devel

devel@lists.apertis.org

327 discussions

Feature freeze for v2023dev1
by Walter Lozano 02 Mar '22

02 Mar '22

Hi all, I'm glad to announce that we have entered Feature Freeze for v2023dev1 [1]. From this moment no additional features will be accepted for this release cycle. New features will be postponed to v2023dev2. Thanks to everyone who contributed! Walter [1] https://www.apertis.org/release/v2023dev1/release_schedule/ -- Walter Lozano Collabora Ltd.

1 0

Hard feature freeze for v2022.0
by Walter Lozano 02 Mar '22

02 Mar '22

Hi all, I'm glad to announce that we have entered Hard Feature Freeze for v2022.0 [1]. From this moment only bug fixes will be accepted for this release cycle. Other type of changes will be postponed to v2022.1. Thanks to everyone who contributed! Walter [1] https://www.apertis.org/release/v2022.0/release_schedule/ -- Walter Lozano Collabora Ltd.

1 0

Apertis release candidate v2021.4rc1 available for testing
by Walter Lozano 02 Mar '22

02 Mar '22

Hello everyone, I'm glad to announce that Apertis v2021.4rc1 images for all the supported platforms have been published: AMD64 https://images.apertis.org/release/v2021/v2021.4rc1/amd64/ Arm32 public https://images.apertis.org/release/v2021/v2021.4rc1/armhf/ Arm32 internal https://images.apertis.org/internal/release/v2021/v2021.4rc1/armhf/ Arm64 https://images.apertis.org/release/v2021/v2021.4rc1/arm64/ Compared to v2021.3 this release contains security updates from Debian Buster. The test reports are below: * https://lavaphabbridge.apertis.org/report/v2021/20220302.1238/apt * https://lavaphabbridge.apertis.org/report/v2021/20220302.1238/ostree * https://lavaphabbridge.apertis.org/report/v2021/20220302.1238/lxc * https://lavaphabbridge.apertis.org/report/v2021/20220302.1238/nfs The full release schedule is described at https://www.apertis.org/release/v2021.4/release_schedule/ Thanks, Walter -- Walter Lozano Collabora Ltd.

1 0

Feature freeze for v2022.0
by Walter Lozano 23 Feb '22

23 Feb '22

Hi all, I'm glad to announce that we have entered Feature Freeze for v2022.0 [1]. From this moment no additional features will be accepted for this release cycle. New features will be postponed to v2022.1. Thanks to everyone who contributed! Walter [1] https://www.apertis.org/release/v2022.0/release_schedule/ -- Walter Lozano Collabora Ltd.

1 0

Hard feature freeze for v2021.4
by Walter Lozano 23 Feb '22

23 Feb '22

Hi all, I'm glad to announce that we have entered Hard Feature Freeze for v2021.4 [1]. From this moment only bug fixes will be accepted for this release cycle. Other type of changes will be postponed to v2021.5. Thanks to everyone who contributed! Walter [1] https://www.apertis.org/release/v2021.4/release_schedule/ -- Walter Lozano Collabora Ltd.

1 0

Fixing messy git commit graphs in packaging repositories
by Vignesh Raman 22 Feb '22

22 Feb '22

Hello all, Due to some rough edges hit during the development of our tools over the years, a few packaging repositories currently have rather confusing git histories. To make things easier to reason about, we decided to overwrite the git commit graph pointed by the apertis/v2021 branches of the affected git repositories. The git histories pointed by the apertis/v2021 branches of the packages below have been rewritten using git filter-branch to completely disconnect them from the history pointed by the apertis/v2022* branches: * https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/cppcheck <https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/cppcheck> * https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/eigen3 <https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/eigen3> * https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/fonts-freefont <https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/fonts-freefont> * https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/golang-github-modern-go-reflect2 <https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/golang-github-modern-go-reflect2> * https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/tinyxml2 <https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/tinyxml2> * https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/hidapi <https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/hidapi> The apertis/v2021 branches for the repositories below have been fixed using git rebase to ensure the versions in debian/changelog are monotonically increasing: * https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/cjson <https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/cjson> * https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/kissfft <https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/kissfft> * <https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/kissfft>https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/exfatprogs <https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/exfatprogs> This means that git fetch and git pull on any of those repositories will yield complaints about the history for the apertis/v2021 branch having been force-updated. No other branch is affected. In particular the pristine-lfs and pristine-lfs-source branches are not affected, and neither are OBS and the APT repositories. The changes will be pushed 2 days from now and an email announcing that the branches have been updated will follow immediately. Let us know if there's any doubt or concern. On behalf of the Apertis maintainer team, Vignesh

