severity 291194 serious
tags 291194 lenny-ignore
thanks
I just ran into this bug when using a modified tar that defaults to
create posix archives:
-- snip --
# dpkg -i ddd_3.3.12~rc2-0.0.bunk_amd64.deb
(Reading database ... 193488 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 04:35:28PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
>...
> On Thu, 2016-11-24 at 14:52:33 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>...
> > Worse, they break *differently* on whether…
> >
> > >Precisely to make the behavior consistent on all architectures, dpkg
> > >enables PIE (conditionally if
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 05:20:09PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 16:07:16 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > I don't know how much RAM the amd64/i386 buildds have,
> > but I'd guess more than 4 GB...
> >
> > A hard upper limit somewhe
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 05:25:49AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, 2016-12-02 at 10:31:58 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Right, this was reported the other day on IRC by Mattia Rizzolo. The
> > combination of -Sextreme -z9 and parallel xz makes this use more than
> > the available
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.19.0.1
Severity: serious
Control: affects -1 src:libgc
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/libgc.html
...
dh_makeshlibs
dh_makeshlibs: Compatibility levels before 9 are deprecated (level 7 in use)
Odd number of elements in hash
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.19.0.1
Severity: serious
14:39 < _rene_> hmm. dpkg-dev 1.19.0.1 broken for anyone else? looks like it
doesn't call build(-arch,indep) anymore at
dpkg-buildpackage -b, but just binary?
I seen the same debugging a FTBFS.
Package: libdpkg-perl
Version: 1.19.0.1
Severity: serious
Due to #878892
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.19.0.4
Severity: normal
Based on discussion in #881053:
dh_makeshlibs --package=ppp -- -c2 -edebian/ppp/usr/sbin/pppd -V
dpkg-gensymbols: warning: some new symbols appeared in the symbols file: see
diff output below
dpkg-gensymbols: warning:
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.19.0.5
Severity: normal
"dpkg-buildpackage -j" looks similar to "make -j", and therefore
it happens frequently that people pass -j instead of -J to
dpkg-buildpackage.
A variant of this problem is #905788, with "sbuild -j5" passing
-j5 to dpkg-buildpackage (and sbuild
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 07:03:41AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm completely out of my depth on this one, and I wonder whether
> anyone might be able to help.
>
> I have just updated pydevd from 2.9.6+ds-1, uploaded 2023-06-23, to
> version 2.10.0+ds-1. But the build of the cython
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:15:59PM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
>...
> The origins of this bug report are because there are sometimes problems
> building
> packages in buildds, the compression phase is very slow and sometimes the
> build
> is aborted due to inactivity:
>
> E:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 11:42:20PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>...
> On 2022-11-12 23:04, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > Sebastian, was there any real-world problem motivating your commit,
> > or did it just sound more correct?
> >
> > With default settings there
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 09:23:43AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
Hi Guillem!
> On Sun, 2023-07-02 at 00:02:46 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > There are some problems with this:
> >
> > 1. PIE should either be default or not be used
> >
> > I susp
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.21.22
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-al...@lists.debian.org, debian-i...@lists.debian.org
[ Cc set to debian-alpha@ and debian-ia64@ since they are most affected ]
Since stretch all release architectures are using PIE by default,
and all future release
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 01:53:04AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
Hi Guillem!
Apologies for not replying to these emails earlier.
> On Tue, 2023-10-31 at 10:52:40 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
>...
> > If PIE (via specs files) appears to work on x32, and changing the
> > defaults in gcc is too
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.22.6
Severity: serious
X-Debbugs-Cc: Steve Langasek
There are at least 3 different ways how -Werror=implicit-function-declaration
breaks packages:
1. Code that did emit implicit-function-declaration warnings during
compilation before and does FTBFS now
2. Code
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.22.6
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org
A thought I already wrote in a recent debian-devel discussion:
In theory source package filenames should be eternally and globally
unique, but in practice there are cornercases where this
17 matches
Mail list logo
