Re: Triggers on file patterns (similar to bug #553266)

Hi Sjors! On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 13:30:56 +0200, Sjors Gielen wrote: > The reason I'm asking is because of the Fink package manager for > Mac OS X, which uses dpkg and apt extensively. We're in the process > of upgrading from the ancient dpkg 1.10 to 1.15. Ah nice, I've looked at the changes done

Re: [PATCH] dpkg-source(1): document default compression levels for lzma and xz

Hi! On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 01:56:49 +0300, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: > diff --git a/man/dpkg-source.1 b/man/dpkg-source.1 > index fb6f377..d6af2b4 100644 > --- a/man/dpkg-source.1 > +++ b/man/dpkg-source.1 > @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ dpkg-dev 1.15.5. > Compression level to use. As with \fB\-Z\fP it on

Re: [PATCH] dpkg-source(1): document default compression levels for lzma and xz

On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 01:29:03 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 01:56:49 +0300, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: > > diff --git a/man/dpkg-source.1 b/man/dpkg-source.1 > > index fb6f377..d6af2b4 100644 > > --- a/man/dpkg-source.1 > > +++ b/man/dpkg-so

Next upload 2011-09-11 (dpkg 1.16.1)

Hi! It's been some time now since last upload (a busy summer for me with guests over during most of it!), and quite some changes have accumulated, so let's set as tentative target this next sunday for 1.16.1. I still have some changed to push, which I'll be doing during today, and a second push t

Re: Hardening patch

On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 11:55:19 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Here's what I'm going to push in case anyone feels like reviewing it > quickly (I'm waiting some final feedback from Kees). Here it is. > >From 8f1c8a783b35486c70f48969679090d77278665c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: =?UTF-8?q?Rapha=

Re: Hardening patch

On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 13:46:21 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 10:37:13PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Also I'm not sure now if this has been brought up before, but the > > bindnow option might have noticable startup speed impact depending > > on

Re: Hardening patch

On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 08:59:50 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > New patches attached. > >From 8ea91d6285f490d583f85e1b1621a67ccb33e64a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: =?UTF-8?q?Rapha=C3=ABl=20Hertzog?= > Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:10:49 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH 2/3] dpkg-buildflags: emit hardening

Re: [SCM] dpkg's main repository branch, master, updated. 1.16.0.3-319-gbf9cefe

On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 08:25:13 +, Raphaël Hertzog wrote: > The following commit has been merged in the master branch: > commit 9dcb50a59414e1fe0e6a8a4c8ee9f59d10706396 > Author: Raphaël Hertzog > Date: Mon Sep 12 09:42:11 2011 +0200 > > update-alternatives: new non-regression test >

Re: Hardening patch

On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 08:19:42 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > + "bindnow" => 1 > > > > Any reason you seem to have ignored the concerns I rised about > > defaulting to bindnow? > > Well, you menti

Re: Next upload 2011-09-11 (dpkg 1.16.1)

On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 06:18:06 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > [...], so let's set as tentative target this next sunday for > 1.16.1. This didn't happen, so a small update follows. > I still have some changed to push, which I'll be doing during today, > and a second p

Re: binNMUs?

Hi! On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 21:19:29 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [110912 20:44]: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 08:19:09PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 15:31:56 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > Also, I think we still have a reason

Re: Hardening patch

On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 08:51:17 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Guillem Jover wrote: > > I installed iceweasel on an ARM system (Thecus N2100), w/o X forwarding, > > and no user profile, so it just stops when it's not able to find the > > DISPLAY, but

Re: Some upcoming dpkg changes, test and feedback welcome

On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 14:32:50 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > I have also decided to not export the build flags in the environment by > > > default. If the caller really wants this, he should set > > > DPKG_E

Re: Some upcoming dpkg changes, test and feedback welcome

On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 16:31:36 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Thus my personal preference would be to provide something to cover > > those use cases. > > I attached a patch for this. I ended up diverging slightly on the > variable names to be more c

Re: Some upcoming dpkg changes, test and feedback welcome

On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 09:02:39 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > +# DEB_DISTRIBUTION: the first distribution of the current entry in > > > debian/changelog > > > > Why only the first, what makes it special? If there

