Please help upgrading eigensoft

Hi, I tried to upgrade eigensoft[1]. The build fails with: ... cc -Wl,-z,relro pca.o eigensrc/eigsubs.o eigx.o nicksrc/libnick.a -lgsl -lblas -lgfortran -lrt -lm -o pca eigx.o: In function `eigx_': /build/eigensoft-6.1.2+dfsg/src/eigx.c:100: undefined reference to `dspev_' eigx.o: In

Re: reproducible-builds

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 06:20:51PM -0300, Herbert Fortes wrote: > Em Seg, 2016-07-18 às 20:28 +0800, Paul Wise escreveu: > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Herbert Fortes wrote: > > > > > I did a QA and reproducible-builds says that > > > it FTBFS with armhf on 2016-07-09. The > > > build was

Re: reproducible-builds

Em Seg, 2016-07-18 às 20:28 +0800, Paul Wise escreveu: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Herbert Fortes wrote: > > > I did a QA and reproducible-builds says that > > it FTBFS with armhf on 2016-07-09. The > > build was not tried again. > > Which package ? dvbackup

Re: uscan for a single text file

On Sunday, July 17 2016, Ole Streicher wrote: > Sergio Durigan Junior writes: >> On Saturday, July 16 2016, Ole Streicher wrote: >> >>> Sergio Durigan Junior writes: > What is wrong here? I thought that mk-orig.tar.gz should be called only >

Re: uscan for a single text file

On Monday, July 18 2016, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: >>Seriously, though. I've also had to do a few modifications to the >>get-orig-source.sh script, and you'll also need to run uscan with the >>--no-symlink option, but this should work. Oh, and you will also need >>to specify

Re: Bug#831694: RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.4.7+20160630+ds-3 -- lightweight and secure socks5 proxy

* Christian Seiler , 2016-07-18, 17:21: I'm not a DD, Sounds like a bug to me! -- Jakub Wilk

Bug#831694: RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.4.7+20160630+ds-3 -- lightweight and secure socks5 proxy

On 07/18/2016 05:40 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Christian Seiler wrote: >> Please don't disable the SSP unconditionally, because it's a useful >> defense-in-depth strategy. Especially since you are packaging a >> network service, I would really

Bug#831694: RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.4.7+20160630+ds-3 -- lightweight and secure socks5 proxy

Dear Christian, Thanks for your review! On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Christian Seiler wrote: > I'm not a DD, so I can't sponsor, but: > > On 07/18/2016 04:53 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote: >> * debian/rules: >> - Add param "--disable-ssp" to dh_auto_configure command.

Bug#831694: RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.4.7+20160630+ds-3 -- lightweight and secure socks5 proxy

I'm not a DD, so I can't sponsor, but: On 07/18/2016 04:53 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote: > * debian/rules: > - Add param "--disable-ssp" to dh_auto_configure command. > Thanks to Aaron M. Ucko and Boyuan Yang. (Closes: #829498) Please don't disable the SSP unconditionally, because it's a

Bug#831694: marked as done (RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.4.7+20160630+ds-3 -- lightweight and secure socks5 proxy)

Your message dated Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:19:13 + (UTC) with message-id <593830157.1708207.1468855153577.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#831694: RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.4.7+20160630+ds-3 -- lightweight and secure socks5 proxy has caused the Debian Bug report #831694,

Bug#831692: marked as done (RFS: skiboot/5.2.4-2 update)

Your message dated Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:11:11 + (UTC) with message-id <1457957365.1676995.1468854671642.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#831692: RFS: skiboot/5.2.4-2 update has caused the Debian Bug report #831692, regarding RFS: skiboot/5.2.4-2 update to be marked as

Bug#831694: RFS: shadowsocks-libev/2.4.7+20160630+ds-3 -- lightweight and secure socks5 proxy

package: sponsorship-requests severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: rogershim...@gmail.com, max.c...@gmail.com, 073p...@gmail.com Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "shadowsocks-libev" * Package name: shadowsocks-libev Version : 2.4.7+20160630+ds-3 Upstream

Bug#831692: RFS: skiboot/5.2.4-2 update

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, Gianfranco, I am looking for a sponsor for the package "skiboot". This is a packaging update : skiboot (5.2.4-2) unstable; urgency=medium * Forced no-pie for Ubuntu 16.10 as previous change was not enough : in 16.10 gcc's

Re: Help with shlibs system

Hi, >http://abi-laboratory.pro/tracker/ thanks, I asked upstream https://github.com/open-source-parsers/jsoncpp/issues/499 >It might be interesting to have a service like this for all Debian >packages containing C/C++/Java libraries. that would save a lot of segfaults and time :) thanks,

Re: Help with shlibs system

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > I would like to know if upstream is using some different service now The replacement service is here but it doesn't check jsoncpp: http://abi-laboratory.pro/tracker/ It might be interesting to have a service like this for all

Re: Help with shlibs system

Hi, >I don't see what upstream dedication to ABI compatibility has to to with >symbol files. typo :) >Anyway, the reason we're having this thread is because apparently >libjsoncpp broke ABI without SONAME change, so maybe they're not taking >it seriously enough. :> actually after

Re: Help with shlibs system

* Gianfranco Costamagna , 2016-07-18, 11:53: Symbols files are usually better since you get more fine grained control of dependencies, but they take a lot more time to maintain (especially for C++ libraries). In this very specific case, I think we don't need it, as

Re: reproducible-builds

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Herbert Fortes wrote: > I did a QA and reproducible-builds says that > it FTBFS with armhf on 2016-07-09. The > build was not tried again. Which package? > I can do something about the status of the > package on reproducible-builds ? Or just > wait for a new try

reproducible-builds

Hi, I did a QA and reproducible-builds says that it FTBFS with armhf on 2016-07-09. The build was not tried again. I did a build with harris (ssh) and the build ran fine. I can do something about the status of the  package on reproducible-builds ? Or just wait for a new try by them ?

Re: Help with shlibs system

Hi, >Symbols files are usually better since you get more fine grained >control of dependencies, but they take a lot more time to maintain >(especially for C++ libraries). In this very specific case, I think we don't need it, as I explained here [1] and you can see how upstream is taking

Re: Help with shlibs system

Hi, On Mon, 2016-07-18 at 12:48 +0200, Peter Spiess-Knafl wrote: > I would need some advice about the following bug: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=820434 > > Stephen mentioned there I should provide a shlibs minimum version. > I am not entirely sure what that means. > Do I

Help with shlibs system

Hi! I would need some advice about the following bug: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=820434 Stephen mentioned there I should provide a shlibs minimum version. I am not entirely sure what that means. Do I need to put a file under debian/shlibs with the following line?

Bug#830569: marked as done (RFS: z3/4.4.1-0.1 [NMU] [4xRC])

Your message dated Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:20:53 + (UTC) with message-id <1147299283.1384565.1468837253651.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#830569: RFS: z3/4.4.1-0.1 [NMU] [4xRC] has caused the Debian Bug report #830569, regarding RFS: z3/4.4.1-0.1 [NMU] [4xRC] to be marked

Re: uscan for a single text file

Hi Sergio, >Oh, I have a solution! Get rid of this proprietary software on Debian! >;-) lol :) >Seriously, though. I've also had to do a few modifications to the >get-orig-source.sh script, and you'll also need to run uscan with the >--no-symlink option, but this should work. Oh, and you

Bug#831642: RFS: b43-fwcutter/1:019-3

Hi, On 18 July 2016 at 06:55, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Daniel Echeverry wrote: > >> Note: This is a small revision because I don't have the hardware >> appropriate to test the new patches :( While I don't have access to b43 hardware right now, I can

Bug#831642: marked as done (RFS: b43-fwcutter/1:019-3)

Your message dated Mon, 18 Jul 2016 06:29:07 + (UTC) with message-id <1200867311.1113972.1468823347549.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#831642: RFS: b43-fwcutter/1:019-3 has caused the Debian Bug report #831642, regarding RFS: b43-fwcutter/1:019-3 to be marked as done.