Hi,
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, at 08:59, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > If we assume that the archive is meant to store immutable content
> > > under a given filename (and to me that requirement seems to be a good
> > > idea), then we should question ourselves
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 09:59:42PM +0100, Raphaël Hertzog wrote:
> Those files are not really meant to be immutable:
> - signing keys can expire and be revoked, upstream might want to update
> signatures of already released tarballs
> - the set of "upstream release managers" might evolve over
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 15:41:09 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> > > Yeah, it would go a long way if pristine-tar would store the associated
> > > signature and restore it as well. It's easy to forget to include it
> > > when the uploads are not done by
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> > Yeah, it would go a long way if pristine-tar would store the associated
> > signature and restore it as well. It's easy to forget to include it
> > when the uploads are not done by the same person.
>
> It can, since version 1.41:
>
> debcheckout
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, 10:25 am Rene Engelhard, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 11.02.21 um 21:59 schrieb Raphaël Hertzog:
>
> > [1] For details it happened in dbus-glib:
> > https://snapshot.debian.org/package/dbus-glib/0.110-2/ -> it has .asc
> file
> > https://snapshot.debian.org/package/dbus-glib/0.110-3/
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 08:59:12AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Control: block -1 by 876643
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks for your quick answer!
>
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > If we assume that the archive is meant to store immutable content
> > > under a given filename (and to me
Hi,
Am 11.02.21 um 21:59 schrieb Raphaël Hertzog:
> [1] For details it happened in dbus-glib:
> https://snapshot.debian.org/package/dbus-glib/0.110-2/ -> it has .asc file
> https://snapshot.debian.org/package/dbus-glib/0.110-3/ -> no .asc
> https://snapshot.debian.org/package/dbus-glib/0.110-4/
Control: block -1 by 876643
Hi,
thanks for your quick answer!
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > If we assume that the archive is meant to store immutable content
> > under a given filename (and to me that requirement seems to be a good
> > idea), then we should question ourselves
Processing control commands:
> block -1 by 876643
Bug #982562 [general] general: Storing upstream signatures next to upstream
tarballs is problematic
982562 was not blocked by any bugs.
982562 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 982562: 876643
--
982562:
On Fri, 2021-02-12 at 01:05:21 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, 12:52 am Guillem Jover, wrote:
> > Then there's the problem with changing contents for already seen
> > files, which seems like a dak bug. It does not allow to change a
> > tarball once it has been seen, so I don't
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, 12:52 am Guillem Jover, wrote:
> Then there's the problem with changing contents for already seen
> files, which seems like a dak bug. It does not allow to change a
> tarball once it has been seen, so I don't see why it should allow a
> changed .asc either?
>
That's not
Hi!
On Thu, 2021-02-11 at 21:59:42 +0100, Raphaël Hertzog wrote:
> Package: general
> Severity: normal
> User: de...@kali.org
> Usertags: origin-kali
> X-Debbugs-Cc: hert...@debian.org, debian-d...@lists.debian.org
> Control: affects -1 ftp.debian.org dpkg-dev
> After having been bitten (in
Package: general
Severity: normal
User: de...@kali.org
Usertags: origin-kali
X-Debbugs-Cc: hert...@debian.org, debian-d...@lists.debian.org
Control: affects -1 ftp.debian.org dpkg-dev
Hi people,
After having been bitten (in Kali) by failures to import Debian packages
because a PGP signature file
13 matches
Mail list logo