Re: dpkg build under Mac OS X failed

Hi! On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 22:12:36 -0700, stu...@zulazon.com wrote: > I tried to build dpkg from source under Mac OS X 10.6.8, and succeeded > only by > > altering dpkg-linker.m4 to remove the -O1 flag the Apple linker ld didn't > understand getting newer versions of autotools using the -i flag

Re: Next upload 2011-09-11 (dpkg 1.16.1)

Hi! On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:00:08 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 06:18:06 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > I still have some changed to push, which I'll be doing during today, > > and a second push tomorrow or so, to give time for some more testing > &g

Re: Proposal for a "Bits from dpkg developers"

On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 15:23:10 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Given the number of disruptive changes, it's important to accompany > the upload with a d-d-a mail. I have thus prepared a draft here: > http://titanpad.com/wHeHZd9yrs Ok! Release tagged, pushed and uploaded. I reworded some things, a

Preparing stable release for squeeze (dpkg 1.15.8.12)

Hi! There's some changes in the squeeze branch, and there's a new point release approaching, but usually a package including the fixes is required to have been in sid for a while, so we might be too late already. I'll be preparing the release and a mail later today to request SRM approval anyway.

Accepted dpkg 1.16.1 (source all amd64)

rdlink pointing to a conffile. Closes: #638291 * Add example of extend-diff-ignore's usage in dpkg-source(1). Closes: #640198 * dpkg-buildflags now returns hardening flags by default. Closes: #489771 They can be individually enabled/disabled via DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS,

[SRM] dpkg 1.15.8.12 for squeeze

release, sorry about that!). I'm attaching the interesting git commits (with translations omitted). Here's the changelog: dpkg (1.15.8.12) stable; urgency=low [ Guillem Jover ] * Do not fail to unpack shared directories missing on the file system from packages being replaced

Re: dpkg 1.16.1 configure

Hi! On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 10:33:28 +0200, Gabor Z. Papp wrote: > 1.16.1 configure says: > > hecking dpkg cpu type... i686 > configure: WARNING: i686 not found in cputable > checking dpkg operating system type... linux-gnu > configure: WARNING: linux-gnu not found in ostable > checking dpkg archi

Re: dpkg 1.16.1 configure

Hi! On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 08:54:53 +0200, Gabor Z. Papp wrote: > * Neil Williams : > | [...] So it should be entirely possible to build dpkg > | without having dpkg installed (it would make it impossible to > | bootstrap new architectures otherwise). Well not impossible, just slightly more compli

Re: dpkg 1.16.1 configure

On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 19:07:00 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 08:54:53 +0200, Gabor Z. Papp wrote: > > So, what is failing? > > > > (cd $srcdir/scripts; PERL5LIB=$(pwd) $PERL dpkg-architecture.pl -t$host > > -qDEB_HOST_ARCH 2>/dev/null) >

Missing mails from debian-dpkg-bugs?

Hi! After noticing a spike in the bug reports number from the PTS, but w/o having received new bug report mail, I went on hunting to find out I've missed recent mail (from at least) debian-dpkg-bugs. I've fixed some of those now, but didn't receive neither of the pending tag changes (#642473, #64

Re: Missing mails from debian-dpkg-bugs?

On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 10:14:19 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 03 Oct 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > On Sun, 02 Oct 2011, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > After noticing a spike in the bug reports number from the PTS, but w/o > > > having received new bug report mail

Re: Bug#639674: dpkg: please add armhf triplet in squeeze dpkg

Hi! On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 02:41:25 +0300, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote: > any news on this bug? The list of packages in auto-not-for-us for > armhf keeps growing because of this bug :) > > http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/architecture.php?a=armhf&suite=unstable > > Could you estimate when

Re: Bug#644370: dpkg/sid FTBFS on squeeze: The 'deb.5' master file does not exist

Hi! On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 08:26:06 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > The message this is a reply to was forwarded to the debian-dpkg@ list. > It should not have been --- dpkg bugs only go to the debian-dpkg-bugs@ > list. This is actually a list.d.o problem, as Raphaël mentioned in

