Re: C.UTF-8 in squeeze (was: Re: Bug#522776: debian-policy: mandate existence of a standardised locale)
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:44:56 +, Roger Leigh wrote: > This will only be done with the approval of the release team, who > I've copied in. > I don't think that's not going to happen. Try again for wheezy, and maybe you can manage not to wait until the last minute of the freeze. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: C.UTF-8 in squeeze (was: Re: Bug#522776: debian-policy: mandate existence of a standardised locale)
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 12:57:05 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:44:56 +, Roger Leigh wrote: > > > This will only be done with the approval of the release team, who > > I've copied in. > > > I don't think that's not going to happen. Try again for wheezy, and ^^^ scratch that 'not'. I need more coffee. > maybe you can manage not to wait until the last minute of the freeze. > Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: squeeze upload for eglibc due to DSA-2122-2
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 21:35:40 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > I would like to make an upload of eglibc to address DSA-2122-2 (the > first round of patches for the $ORIGIN/LD_AUDIT issue does not cover > all corner cases, unfortunately). The changes match those in > 2.7-18lenny7, which are based almost verbatim on the upstream patches > (except for whitespace changes and one manual conflict resultion, see > the attachments; cvs-origin-suid.diff and > any/local-audit-pathless.diff). > > Should I push this through testing-security, testing-proposed-updates > or unstable? Have you got any preferences about version numbers? tpu is not possible (it'd get rejected by dak as not being a lower version than sid). Other than that I think all options are ok from a -release pov. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#610749: fakeroot fails ownership with kfreebsd systems
user release.debian@packages.debian.org usertag 610749 squeeze-can-defer tag 610749 squeeze-ignore kthxbye On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 22:10:35 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Even if testing is not affected, it's a serious problem as packages are > in unstable before moving to testing. This is way we have roughly 300 > broken binary packages in the archive. > Not a blocker for squeeze though, tagging as such. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#600667: Fw: re: eglibc: cve-2010-3847 dynamic linker expands $ORIGIN in setuid library search path
user release.debian@packages.debian.org usertag 600667 squeeze-can-defer tag 600667 squeeze-ignore kthxbye On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 21:19:53 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote: > reopen 600667 > thanks > > Maybe I'm reading things wrong, or maybe Mitre's information is > actually incorrect, but it looks like the fixes claimed for > CVE-2010-3847 in 2.11.2-8 actually address CVE-2010-3856 [0] instead. > It looks like CVE-2010-3847 [1] is still unfixed. The original fix in > -7 may have been correct to begin with? > Not a release blocker. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [SRM] Uploading new upstream stable version to Squeeze?
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 22:53:15 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > The status is that glibc 2.11.4 will be released when Debian feels it > is ready, as we are the main testers here. I am planning to do some more > testing of the current SVN on more machines, and everything seems fine > around the release of 6.0.3, I'll ask around for the release of 2.11.4. > > I can then upload it to stable just after the release of 6.0.3, which > should give us sufficient additional testing before the release of > 6.0.4. > > How does it sound to you? > Seems reasonable to me fwiw. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110912182748.ga5...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
Bug#644650: tzdata: possible copyright violation
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 21:17:35 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Package: tzdata > > Hi, > > I've read today that upstream has taken down the source because > of a law suite against them. From what I understand they have > based some of their historic information on the ACS American > Atlas. Upstream believes that all information is in the public > domain. > What do you think filing this bug achieves? Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111007192217.ga31...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
Bug#456779: glibc: getaddrinfo() sorting broken
Package: glibc Version: 2.7-3 Severity: important $ getent ahosts ftp.fi.debian.org. 130.230.54.99 DGRAM ftp.fi.debian.org 130.230.54.99 RAW 2001:708:310:54::99 STREAM 2001:708:310:54::99 DGRAM 2001:708:310:54::99 RAW 130.230.54.99 STREAM The 3 INET6 addresses should come first, followed by the INET ones. Cheers, Julien -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.22-3-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
reassign 519545 to libc6
reassign 519545 libc6 2.9-4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
reassign 521439 to libc6
reassign 521439 libc6 2.9-6 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#530902: unowned files after purge (policy 6.8)
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 19:39:51 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > Package: locales > Version: 2.9-13 > Severity: serious > User: debian...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: piuparts piuparts.d.o > > Hi, > > during a test with piuparts I noticed your package left unowned files on the > system after purge, which is a violation of policy 6.8: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#s-removedetails > > From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...): > > 0m21.3s ERROR: FAIL: Package purging left files on system: > /etc/default/localenot owned > Since when is that a serious bug, as opposed to minor or normal? Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Processed: Re: Bug#536482: dpkg-shlibdeps: Weired warnings about libc symbols
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 14:24:57 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Given it's a dpkg bug and not a bug in eglibc, I think this should be > handled by binNMU. Could the release team please schedule them? Thanks > in advance. > As already mentioned, the issue with binNMUs here is they don't ensure the fixed dpkg-dev is installed. A source upload with temporarily bumped b-dep would do that. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#537492: menu: Binary without execution bits.
