> > that line in the m4, there's a good chance my eyes would have glazed
> > over it.
>
> This is why I am somewhat skeptical that forcing everything
On 29/03/24 at 23:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The sad irony here is that the xz maintainer tried to do exactly what we
> advise people in this situation to do: try to add a comaintainer to share
> the work, and don't block work because you don't have time to personally
> vet everything in
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Lucas Nussbaum
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: parsyncfp2
Version : 2.59+git20240305.b2ef136
Upstream Contact: Harry Mangalam
* URL : https://github.com/hjmangalam/parsyncfp2/
* License
Hi,
I finally got time to perform those archive rebuilds.
Results are available at http://qa-logs.debian.net/2024/01/11/
I did a first archive rebuild (all packages on arm64, armhf, armel), and
then did a second one, restricted to packages that failed at on at least
one architecture.
Results in
On 22/11/23 at 09:09 +0100, Aurélien COUDERC wrote:
> Any chance to get back a front page with the complete list of tags, linking
> to the individual tag pages ?
>
> The best I could find for now is [1] but it's not very practical.
>
>
> [1]
On 28/11/23 at 13:00 -0700, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> > >> I finally fixed this. Sorry for the delay.
> > >>
> > >> https://udd.debian.org/lintian?packages=entr has a link for each lintian
> > >> tag, that points to (e.g.)
> > >> https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag.cgi?tag=superfluous-file-pattern
On 19/11/23 at 23:49 -0700, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> > > This issue still exists. I would now have the need to send the url
> > > https://lintian.debian.org/tags/service-file-is-not-a-file to upstream
> > > developers to learn about this Lintian issue, but the URL does not
> > > serve any contents
Hi,
On 17/11/23 at 15:11 +0800, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 13:27, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > #1042428 is the bug for "no explanation for lintian tags on UDD"
> >
> > On 26/09/23 at 21:35 -070
On 14/08/23 at 14:53 +0200, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
>
> On 2023-08-12 08:18, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Results:
> > http://qa-logs.debian.net/2023/08/11.stackclash-arm/
> >
> > I only included logs for builds that succeeded in a vanilla build,
>
Hi,
#1042428 is the bug for "no explanation for lintian tags on UDD"
On 26/09/23 at 21:35 -0700, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> I know Lintian tag info is available via command line, but I
> frequently need to educate upstreams about Lintian rules, and thus
> really also need a URL to share to them.
On 26/09/23 at 21:35 -0700, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Thanks for the context - so there is no need technical incompatibility
> at play, but mostly a matter of having resources and time to do it.
I think it's worth adding that the new implementation (as part of UDD)
is less ambitious on
On 24/09/23 at 12:16 -0700, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> > I don't know if it is just me, but even udd gives me a 500
> > when I try to check lintian output for any (existing) package.
> >
> > For example: https://udd.debian.org/lintian/?packages=nim
>
> I also just get error 500 when trying to look
On 15/08/23 at 01:29 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 09:40:52PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> > Yes. You are right. I (and most of the others who expressed an
> > interest in having this working) mostly care about doing a binary
> > build repeatedly. But doesn't this amount to much
On 14/08/23 at 22:09 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Could maybe dh_clean automatically clean up such __pycache__ directories or
> do we really expect that each individual package does such a clean up
> manually?
> Or is there maybe a way to avoid the creation of the __pycache__ directories
>
On 10/08/23 at 14:38 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 08/08/23 at 10:26 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > Are we ready to call for consensus on dropping the requirement that
> > `debian/rules clean; dpkg-source -b` shall work or is anyone interested
> > in sending lots of patc
Hi Emanuele,
On 10/08/23 at 16:57 +0200, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-08-10 02:43, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > What I would need is a script that customizes a chroot.
>
> This is what I'm passing to sbuild --chroot-setup-commands for my
> builds:
>
>
Hi,
On 08/08/23 at 01:25 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Lately I've been updating metadata in patches in packages I maintain and
> noticed several issues with the Patch Tagging Guidelines, and after Lucas
> created the new great patches UDD service [P] and we discussed some
> other issues
On 10/08/23 at 10:49 +0200, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-08-06 11:25, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > I worked with Lucas a while back and he made an archive rebuild on amd64,
> > only a minimal list of packages will need to be adapted:
> > http://qa-logs.debian.net/2023/05/24/
>
> Can
On 08/08/23 at 10:26 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Are we ready to call for consensus on dropping the requirement that
> `debian/rules clean; dpkg-source -b` shall work or is anyone interested
> in sending lots of patches for this?