Bug#644370: dpkg/sid FTBFS on squeeze: The 'deb.5' master file does not exist

Hi! On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 04:43:26 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Squeeze i386 system. Building dpkg master (but I assume the last > uploaded sid version would behave similarly): > > | $ dpkg-query -W po4a > | po4a0.40.2-1 > | $ debian/rules build > [...] > | make[3]: Entering directory

Re: [SRM] dpkg 1.15.8.12 for squeeze

On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 10:45:51 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 03:57 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > There's some (old) regressions affecting the dpkg 1.15.x series, and > > I'd like to upload a new 1.15.8.12 release targetting squeeze. Those > >

Re: Insufficient check on pkg-config

Hi! On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 20:11:33 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > not sure how you want to solve it, but autoreconf'ing without > > pkg-config installed leads to a bad configure-time error. > -- >8 -- > Subject: build: Catch attempts to autoreconf without pkg-config in

Re: Insufficient check on flex/bison availability

Hi! On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 00:44:38 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > again with a minimal chroot, configure bails out on missing curses, > which is fine, but finally returns successfully; however, building > fails, quite badly since the ylwrap wrapper doesn't say anything about > what goes wrong: I

Re: Insufficient check on gettext availability

Hi! On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 01:00:28 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > and without gettext, building breaks in dselect/po (which I could have > skipped…) and in scripts/po: > , > | $ make -C scripts/po/ > | make: Entering directory `/home/kibi/dpkg.git/scripts/po' > | test ! -f ./dpkg-dev.pot ||

Accepted dpkg 1.16.1.1 (source all amd64)

-source-applied when building a "2.0" source package. Closes: #642656 * Fix buildflags.mk to re-export the environment variables that the maintainer can use to change the build flags. Closes: #644412 . [ Guillem Jover ] * Change dpkg-buildflags to set preproces

Re: Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?

On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 11:23:27 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Philipp Kern wrote: > > We would like to see a dpkg with multiarch support in experimental now > > and dpkg in sid in about two weeks time. Otherwise we might not be able to > > pursue this goal for wheezy. > > Gi

Re: suite wide config options?

Hi! On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 18:13:56 -0400, Phillip Susi wrote: > It appears that the other utilities besides the main dpkg binary ( > dpkg-trigger, dpkg-divert, etc ) do not read the main dpkg.cfg. What > would be an appropriate place to add a config option that should apply > to the entire dpkg s

Re: Some upcoming dpkg changes, test and feedback welcome

On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 22:52:32 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > So I updated the field to return all distributions because either way > it's not going to change much (and it's always possible to add > DEB_FIRST_DISTRIBUTION later if we ever have to reconsider the question). Such variable still does

Re: binNMUs?

n in debian/changelog. This would even allow to use > something else than +bX for bin-nmu which is desirable for many > other usages (backports, PPA, etc.). These look like hacks to me. > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Guillem Jover wrote: > > What comes to mind, even if slightly radical, is tha

Re: suite wide config options?

On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 21:44:31 -0400, Phillip Susi wrote: > On 11/01/2011 09:30 PM, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Yes, only dpkg and dselect read configuration files. But then what > > would that option be? The only commonish one is admindir. > > I'm adding an option to

Re: [SRM] dpkg 1.15.8.12 for squeeze

On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 15:50:13 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 07:24 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 10:45:51 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 03:57 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > > There's s

Accepted dpkg 1.15.8.12 (source all amd64)

Changes: dpkg (1.15.8.12) stable; urgency=low . [ Guillem Jover ] * Do not fail to unpack shared directories missing on the file system from packages being replaced by other packages. Closes: #631808 * Defer hardlink renames so that there's never a point were the new

Re: FW: dpkg support for Solaris

Hi! On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 15:45:54 +, Andrew Stormont wrote: > From: Andrew Stormont > Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:47:14 + > To: > Subject: Re: dpkg support for Solaris > > I've also attached a patch which adds support for Solaris zones. I imagine > this won't be the sort of thing yo