1 1

Feature freeze for v2021.4
by Walter Lozano 16 Feb '22

16 Feb '22

Hi all, I'm glad to announce that we have entered Feature Freeze for v2021.4 [1]. From this moment no additional features will be accepted for this release cycle. New features will be postponed to v2021.5. Thanks to everyone who contributed! Walter [1] https://www.apertis.org/release/v2021.4/release_schedule/ -- Walter Lozano Collabora Ltd.

1 0

Proposal: switch from ntp to ntpsec in Apertis
by Andrej Shadura 20 Jan '22

20 Jan '22

Hi all, In short, Debian is considering removing ntp package and switching to ntpsec which is a drop-in replacement. In Apertis, we already use systemd-timesyncd as a default ntp client, and ntp is as far as I can see only a dependency of some packages. Namely, fake-hwclock has ntp as a hard dependency, but not because it requires strictly ntp, but because at the time the dependency was added, there was no other viable alternative. However, it remains to be seen how much fake-hwclock itself is necessary, as it seems systemd-timesyncd already provides a replacement: From https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-timesyncd.service.…: > systemd-timesyncd is a system service that may be used to synchronize > the local system clock with a remote Network Time Protocol (NTP) > server. It also saves the local time to disk every time the clock has > been synchronized and uses this to possibly advance the system realtime > clock on subsequent reboots to ensure it (roughly) monotonically advances > even if the system lacks a battery-buffered RTC chip. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: The future of src:ntp Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 03:20:23 +0000 (UTC) Resent-From: debian-devel(a)lists.debian.org Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 21:19:27 -0600 From: Richard Laager <rlaager(a)debian.org> To: debian-devel(a)lists.debian.org [I'm the Debian ntpsec maintainer.] On 1/18/22 11:21 AM, Paride Legovini wrote: > I'd prefer making ntp a dummy package depending on ntpsec rather than > having src:ntpsec takeover bin:ntp. If I understand correctly, you're suggesting src:ntp builds bin:ntp that is a dummy package which depends on ntpsec? Another option would be to have src:ntpsec build the bin:ntp dummy package and remove src:ntp entirely. Either seems fine to me. I don't have a strong preference. I can implement whatever is necessary on the ntpsec side. And for either option, probably likewise ntp-doc -> ntpsec-doc, ntpdate -> ntpsec-ntpdate, and if I broke out ntpdig as suggested in bug #1003966, sntp -> ntpsec-ntpdig. There are some differences. For example, ntp stores its configuration file at /etc/ntp.conf while ntpsec uses /etc/ntpsec/ntp.conf. [1] But bin:ntpsec's postinst already handles that transition. On 1/18/22 5:03 PM, Paride Legovini wrote: > bin:ntp has always been a specific NTP implementation, I think > it's OK if it's replaced by an almost compatible fork, less OK if a > completely different implementation is brought in instead. I'm biased here, but I agree. I think it makes the most sense to transition existing ntp installs to ntpsec, not chrony, as ntpsec is a drop-in replacement with a shared code history. This is my position even if we think that chrony should be the default for new installs. On that topic, I think the current default of systemd-timesyncd is fine. [1] When I was first packaging ntpsec, I was going to have it share as many paths, service names, etc. with ntp (as upstream NTPsec does). But this lead to issues with certain tooling (e.g. around init scripts) and ultimately I decided it was better to use a different namespace. This does mean that Debian ntpsec is patched and diverges a bit from upstream NTPsec. -- Richard

1 0

New Apertis v2023dev0 development release available
by Walter Lozano 16 Dec '21

16 Dec '21

1 0

New Apertis v2022pre preview release available
by Walter Lozano 09 Dec '21

09 Dec '21

1 0

← Newer
1
...
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
...
33
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

devel