My reading of the discussion is that there's sufficient interest
Hi,
On 05/08/23 at 21:01 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2023-08-05 19:31 +0100, Wookey wrote:
>
> > On 2023-08-05 17:06 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >>
> >> I wonder what we should do, because 5000+ failing packages is a lot...
> >>
> >>
On 05/08/23 at 21:29 +0200, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2023 at 07:20:19PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > What packages are failing, and why?
> >
> > I would expect some debhelper machinery being responsible for most of
> > these, e.g. perhaps some dh-whatever helper might be
On 05/08/23 at 19:20 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2023 at 05:06:27PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >...
> > Packages tested: 29883 (I filtered out those that take a very long time to
> > build)
> > .. building OK all times: 24835 (83%)
>
Hi,
Debian Policy section 4.9 says:
clean (required)
This must undo any effects that the build and binary targets may
have had, except that it should leave alone any output files
created in the parent directory by a run of a binary target.
I looked at what happens when doing
On 02/10/22 at 22:21 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Lucas Nussbaum (2022-10-02 21:51:52)
> > On 02/10/22 at 04:23 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > Nǐmen hǎo!
> > > I did another _source_ rebuild of the archive -- checking
On 02/10/22 at 04:23 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Nǐmen hǎo!
> I did another _source_ rebuild of the archive -- checking if every package
> is capable of repacking its source. Ie, if you can unpack it, (possibly
> modify), and pack again.
>
> Putting aside packages that are broken in other ways
On 02/10/22 at 04:23 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Nǐmen hǎo!
> I did another _source_ rebuild of the archive -- checking if every package
> is capable of repacking its source. Ie, if you can unpack it, (possibly
> modify), and pack again.
>
> Putting aside packages that are broken in other ways
On 29/06/22 at 15:49 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Correct, except that it happened for quite a while (7 months at least)
> and was (and maybe still is — see below) a continuous transition. It
> is present since at least 2.114.0 from November 2021. According to the
> git history, the implementation
On 28/03/22 at 16:03 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue 15 Mar 2022 at 06:26PM +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > On 15/03/22 at 15:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> At least the following packages of which I am the maintainer or
> >> sponsor
Hi,
On 15/03/22 at 09:29 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > What the are the packages for which you are surprised that bugs were
> > filed? I wonder which part of the criteria was too loose.
>
> It looks like the query didn't do quite what was intended, indeed:
> src:userv-utils is maintained in git
Hi,
On 15/03/22 at 15:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> At least the following packages of which I am the maintainer or
> sponsor were includined in the MBF, despite the fact that they are 1.0
> native packages with Debian revision:
>
>its-playback-time
>spigot
>vm
>vtwm
>chroma
On 15/03/22 at 10:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Answers were given, including by a former DPL (whom you may observe
> is not someone I am on speaking terms with).
>
> But I see now that the MBF has gone ahead anyway.
>
> I spent some time trying to help by setting out the factual
> background,
On 10/03/22 at 23:23 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:49:50PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >...
> > For packages in (1.1) and (1.2), I propose to file Severity: wishlist
> > bugs using the following template:
> >
> > ---
On 10/03/22 at 21:49 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi provides the list of
> packages for each category. The packages count is currently:
> (1.1): 53 packages
> (1.2): 424 packages
> (2): 149 packages
Actually it's:
(1.1): 60 packages
(1.2
Hi,
Based on the discussion, I propose the following:
Let's split the 626 packages in bookworm that use source format 1.0 into
three categories (1.1), (1.2), (2):
(1) packages with are very unlikely to use a VCS-based workflow (not
maintained by Debian X; not using a VCS; or referring to a
On 09/03/22 at 08:52 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 09 Mar 2022 at 01:08pm +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Also, how would that work with packages that combine direct changes to
> > upstream, and quilt for Debian-created patches?
>
> Could you expand? I didn't think
On 08/03/22 at 17:33 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Lucas, as I've had a lot to do with these git workflows and have
> probably done the most work documenting them, I can help with any
> specific follow-up questions you might have.
Thanks!
So the main question I think I have is:
can we find a
On 08/03/22 at 17:10 +0100, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> I did exactly that and rebuilt all the packages found by Lucas with the
> following changes:
>
> $ mkdir -p debian/source
> $ echo '3.0 (quilt)' >debian/source/format
>
> 141 source packages produce bit-by-bit
On 08/03/22 at 16:11 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 11:39:04AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > Hi Adrian,
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> > Am Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 11:42:42PM +0200 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> >...
> > > lintian already warns or has info tags that should be upgraded to
Hi,
On 06/03/22 at 22:24 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> So I'd rather propose to file these bugs with severity 'normal' and then wait
> and then get policy updated, and then raise the severity further.