Re: FW: dpkg support for Solaris

On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 15:22:46 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, Andrew Stormont wrote: > > diff --git a/lib/dpkg/md5.c b/lib/dpkg/md5.c > > index 3da18c9..5e9f311 100644 > > --- a/lib/dpkg/md5.c > > +++ b/lib/dpkg/md5.c > > @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ > > * MD5Context structure, pass it

Re: dpkg support for Solaris

On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 14:11:54 +, Andrew Stormont wrote: > On 16/11/2011 04:00, "Guillem Jover" wrote: > > kvm implementations vary slightly from system to system, given that > > they expose kernel internal structures to user-land. > > On Solaris kvm.h ex

Multiarch interfaces

Hi, I've modified some of the dpkg multiarch interfaces in my WIP branch on hadrons.org, given their current inadequacy. Here's two of them, I'll be starting a different thread for other ones. I've added support for virtual fields to dpkg-query, those are output only fields that can map to specia

Re: Multiarch interfaces

On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 12:01:57 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Another issue is that if the list of foreign architectures is on the > > configuration files it makes it slightly more tricky to cross-grade > > dpkg > > I do

Re: Proposal: convert all udebs to xz compression

On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 17:32:49 -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 17:21, Philipp Kern wrote: > >  We could start with -z0 of course, which would be > > supported by dpkg-dev and hence a trivial patch of debhelper would do. > > But it doesn't gain that much. If you mean dpkg-d

Re: Release of dpkg 1.16.1.2?

On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 17:11:01 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > we have two small commits sitting in the sid branch, since no other > major problem/regression showed up in the last weeks, I would > like to quickly release 1.16.1.2. > > Any objection ? I'll probably take care of it on friday or satu

Re: Review of pu/multiarch/master

On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 17:21:32 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I took some time to review your work in progress (pu/multiarch/master > while it was pointing to 5602d63c7669a9cb5ba293faff8cf85b3accc746). > > I have pushed some small fixes for you in pu/multiarch/for-guillem, > there are "fixup!" co

Re: multiarch: dpkg-query segfaults

Hi! On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 19:56:17 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Being the adventurous sort, I tried building and installing dpkg from > guillem/pu/multiarch/master. "dpkg" seems to work ok, but dpkg-query > is broken (it always segfaults). Sorry! I should have mentioned on my reply to your ma

Re: Multiarch interfaces

On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 15:57:59 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:45:06AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > Maybe we could have a "multiarch-config" binary package provided by > > > dpkg that only provides a debconf interface to ena

Multiarch interfaces: print foreign arches, pkgname I/O

Hi! I've changed --print-foreign-architectures in pu/multiarch/master to print an entry per line, which makes the print code trivial but more importantly the parsers more natural and simple to write given line based stream input functions, or shell commands reading from a pipe. Package n

Re: 2 small patches

On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 15:55:12 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I have these two small patches sitting in my pu/master. One helps to fail > earlier when a .list file is not a regular file (usually due to filesystem > corruption, see http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/369898) and the other fixes > ensure

Re: Multiarch interfaces: print foreign arches, pkgname I/O

On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 18:15:12 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 14:37, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, David Kalnischkies wrote: > > > If that's really meant, i am very worried how release upgrades should > > > work, given that squeeze tools obviously don'

Re: Multiarch interfaces: print foreign arches, pkgname I/O

On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 16:55:41 +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:17:15PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Sven Joachim wrote: > > > With dpkg from your pu/multiarch/full branch, this does not work: > > > | # dpkg -i /var/cache/apt/archives/libc-bin_2.13-2

Re: Multiarch interfaces: print foreign arches, pkgname I/O

On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 18:14:15 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote: > Beside that i wonder which --force flag this should be, given that it > removes packages while it was requested to install others. > In a way, the old architecture is disappearing, but there are no > Replaces (not even implicit) in p

Re: Multiarch interfaces: print foreign arches, pkgname I/O

On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 14:37:36 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, David Kalnischkies wrote: > > You talk only about output, but the title is "I/O" and i think it's unlikely > > that dpkg has a different understanding of pkgname in output vs input, > > so, you want to tell us that

