On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:51:16AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > libavahi-common-data (U)
>
> Ships a GDBM file which is arch-dep; shouldn't ship it in /usr/share
> though.

Are those really arch-specific? That's really crap design.


Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 09:50:48AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Raphael" == Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Raphael> Brian May <bam@snoopy.debian.net>
> Raphael> dar-static
>
> Raphael> Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> Raphael> e2fsck-static
>
> Both of these (and maybe others) are false positives.

Which would be caught if the test actually say, used the "file"
command for any binary that had files installed in a .../bin directory
or .../lib directory.

BTW, I recently got a complaint from someone who was still
using a 2.4 Woody system, and had been using e2fsck-static as a way of
getting the latest e2fsprogs fixups for e2fsck, given that the woody
backports effort had stopped a while ago. Apparently the latest glibc
uses thread local storage in its locale code, so even linking
statically against glibc will result in a binary that can't be used on
a 2.4 kernel. Because I was a nice guy, I hacked up e2fsck-static to
build against dietlibc instead, so it would work on ancient systems.
Dropped the size of the binary from over a megabyte to about 330k, a
savings of two-thirds....

- Ted


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:51:16AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:

>> > libavahi-common-data (U)

>> Ships a GDBM file which is arch-dep; shouldn't ship it in /usr/share
>> though.

> Are those really arch-specific? That's really crap design.

Yeah, gdbm is really a crap design. perldoc AnyDBM_File is interesting on
this score:

DBM Comparisons
Here's a partial table of features the different packages offer:

odbm ndbm sdbm gdbm bsd-db
---- ---- ---- ---- ------
Linkage comes w/ perl yes yes yes yes yes
Src comes w/ perl no no yes no no
Comes w/ many unix os yes yes[0] no no no
Builds ok on !unix ? ? yes yes ?
Code Size ? ? small big big
Database Size ? ? small big? ok[1]
Speed ? ? slow ok fast
FTPable no no yes yes yes
Easy to build N/A N/A yes yes ok[2]
Size limits 1k 4k 1k[3] none none
Byte-order independent no no no no yes
Licensing restrictions ? ? no yes no

[0] on mixed universe machines, may be in the bsd compat library, which
is often shunned.

[1] Can be trimmed if you compile for one access method.

[2] See DB_File. Requires symbolic links.

[3] By default, but can be redefined.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

James Vega wrote:
> grep-dctrl ! -FDepends -e '.' -a ! -FPre-Depends -e '.'
> -a ! -FArchitecture all -n -sPackage binary-i386_Packages

This approach is better and far faster than mine, diff'ing the results of
both methods show four less binaries (which all of them are false positives
using my method).

I just added a weekly cronjob in my alioth account to regenerate the lists
(based on the sid/{main,contrib,non-free}/binary-i386/Packages) which are
available at:

http://alioth.debian.org/~atomo64-guest/should-be-arch-all.txt
Containing only the package names

http://alioth.debian.org/~atomo64-guest/should-be-arch-all.by-maint.txt
Same as above but ordered by maintainer (no Uploaders available because
Packages doesn't provide it).

Cheers,
--
Atomo64 - Raphael

Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> writes:
> Brendan O'Dea <bod@debian.org>
> perl-base

That's a false positive. Please also take a look at Pre-Depends. Or
simply let off of this effort, the number of false positives is
enormous.

Marc
--
BOFH #343:
The ATM board has run out of 10 pound notes. We are having a whip
round to refill it, care to contribute ?

Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> writes:
>> Brendan O'Dea <bod@debian.org>
>> perl-base
>
> That's a false positive. Please also take a look at Pre-Depends. Or
> simply let off of this effort, the number of false positives is
> enormous.

The automated listings already use grep-ctrl also checking for Pre-Depends,
both actions reducing the number of false positives.

I'm posting again the links:
http://alioth.debian.org/~atomo64-guest/should-be-arch-all.txt
http://alioth.debian.org/~atomo64-guest/should-be-arch-all.by-maint.txt

As I already said on one of my messages I'll do further analysis, but
meanwhile there's a preview of the packages that will probably be listed
even after a deeper/better check.

>
> Marc

Cheers,
--
Atomo64 - Raphael

Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Hi,

On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 10:51:16 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > libdvb-dev (U)
>
> Only ships static libs; no idea why.

That's due to #218387, #226985 and #359697.

regards,
guillem


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:58:24PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> clips-common

Fixed now, I'm going to upload a new version (6.24-2) making it arch: all

Javier

Hi

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:58:24 -0600
Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> wrote:

> Michal ÄŒihaÅ™ <nijel@debian.org>
> libgammu3

Eh?

$ apt-cache show libgammu3 | grep ^Dep
Depends: libbluetooth2 (>= 3.0), libc6 (>= 2.7-1), libgammu-common (>=
1.17.0-1)

--
Michal ÄŒihaÅ™ | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com

Michal ÄŒihaÅ™ wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:58:24 -0600
> Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Michal ÄŒihaÅ™ <nijel@debian.org>
>> libgammu3
>
> Eh?

Seems like it is one of the very few false positives of the old script.
The fresh reports using grep-ctrl instead of a lot of grep's (which seem to
have caused some false positives) can be found at:

http://alioth.debian.org/~atomo64-guest/should-be-arch-all.txt
http://alioth.debian.org/~atomo64-guest/should-be-arch-all.by-maint.txt

Both updated weekly

>
> $ apt-cache show libgammu3 | grep ^Dep
> Depends: libbluetooth2 (>= 3.0), libc6 (>= 2.7-1), libgammu-common (>=
> 1.17.0-1)
>

Cheers,
Raphael Geissert


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org