For reference, there's a debian-policy bug about deprecating 1.0 +
dpatch/quilt: #850157 (no
On 06/03/22 at 22:25 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 06, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > I think that we should reduce the number of packages using the 1.0 format,
> > as
> > (1) format 3.0 has many advantages, as documented in
> > https://wiki.debi
Hi,
There are 629 packages in bookworm that use source format 1.0. That's 1.9% of
bookworm packages.
I think that we should reduce the number of packages using the 1.0 format, as
(1) format 3.0 has many advantages, as documented in
https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 ; (2) this
Hi,
On 05/11/21 at 21:22 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to propose a MBF with severity:serious for the above issue.
> build-arch and build-indep are required targets according to Debian
> Policy section 4.9. This rule was introduced in Policy version 3.9.4,
>
Hi,
I'd like to propose a MBF with severity:serious for the above issue.
build-arch and build-indep are required targets according to Debian
Policy section 4.9. This rule was introduced in Policy version 3.9.4,
released in 2012.
On 27/08/21 at 12:54 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:39:06AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > There's probably a large number of packages that just require a
> > rebuild (+ test with autopkgtest) to be backported.
>
> uploading to -backports als
Hi,
I'm really amazed by all the great work done around the Debian Janitor
project. It's great to see how it focuses the maintainer's work on where
there's some actual value with having humans in the loop.
Watching the talk[0] on automatically providing packages for new
upstream releases and new
On 23/08/21 at 13:45 +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>
> Mattia Rizzolo writes:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 12:59:39PM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> >> Have the uscan watch file checks that feed qa.debian.org stopped? Is it
> >> on purpose? Perhaps a consequence of the recent release?
> >
> >
Hi,
I would like to propose a mass bug filing on source packages that miss
support for build-arch or build-indep targets in debian/rules.
Those targets were made mandatory in Debian Policy 3.9.4 (released in
August 2012). From the changelog:
* build-arch and build-indep are now mandatory
On 13/04/21 at 11:18 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Hi Lucas
>
> I would like to add:
>
> - Removing Berkeley DB.
To clarify, I was focusing on stuff that is already tracked via Trends.
Lucas
[ M-F-T set to -qa@ ]
Hi,
I just updated Debian Trends: https://trends.debian.net/
I wonder if we should use the start of the next release cycle to decide
that we no longer want to accept some packaging practices, such as:
- debhelper compat level << 9
- source format 1.0 with direct changes in
Hi,
On 17/01/21 at 22:00 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On the infrastructure side, you mentioned on #debian-qa that in your
> opinion, lintian is best run in a CI pipeline instead of on the
> lintian.d.o service. While this is certainly true, do you plan to keep
> the functionality on your
Hi,
FYI:
I'm able to run archive rebuilds on a quite regular basis. I do that to
find (and file) FTBFS bugs, but it's also possible to test candidate
changes in Debian (for example, new versions of compilers, interpreters,
or other packages that are common build-depends).
If that's useful for
Hi,
On 04/07/20 at 13:24 +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just skimmed through https://trends.debian.net/ and am impressed. Many
> thanks for these figures.
Thanks
> Do you accept wishes for additional graphs?
Sure
> Mine would be on the number of build dependencies as a scale
Hi,
I just updated https://trends.debian.net/
Debian Trends provides historical graphs about Debian packaging
practices. It is built by running lintian on the data from
snapshot.debian.org.
Lucas
On 28/06/20 at 23:38 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
>
> On 6/28/20 10:58 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Well, I think that it would a good thing for Debian to enforce some
> > consistency on Debian images for clouds and software that require
> > VM images, at least abou
On 28/06/20 at 10:54 -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> [removing serpent@d.o from CC, he's resigned as delegate]
>
> Hi Lucas,
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 05:26:41PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > One could argue that the Cloud team delegation does not cover Docker
>
for that.
However ...
On 26/03/19 at 12:25 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On https://hub.docker.com/_/debian, there's:
>
> > Where to file issues:
> > https://github.com/debuerreotype/docker-debian-artifacts/issues
This hasn't changed. The Debian official images still point to githu
On 25/05/20 at 09:57 +0100, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> Control: retitle -1 UDD/dmd: fails to load when debci data is missing
>
> The problem isn't the number of packages, but some specific packages that
> can't be displayed even when they are the only package requested:
>
On 14/04/20 at 19:40 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > I think we should be rebuilding everything at least once per release
> > cycle, so we don't have a nasty surprise when these "mature" packages
> > need bug fixes.