Re: Multiarch interfaces: print foreign arches, pkgname I/O

Hi! On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 23:46:35 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 08:29, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 18:15:12 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote: > >> dpkg --remove libc6 # removing libc6:i386 and libc6:amd64 > >> ? > &g

Re: Multiarch interfaces: print foreign arches, pkgname I/O

On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 09:55:10 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > [ pkgname I/O ] I've started another mail summarizing the viable options from the thread, which I'll send once I wake up, too tired right now to finish it. In any case I just wanted to send this note meanwhile. Any fron

Re: [SCM] dpkg's main repository branch, master, updated. 1.16.1.2-131-gc07f7fe

On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 10:01:25 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 05 Dec 2011, Guillem Jover wrote: > > + if (!S_ISREG(stat_buf.st_mode)) > > +ohshit(_("files list for package '%.250s' is not a regular file"), > > + pkg->set->name

Re: Multiarch interfaces: print foreign arches, pkgname I/O

On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 09:55:10 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > [ pkgname I/O proposal ] Ok, after going over the stuff written on the thread here's the conclusions I take: * It might make sense to distinguish between the interface among programs and the user interface. For example cross

Re: Multiarch interfaces: print foreign arches, pkgname I/O

On Sat, 2011-12-24 at 10:10:48 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sat, 24 Dec 2011, Guillem Jover wrote: > > * Multi-arch enabled frontends should always use arch qualified names > > as dpkg input for possibly ambiguous package names, to cleanly support > > a distinc

Re: Multiarch interfaces: print foreign arches, pkgname I/O

On Sat, 2011-12-24 at 06:04:46 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > If we can agree so far, I'll send my other last part regarding pkgname > input. So, regarding pkgname input: * The only possible problematic case is related to “M-A: same” packages, as multiple instances can be installed o

Re: Multiarch interfaces: print foreign arches, pkgname I/O

Hi! On Sat, 2011-12-24 at 06:04:46 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 09:55:10 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > [ pkgname I/O proposal ] So, any word from the frontend maintainers regarding this sub-thread? regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-

Re: Multi-arch branches

On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 12:36:22 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > me too! I've been running this code on several machines for a while, and > it works just fine. That it seems to work does not mean it's fine, I just fixed some days ago bogus arguments passed to maintainer scripts, for example. > Sinc

Re: Translating copyright info in --version commands?

yright (C) 2005,2007 Frank Lichtenheld."); -printf _g(" This is free software; see the GNU General Public License version 2 or later for copying conditions. There is NO warranty. "); diff --git a/scripts/dpkg-architecture.pl b/scripts/dpkg-architecture.pl index 97c0b9f..0595

Re: Multi-arch branches

On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 21:41:10 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Possible bugs can easily be found, and then fixed, by exposing packages to… > > users. Experimental also means only people pulling it will be exposed to > > it anyway. > > +1 I don't hav

Accepted dpkg 1.16.2~really1.16.1.2 (source all amd64)

Changed-By: Guillem Jover Description: dpkg - Debian package management system dpkg-dev - Debian package development tools dselect- Debian package management front-end libdpkg-dev - Debian package management static library libdpkg-perl - Dpkg perl modules Changes: dpkg (1.16.2

Accepted dpkg 1.16.2~really1.16.1.2 (source all amd64)

Changed-By: Guillem Jover Description: dpkg - Debian package management system dpkg-dev - Debian package development tools dselect- Debian package management front-end libdpkg-dev - Debian package management static library libdpkg-perl - Dpkg perl modules Changes: dpkg (1.16.2

Re: Translating copyright info in --version commands?

On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 15:39:33 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: > > So my preferred solution would be to just get rid of those strings > > altogether, if someone wants to see the copyright, they should check > > the source code. I

Re: Multi-arch branches

On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 09:04:12 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I just had to update the test suite to cope with the rename of > ${virt:Package-Spec} to ${binary:Package}. BTW, forgot to mention, I had fixed this and the --print-foreign-architectures changes in my pkg-tests.git repo. regards, guil

Accepted dpkg 1.16.2~wipmultiarch (source all amd64)

Changed-By: Guillem Jover Description: dpkg - Debian package management system dpkg-dev - Debian package development tools dselect- Debian package management front-end libdpkg-dev - Debian package management static library libdpkg-perl - Dpkg perl modules Closes: 192619 229357 367608