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 22:28:23 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > And also, under zsh: > | $ which doublefailure 2>/dev/null > | doublefailure not found > > Leading to: > | if [ -x `which icanhazfailure 2>/dev/null` ] ; then echo FAIL ; fi > | [: too many arguments > Why would you point /bin/sh to zsh? Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#354293: #354293 document uxterm -e su workarounds on uxterm man page
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 20:14:12 -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > This is still broken (a bug in libc6). reassign > For what it's worth, I can't reproduce this. Both 'xterm -e su' and 'uxterm -e su' ask for a password and then exit (not that I know why you'd run that command, but.). Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#555168: Request for wheezy-ignore tag: bug#555168 (glibc locale files with license not permitting modification)
tag 555168 wheezy-ignore kthxbye On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 15:25:10 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Hi release team, > > I've been asked to ask you whether you consider bug#555168 (many glibc > locale files having a license that does not permit modification) to be > something deserving a wheezy-ignore tag. > > I'm asking you half-heartedly, since I don't think the answer is > useful. That bug sure *looks* release-critical, and it sure *looks* > like something that could be delayed another release if people manage > to stall long enough. Which would make it wheezy-ignore. > I guess we can wait another couple of years. At least there's been some progress, which is good. Hopefully it won't take too much longer to sort out, but I don't think there's a point delaying the release (or deleting existing locale data from the distro) while there's hope of a resolution. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#635192: provide O_CLOEXEC on kfreebsd-*
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 09:43:48 +0200, Petr Salinger wrote: > Hi. > > Both wheezy kernels (8.3 and 9.0) do support O_CLOEXEC. > Together with enabling O_CLOEXEC we have to > at least raise minimal kernel version to 8.3 in > > debian/debhelper.in/libc.preinst > debian/sysdeps/kfreebsd.mk > > We have to wait before buildd receives new kernel, > as current (squeezy one) does not suffice. > I don't understand why this is taking so long. O_CLOEXEC was defined on Linux long before all supported kernels had it, and people (used to?) have fallback code for the case where open(O_CLOEXEC) returned EINVAL, to do the racy fcntl dance. I don't see why the kernel running on buildds matters one bit for whether userland gets the define... Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130531120404.ga24...@crater1.logilab.fr
Re: Bug#699818: pre-approval for pu: eglibc - timer_settime broken on kfreebsd-amd64
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 16:44:41 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On 2013-10-02 16:14, Adam Conrad wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:23:22PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > >> > >>That looks okay. In terms of the other suggested updates, as a > >>non-release architecture for wheezy, hurd-specific patches > >>aren't really > >>appropriate for a stable update. > > > >Perhaps not appropriate to upload just for Hurd, but hurd-specific > >patches that don't touch other arches also seem harmless. I'm happy > >to back them out, though, if it's a sticking point. > > Well, they don't really meet the definition of minimal changes. :-) > If someone puts together a debdiff including them, I'm more than > happy to look at that and we can make a call from there. (Bearing in > mind that the window for 7.2 closes over the coming weekend.) > Any news here? We're now nearing the end of the window for 7.3. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Upcoming oldstable point release (7.11)
Hi, The next (and last) point release for "wheezy" (7.11) is scheduled for Saturday, June 4th. Processing of new uploads into wheezy-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Cheers, Julien
Upcoming stable point release (8.5)
Hi, The next point release for "jessie" (8.5) is scheduled for Saturday, June 4th. Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Cheers, Julien
Re: Bug#882158: stretch-pu: package glibc/2.24-11+deb9u2
Control: tag -1 confirmed On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 14:22:45 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Unfortunately it didn't make in 9.3 due to the regression introduced wrt > /etc/ld.so.nohwcap (see bug#883394). The issue is due to the conversion > of libc6-i686 into a transitional package between jessie and stretch, and > dropping the postinst and postrm script handling the removal of > /etc/ld.so.nohwcap after the upgrade. The problem always existed in > stretch, but the probability for it to happen has been greatly increased > by the fix for #882272. The issue doesn't affect buster/sid as the > transitional package has been removed. > > I have fixed the issue in version 2.24-11+deb9u3 by reintroducing the > postinst and postrm scripts in the transitional package. You will find > below the corresponding patch. > > Thanks for considering it for 9.4. > Assuming that's been tested in all the various scenarios, please go ahead. Cheers, Julien
Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concernsj
[s/debian-ports/debian-arm/] On 06/29/2018 09:16 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:03:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: >> armel/armhf: >> >> >> * Undesirable to keep the hardware running beyond 2020. armhf VM >>support uncertain. (DSA) >>- Source: [DSA Sprint report] >> >> [DSA Sprint report]: >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/02/msg4.html > > In this report Julien Cristau wrote: > >> In short, the hardware (development boards) we're currently using to >> build armel and armhf packages aren't up to our standards, and we >> really, really want them to go away when stretch goes EOL (expected in >> 2020). We urge arm porters to find a way to build armhf packages in >> VMs or chroots on server-class arm64 hardware. > > If the concerns are mostly about the hardware not being rackable, there > is a rackable NAS by Netgear: > > > https://www.netgear.com/business/products/storage/readynas/RN2120.aspx#tab-techspecs > > with an armhf cpu. Not sure if cpu speed (1.2 GHz) and available RAM (2 > GiB) are good enough. The machine can run mainline Linux[1]. I think > U-Boot doesn't support this machine in mainline though. > Rackable, while good, is only part of it. The main part is remote management. I'm not seeing any mention of ipmi or anything like that in the datasheet? 2G is also way too little memory these days for a new buildd. Cheers, Julien
Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns
On 06/27/2018 10:03 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > Hi, > > > As part of the interim architecture qualification for buster, we request > that DSA, the security team and the toolchain maintainers review and > update their list of known concerns for buster release architectures. > Everyone, please avoid followups to debian-po...@lists.debian.org. Unless something is relevant to *all* architectures (hint: discussion of riscv or arm issues don't qualify), keep replies to the appropriate port-specific mailing list. Thanks, Julien
Bug#914999: [libc6] Locking problems into libc6
Control: severity -1 important On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:58:47PM +0200, Roman Savochenko wrote: > Package: libc6 > Version: 2.24 > Severity: critical > This is not a critical bug (it's not even clear from the report at this point what the problem is, and it doesn't seem too widespread); downgrading. Cheers, Julien
Bug#926699: libc6-{i386,x32}: installing, removing, reinstalling in a --merged-usr system results in unmerged /lib{32,x32}
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 12:27:45PM +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Package: libc6-x32,libc6-i386 > Version: 2.28-8 > Severity: serious > User: debian...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: piuparts > > Hi, > > during a test with piuparts in a --merged-usr environment I noticed that > installing, removing, and installing again a package shipping /lib32, > /libx32 will actually unmerge that directory. So I understand that may be undesirable, but what is the justification for this being "serious"? Does anything actually break? Cheers, Julien
Bug#419467: Whoa, upstream wontfix?
On Wed, May 9, 2007 at 11:33:36 -0400, Greg Alexander wrote: > My mistake! I forgot that I was using Windows! > > I will never again forget that newer = better and works = wrong, thank > you for the thorough schooling. > if newer != better, and you want to use older, then why not use sarge or woody, where 2.4 kernels are supported? Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#432326: libc6-i386: trying to overwrite `/usr/lib32', which is also in package lib32z1
reassign 432326 lib32z1 forcemerge 432262 432326 kthxbye On Mon, Jul 9, 2007 at 14:34:16 +0200, Noel Köthe wrote: > Unpacking replacement libc6-i386 ... > dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6-i386_2.6-1_amd64.deb > (--unpack): > trying to overwrite `/usr/lib32', which is also in package lib32z1 > Errors were encountered while processing: > /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6-i386_2.6-1_amd64.deb > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) > Bug in lib32z1, already reported and fixed. Cheers, Julien
Bug#432330: libc6-i386: trying to overwrite `/usr/lib32', which is also in package lib32z
reassign 432330 lib32z1 forcemerge 432262 432330 kthxbye On Mon, Jul 9, 2007 at 23:25:07 +1000, Lukian wrote: > Unpacking replacement libc6-i386 ... > dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6-i386_2.6-1_amd64.deb > (--unpack): > trying to overwrite `/usr/lib32', which is also in package lib32z1 > Errors were encountered while processing: > /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6-i386_2.6-1_amd64.deb > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) > A package failed to install. > Bug in lib32z1, already reported and fixed. Cheers, Julien
Bug#335578: ocamlopt.opt segfaults on Alpha
Hi, Starting from ocaml version 3.08.3-8, ocamlopt.opt doesn't work at all on alpha. Since 3.08.3-7 built fine, I think this is a toolchain issue. 3.08.3-7 was built with gcc-4.0 4.0.1-4, binutils 2.16.1-2 and libc6.1-dev 2.3.5-3, while 3.08.3-8 was built with gcc-4.0 4.0.1-6, binutils 2.16.1cvs20050902-1 and libc6.1-dev 2.3.5-5. Does anyone know of an alpha-related change in the toolchain between these versions, which could have caused this? Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get a meaningful backtrace with gdb (I only know that the segfault occurs at program startup). Thanks, Julien Cristau -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#335578: ocamlopt.opt segfaults on Alpha
On Mon, Nov 7, 2005 at 18:34:54 +, Sven Luther wrote: > binutils is the likely culprit, i would say, especially given the way ocamlopt > fails, and the fact that it was a cvs snapshot only augments that fear. > > Julien, could you maybe try downgrading to the older binutils version, and > seeing what went wrong ? > Indeed, rebuilding with binutils 2.16.1-2, gcc-4.0 4.0.1-6 and libc6.1-dev 2.3.5-7, the build succeeded, and I got a working ocamlopt.opt. The problem seems to be between binutils 2.16.1-2 and 2.16.1cvs20050902-1. Dropping debian-glibc and debian-gcc from the Mail-Followup-To. Cheers, Julien Cristau -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