>
> There's enough automated testing to spot FTBFS, thus rebuilding would only
>
On 04/04/20 at 08:09 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Lucas
>
> On 03-04-2020 22:41, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > There are a few things that strike me:
> >
> > - first, one can see how the number of package in testing decreases
> > slowly during freeze
Hi,
https://trends.debian.net/ was just updated (with data until April 1st).
The main change is that graphs are now displayed by default for Debian
'testing' (thus hiding broken packages in unstable only). Graphs for
'unstable' are still available.
There are a few things that strike me:
-
On 22/03/20 at 20:32 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Hi!
> There's a bunch of packages that fail to repack their sources. That is,
> "dpkg-buildpackage -S" fails in a clean environment.
>
> I've tested the entire archive, invoking:
> sbuild -s --source-only-changes --no-arch-all --no-arch-any
Hi,
I just updated https://trends.debian.net with recent data and some more
graphs. Thanks go to Peter Wienemann and Niels Thykier for patches and
ideas.
Lucas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 08/11/19 at 16:39 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 05:29:33PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > How often do packages get test-built thanks to that? (It looks like the
> > answer is: "once per month"?)
>
> it depends - see the
On 03/11/19 at 15:24 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 03:14:38PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > As part of general QA we did some test rebuilds during the last release
> > cycle, and filing the ftbfs reports as RC issues. Afaics there were no such
> > test rebuilds and RC
Hi,
On 02/10/19 at 23:23 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > Given that backports are a no-go, I hope that
> > http://fasttrack.debian.net/ will make quick progress and turn into an
> > official service soon.
>
> basically a good idea, but
> - what are your requirements for packages that are being
Hi,
Back in the beginning of September, because I needed to run VirtualBox
on Debian 10, I created an unofficial backport of the Debian unstable,
published it[1], and mentioned it on [2] (I don't think it was
advertised elsewhere).
[1] https://people.debian.org/~lucas/virtualbox-buster/
[2]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:10:33 +0200
Source: kanif
Architecture: source
Version: 1.2.2-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Lucas Nussbaum
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum
Changes:
kanif (1.2.2-3) unstable; urgency=medium
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:38:45 +0200
Source: taktuk
Architecture: source
Version: 3.7.7-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Vincent Danjean
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum
Changes:
taktuk (3.7.7-2) unstable; urgency
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:13:54 +0200
Source: hpcc
Architecture: source
Version: 1.5.0-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Science Maintainers
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum
Changes:
hpcc (1.5.0-2) unstable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:18:41 +0200
Source: vmtouch
Architecture: source
Version: 1.3.1-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Lucas Nussbaum
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum
Changes:
vmtouch (1.3.1-1) unstable; urgency
Hi,
I updated https://trends.debian.net .
Main changes:
* Refreshed data (up to July 2019)
* Added data about DEP5 copyright format adoption
* Added data about autopkgtest adoption
* Various minor changes
Now is probably a good time to go through smells in your packages and
update them to newer
Hi,
On 14/05/19 at 14:30 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think there's a fairly clear consensus emerging that it's worth having
> things to check when making a build system conversion. Looking at
> debdiff, ditherscope and reproducibility of the build all appear to be
> important things to
On 16/04/19 at 15:55 +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> On 13.04.19 10:20, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > TL;DR: see https://trends.debian.net and
> > https://trends.debian.net/#smells
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Following this blog post[1] I did some wo
On 16/04/19 at 08:52 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 05:35:40PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 04:55:12PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > biococoa (U) does not use Debhelper (no compat level found)
> > > (source version: 2.2.2-4)
> > >
On 15/04/19 at 16:55 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Are you sure that you are not tricked by false positives from lintian?
I might be, but if lintian reports something incorrectly about your
package, it's probably worth fixing in lintian.
Lucas
On 13/04/19 at 09:28 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 10:20:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > TL;DR: see https://trends.debian.net and
> > https://trends.debian.net/#smells
>
> that's beautiful! thank you!
>
> > [4]
On 13/04/19 at 10:24 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 4/13/19 10:20 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Additionally (and much more controversially I guess :-) ) I also added
> > an analysis of "package smells"[3], such as "not using dh", "not u
TL;DR: see https://trends.debian.net and
https://trends.debian.net/#smells
Hi,
Following this blog post[1] I did some work on setting up a proper
framework to graph historical trends about Debian packaging practices.
The result is now available at [2], and I'm confident that I will be
able to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 13:06:01 +0100
Source: packaging-tutorial
Binary: packaging-tutorial
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.24
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Lucas Nussbaum
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum
Description
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 21:46:26 +0100
Source: packaging-tutorial
Binary: packaging-tutorial
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.23
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Lucas Nussbaum
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum
Description
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 14:50:21 +0100
Source: packaging-tutorial
Binary: packaging-tutorial
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.22
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Lucas Nussbaum
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum
Description
On 08/01/19 at 13:25 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was seeking for remaining references to anonscm in packages in UDD.
> I've found the following strange hit:
>
> udd=> select source, version, maintainer, vcs_browser, release from sources
> where source = 'r-bioc-deseq2' and release
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:10:38 +0200
Source: charliecloud
Binary: charliecloud charliecloud-doc
Architecture: source
Version: 0.9.0-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian HPC Team
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:27:40 +0200
Source: charliecloud
Binary: charliecloud charliecloud-doc
Architecture: source
Version: 0.2.5-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian HPC Team
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum
org>
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org>
Description:
charliecloud - user-defined software stacks (UDSS) for HPC centers
charliecloud-doc - user-defined software stacks (UDSS) for HPC centers
(documentatio
Changes:
charliecloud (0.2.3-2) unstable; urgency=medium
.
[ Pet
org>
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org>
Description:
charliecloud - user-defined software stacks (UDSS) for HPC centers
charliecloud-doc - user-defined software stacks (UDSS) for HPC centers
(documentatio
Closes: 888395
Changes:
charliecloud (0.2.3-1) unstable; urgency=medium
Hi,
On 16/04/18 at 08:28 +0800, Rolf Leggewie wrote:
> Lucas and Atheros hijacked my package [...]
I know I'm late to the thread, but I wanted to make another point.
You write "my package". I think that as Debian maintainers, we should
try to avoid talking about "*my* package", but rather use
On 15/11/17 at 16:43 +0100, Steffen Möller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> my QA page or our blend's task page (like
> https://blends.debian.org/med/tasks/bio-ngs) regularly informs me about
> updates that should be performed to packages I alone maintain or (more
> likely) with the help of my blend. The
<debian-...@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org>
Description:
charliecloud - user-defined software stacks (UDSS) for HPC centers
charliecloud-doc - user-defined software stacks (UDSS) for HPC centers
(documentatio
Changes:
charliecloud (0.2.3~git20171120.1a5609e
anj...@debian.org>
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org>
Description:
libtaktuk-1-dev - C bindings for taktuk (development files)
libtaktuk-perl - Perl bindings for taktuk
libtaktuk3 - C bindings for taktuk
taktuk - efficient, large scale, parallel remote execution of comm
ain...@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org>
Description:
ruby-rest-client - simple REST client for Ruby
Closes: 873576
Changes:
ruby-rest-client (2.0.2-3) unstable; urgency=medium
.
* Add patches from Steve Langasek <steve.langa...@ubuntu.com> t
-ma...@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org>
Description:
libocamlbricks-ocaml-dev - Miscellaneous utility functions in OCaml for
Marionnet
Closes: 876734
Changes:
ocamlbricks (0.90+bzr456-1) unstable; urgency=medium
.
* Refresh patches.
* Add ocamlbuild to b
-ma...@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org>
Description:
marionnet - Virtual network laboratory
Closes: 818952 866606 866607
Changes:
marionnet (0.90.6+bzr508-1) unstable; urgency=medium
.
* New upstream version 0.90.6+bzr508
* Add stricter dep on ocamlbricks.
* Add sym
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 10:16:28 -0400
Source: vmtouch
Binary: vmtouch
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 1.3.0-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org>
Changed-By: Lucas Nussba
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:06:37 +0200
Source: packaging-tutorial
Binary: packaging-tutorial
Architecture: source
Version: 0.21
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org>
Changed-By:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org>
* Package name: vmtouch
Version : 1.3.0
Upstream Author : Doug Hoyte <d...@hcsw.org>
* URL : https://hoytech.com/vmtouch/
* License : BSD-3-clause
Programming Lang: C
ain...@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org>
Description:
ruby-minitest - Ruby test tools supporting TDD, BDD, mocking, and benchmarking
Changes:
ruby-minitest (5.10.3-1) unstable; urgency=medium
.
* New upstream version 5.10.3.
* Bump Standards-Vers
ain...@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org>
Description:
ruby-rest-client - simple REST client for Ruby
Changes:
ruby-rest-client (2.0.2-2) unstable; urgency=medium
.
[ Antonio Terceiro ]
* Team upload.
* Specify which gemspec to use via de
org>
Changed-By: Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org>
Description:
libtaktuk-1-dev - C bindings for taktuk (development files)
libtaktuk-perl - Perl bindings for taktuk
libtaktuk3 - C bindings for taktuk
taktuk - efficient, large scale, parallel remote execution of commands
Changes:
tak
1 - 100 of 1106 matches
Mail list logo