Accepted dpkg 1.16.2~wipmultiarch (source all amd64)

Changed-By: Guillem Jover Description: dpkg - Debian package management system dpkg-dev - Debian package development tools dselect- Debian package management front-end libdpkg-dev - Debian package management static library libdpkg-perl - Dpkg perl modules Closes: 192619 229357 367608

Re: Please test gzip -9n - related to dpkg with multiarch support

On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 13:19:17 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Well, it does mean that you might be lacking important information > because the other changelog wouldn't be present on the system. While the implicit Replaces seems the easy way out, it just seems even more fragile than the shared files a

Re: Please test gzip -9n - related to dpkg with multiarch support

On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 17:29:22 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > If you remove the shared files approach, how do you handle files like > lintian overrides, reportbug presubj and scripts, etc. ? The same principle that applies to all dpkg output to avoid ambiguity would apply everywhere, whenever there's

Re: Endianness of data files in MultiArch

On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 13:52:34 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Aron Xu writes: > > This looks not very nice, because we need to maintain a list of > > architectures in debian/control, and when new architectures are added > > the package is potentially broken. > > If endian dependend data is

Re: dpkg behavior while changing a foreign package from arch:any to arch:all (and v.v.)

On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 01:56:02 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote: > Sometimes packages change their arch from arch:any to arch:all (or v.v.). > This used to be no problem for packages where any was the native arch and > this is still the case, but if it is a foreign arch dpkg refuses to install > the

Re: Multiarch file overlap summary and proposal (was: Summary: dpkg shared / reference counted files and version match)

On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 22:43:04 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > If this is comprehensive, then I propose the following path forward, which > is a mix of the various solutions that have been discussed: > * dpkg re-adds the refcounting implementation for multiarch, but along > with a Policy requiremen

Re: [Popcon-developers] Bug#659782: does not cope with multiarch packages being installed

On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 09:21:47 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Philipp Kern wrote: > > > So are you suggesting that dpkg should use ${binary:Package} ? > > > Could you patch /usr/sbin/popularity-contest line 161 to add binary: and > > > check whether > > > it works correctly ?

Re: Multiarch file overlap summary and proposal (was: Summary: dpkg shared / reference counted files and version match)

On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 14:28:58 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Multiarch file overlap summary and proposal (was: > Summary: dpkg shared / reference counted files and version match)"): > > On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 22:43:04 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >

Re: Multiarch file overlap summary and proposal (was: Summary: dpkg shared / reference counted files and version match)

On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 14:28:58 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > I think the refcounting approach is very worthwhile because it > eliminates unnecessary work (by human maintainers) in many simple > cases. Aside from what I said on my other reply, I just wanted to note that this seems to be a recurring p

Upcoming dpkg 1.16.2 upload

Hi, Despite the circumstances, I've still managed to find some motivation to work on finishing reviewing and fixing code. Last week I got the bulk of the stuff done, input interfaces, correct in-core db layout, cross-grading working and other buggy stuff fixed, with the accompanying functional tes

Re: Multiarch file overlap summary and proposal (was: Summary: dpkg shared / reference counted files and version match)

On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 16:41:21 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Multiarch file overlap summary and proposal (was: > Summary: dpkg shared / reference counted files and version match)"): > > [...] But trying to workaround this by coming > >

Re: Multiarch file overlap summary and proposal

On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 10:43:53 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > I was thinking more about this, and I was finally able to put a finger on > why I don't like package splitting as a solution. > > We know from prior experience with splitting packages for large > arch-independent data that one of the more

Re: Multiarch file overlap summary and proposal

On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 16:32:38 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Guillem Jover writes: > > If packages have to be split anyway to cope with the other cases, then > > the number of new packages which might not be needed otherwise will be > > even smaller than the predicted amou

Re: Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?

[ Replying to this now, because it appears some people seem to think mails that go unanswered are considered as accepted facts... ] On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 13:10:47 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > [ Disclaimer: my only data points come from people who have been trying > to get m-a in the arch

Re: Upcoming dpkg 1.16.2 upload

On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 06:53:10 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote: > Quoting Guillem Jover (guil...@debian.org): > > Despite the circumstances, I've still managed to find some motivation > > to work on finishing reviewing and fixing code. Last week I got the > I found really gr

Re: Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?

On Sat, 2012-03-03 at 15:14:16 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sat, 03 Mar 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: > > [ Replying to this now, because it appears some people seem to think > > mails that go unanswered are considered as accepted facts... ] > > Answering mails (w

Re: Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?

On Sat, 2012-03-03 at 23:25:09 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Sat, 2012-03-03 at 15:14:16 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > You have claimed numerous times that the branch was "unsound, buggy" > > (implying that I'm crappy coder, etc.) and I would not take offense

Re: [SCM] dpkg's main repository branch, master, updated. 1.16.1.2-341-g65c28bd

On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 20:54:35 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2012-03-16 15:07 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > + /* Ignore removal request if the diverted file is still owned > > +* by another package in the same set. */ > > + if (diversion_is_sh

Re: [SCM] dpkg's main repository branch, master, updated. 1.16.1.2-341-g65c28bd

On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 21:09:08 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Would the following clarify? > > "Ignoring removal request of shared diversion '%s'.\n" On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 21:39:56 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > How about "Ignoring request to remove shared div

Re: Important information regarding upcoming dpkg 1.16.2 upload

Hi, On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 09:35:39 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > I'll be uploading dpkg 1.16.2 targeting unstable, by the end of > this weekend or beginning of next week the latest (after some final > polishing). Unfortunately I found some issues with the selection handling and wi

Re: Important information regarding upcoming dpkg 1.16.2 upload

On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 08:12:08 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > In addition selections for packages unknown to dpkg will not be > > accepted anymore. > > I'm not sure I understand this correctly but I'm afraid that this is a > serious regression. > > It has always been possible to sort-of "dupli

Re: [SCM] dpkg's functional test suite branch, master, updated. cb6b4f6dbb80b8853fee7cd205a6c71b7f0a0414

On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 08:19:45 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: > > The following commit has been merged in the master branch: > > commit 69b4245a2f0d994aef3fab5f4644b308e416efcd > > Author: Raphaël Hertzog > > Date: Fri

Accepted dpkg 1.16.2 (source all amd64)

608884 627832 636238 642473 642608 642802 643746 643969 644370 646496 647915 648180 648217 649248 651481 651813 651993 652414 653575 654453 654626 655411 656496 657849 658126 658696 658854 661638 663004 Changes: dpkg (1.16.2) unstable; urgency=low . [ Guillem Jover ] * Move and to the top

Re: dpkg(1) and the "old" .deb format

On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 17:04:41 +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote: > > Joey Hess writes: > > [1] Doesn't dpkg even support all the old variants of the deb format? > > Surprisingly, it depends on the locale! Consider, e. g.: > > $ LC_ALL=C dpkg -c \ > > archive.debian.org/debian/dists/D

Re: popularity-contest broken with Multi-Arsch

On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 20:29:46 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 03:27:47PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > From: Cron Daemon > > To: r...@zigo.mirbsd.org > > Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 06:25:41 GMT > > Subject: Cron test -x /usr/sbin/anacron || ( cd / && run-parts > > --rep

Re: Two typos in man pages?

On Sat, 2012-04-07 at 19:20:05 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > Am 07.04.2012 um 18:13 schrieb Helge Kreutzmann: > > while my recent work on the German translation I found two possible > > typos. Since I'm not sure I'd like to ask for confirmation: > > [ ... ] > > -\fB\-\-ignore\-depends\fP=\fIpackage

Re: Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?

On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 15:43:56 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > [...], but I > have always been willing to make efforts to improve the situation because > I believe that Debian is best served by having both of us maintaining dpkg > instead of only one of us. With your latest (very harsh) comments, I

Re: Two typos in man pages?

On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 21:05:06 +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 08:13:27PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Sat, 2012-04-07 at 19:20:05 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > > > Am 07.04.2012 um 18:13 schrieb Helge Kreutzmann: > > > > while my recent

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >