Bug#601240: Patch for the 1.03-49.3 NMU of qmail
Thanks Christian! I've been having trouble with my mail server lately and didn't get your email on the 26th. Thank you for sorting this out for me. I really appreciate it. Cheers! Jon Dear maintainer of qmail, On Thursday, January 26, 2012 I sent you a notice announcing my intent to upload a NMU of your package to fix its pending l10n issues, after an initial notice sent on Saturday, January 21, 2012. You either agreed for this NMU or did not respond to my notices. I will now upload this NMU to DELAYED/7-DAY. The NMU patch is attached to this mail. The NMU changelog is: Source: qmail Version: 1.03-49.3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Christian Perrier bubu...@debian.org Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:37:00 +0100 Closes: 601240 601471 624721 624860 Changes: qmail (1.03-49.3) unstable; urgency=low . * Non-maintainer upload. * Fix pending l10n issues. Debconf translations: - Japanese (Hideki Yamane). Closes: #601240, #601471, #624721 - Dutch; (Jeroen Schot). Closes: #624860
Accepted qmail 1.03-49 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2010 10:31:07 -0400 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-49 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler jmar...@debian.org Changed-By: Jon Marler jmar...@debian.org Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 584745 Changes: qmail (1.03-49) unstable; urgency=low . * Fixed debian/rules regression (Closes: #584745) Checksums-Sha1: 2e2997e6b40dfc3a093ec96bcd7445ad88ab86a5 1647 qmail_1.03-49.dsc 45921934b8f11b901b4b19584b51082866879f00 368768 qmail_1.03-49.diff.gz 96e66cc024d61109d92332c38f8807b939d7f4c1 601670 qmail-src_1.03-49_all.deb Checksums-Sha256: f8ff555c5f0caa453cdfdad0352e7f05168d1bb23560f1d1f8ba6dac90f77e54 1647 qmail_1.03-49.dsc 9c3f33867c40b184d013753e4f6ee247152ec27606f68629a47d94567e410cf3 368768 qmail_1.03-49.diff.gz 30085bd65071f3027bf979034dd3f094f173f420d0e1b7a557a187574943fe72 601670 qmail-src_1.03-49_all.deb Files: 06fb1243faeff1c47442c5823a39e00f 1647 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-49.dsc 078739da3439323ba4166d8de565e3b3 368768 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-49.diff.gz dd01ddd950df2142ad03e79857a51bae 601670 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-49_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJMEG+1AAoJEJ4rmWfDPxJtpxEQAL9q7gMo80/J3fCOJnaKC+F7 lTKo/iJZiD2Mn/i3MY/RlzQZ0hI7o24kfBXarH3DNomcwFp6xScXZjxNd0Gk6Spz U8q01Q4rPFr08w1wp5VYRwfGfrX7OQ+HfyK/x9UDEr4WL/MW9u/dxWGpB6YcAWht gxuEZmOJgFIjAunGzYajkxqRuv+HBHk9i0dXRT9+RueH2LkdU10bsgpOfpHvTJF0 WSVoak3OT2byRP7zO1AMcGVgaeNMtUP4fBOyTyKIvnMOhsjymEu+XWGw3i0BH89o YsK0W6JQDtt366fXZMDUiEWg5I/EE1vnbVi85Vx7vnYs0VJQGXDmwwJ6RpwNaBVZ ZdPSa27kcbsOifAnGQdZtVCiHXNdEl4WA10pu5NVLbihdlzO1OxtGNayoCrmX5e7 kdYP+pji6LrZPM1vbb0l0Ey07zOYpn9zmC/LNuJ312bKfyTyrMAE2z8AYLpfJvij KdftVQ1MIb+EdDUln+jNk720eNU+Lm9Kx7fZPpKLIaRTxgPbxUI+SaqqIV+/aPCZ kiSh93ci2AKvwEdHkdum/oF7V3idhNYZxBp77eQEgX4QkKs5P7mus4nuwkmmRMLz qF8p/h8BtAlzxaqIcPh2VTDO2eoZrUnIU+EpJiVIQ0mSwb8gS07kcw8Zm7JL+IL7 GAmvS0glz5esknVzXOEc =SNeN -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-49_all.deb to non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-49_all.deb qmail_1.03-49.diff.gz to non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-49.diff.gz qmail_1.03-49.dsc to non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-49.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-changes-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1ottgq-0004cz...@franck.debian.org
Bug#576640: update request for qmail-src
Hello Jon, Have you been able to sort things out? if the FTBFS is #584745, I think the report is too incomplete for being properly processed. The bug submitter never followed up, also. I'd suggest tagging moreinfo and ignoring ATM. It's a valid bug. It is super easy to reproduce ... just try apt-get source -b qmail-src and you can easily see where it blows up. I have found the regression, and am still trying to sort out how to get back to a working state, and then merge back in the changes that I have made since the regression. I have been hesitant to submit what I have done without making sure I'm not producing yet another regression. I just haven't had much time to work on it. I'll get it done this week though. I understand your urgency in wanting to get this patch finished, and I will be sensitive to that urgency. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#326415: Processed: Erk
I am confused as to what you expect me to do here.
There are no TCP listeners in Qmail. There are in ucspi-tcp, which does support
IPV6, and does work w/ Qmail. Qmail does support IPV6, when used with a TCP
listener that does support IPV6. Ucspi-tcp is not the only TCP listener you
can use with Qmail, and there is nothing in Qmail that prevents IPV6 from
working.
Why have you reopened this bug?
Cheers!
Jon
On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:15 PM, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
reopen 326415
Bug #326415 {Done: Jon Marler jmar...@debian.org} [qmail-src] Please
support IPv6 or Advertise lack
stop
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#326415: closed by Jon Marler jmar...@debian.org (No TCP listeners in qmail)
Have you tested that this patch works? I don't have an IPV6 network to play with. Cheers! Jon On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote: reopen 326415 stop From: ow...@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System) There are no TCP listeners in the qmail package. The TCP layer is handled by another package. I would be more than happy to add IPV6, but since it doesn't have any TCP listeners, it is not possible. Please point to where TCP listeners were mentioned in the original bug report (hint, there isn't any such mention). Listening on an interface isn't the only place where IPv6 support is needed. qmail does reverse lookups on incoming connections and does forward lookups when sending mail, both of these places in *qmail* need IPv6 awareness. Seeing how the original link is no longer valid (I'll contact the author), I'm attaching a copy of the patch. -- (\___(\___(\__ --= 8-) EHM =-- __/)___/)___/) \BS (| e...@gremlin.m5p.com PGP F6B23DE0 |) / \_CS\ | _ -O #include stddisclaimer.h O- _ | / _/ 2477\___\_|_/DC21 03A0 5D61 985B -PGP- F2BE 6526 ABD2 F6B2\_|_/___/3DE0 qmail-1.03-v6-20021006.diff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [RFR] templates://qmail/{qmail.templates}
Thank you for working on this Christian. I like the changes, and I approve all of them without exception. Please let me know how you would like me to proceed. Shall I wait for your bug report to file a new package, or shall I do that now? Cheers! Jon On Mar 22, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Christian PERRIER wrote: (for dle readers: this package apparently violates many devref recommendations, particularly about debconf notes abuse. This is indeed a quite specific case, as the qmail package is used to generate qmail-srcmany discussions already happened with the current maintainer about this. So, we'll not insist too hard on some things) Please find, for review, the debconf templates and packages descriptions for the qmail source package. This review will last from Monday, March 22, 2010 to Thursday, April 01, 2010. Please send reviews as unified diffs (diff -u) against the original files. Comments about your proposed changes will be appreciated. Your review should be sent as an answer to this mail. When appropriate, I will send intermediate requests for review, with [RFRn] (n=2) as a subject tag. When we will reach a consensus, I send a Last Chance For Comments mail with [LCFC] as a subject tag. Finally, the reviewed templates will be sent to the package maintainer as a bug report, and a mail will be sent to this list with [BTS] as a subject tag. Rationale: --- qmail.old/debian/qmail.templates 2010-03-17 17:37:14.178507203 +0700 +++ qmail/debian/qmail.templates 2010-03-22 23:23:43.122799848 +0700 @@ -1,69 +1,77 @@ Template: qmail/readme Type: note -_Description: README - Before making any changes to your qmail configuration, please read - /usr/share/doc/qmail/README.Debian.gz. This contains a description of the - differences bewtween other mailers on Debian, qmail on Debian, and qmail on - other systems. +_Description: Notice for qmail users + Before making any changes to Qmail configuration, please read + /usr/share/doc/qmail/README.Debian.gz. This file includes a + description of the differences between Qmail in Debian, Qmail in + other systems and other mail delivery agents. . If you were using sendmail (or smail) previously, you will also want to read the qmail-upgrade manpage, which details user-visible differences between sendmail and qmail. . If you are new to Qmail, you will want to at least peruse the Qmail FAQ, which - can be found in /usr/doc/qmail + can be found in /usr/share/doc/qmail. At least, let's give this template a decent synopsis. Otherwise, the template will look quite strange with some debonf interfaces (only README being displayed). In the first paragraph, I tried to make things clear that the document tries to explain what is specific with qmail in Debian, when compared *first* with qmail outside Debian and with other mail transport agents (MTA is used more often than mailer in most of our documents) Template: qmail/start -Type: select -_Choices: yes, no +Type: boolean _Description: Do you want to start qmail now? That could need code changes, but the use of _Choices: yes, no should disappear as it breaks consistency among packages (radio buttons for such questions instead of checkboxes. Template: qmail/reboot Type: note _Description: Qmail will be started at the next reboot - Or you can start qmail manually when - you are ready by typing (as root) /etc/init.d/qmail start at a shell prompt. + You did choose not to start qmail now. It will be started + automatically at next reboot. + . + You can also start it manually with /etc/init.d/qmail start + (as root) at a shell prompt. The long description should not be related to the synopsis and vice-versa. I did choose to make the template slightly more complete. Template: qmail/userpurge -Type: select -_Choices: yes, no +Type: boolean _Description: Remove qmail users during a purge? + Please choose whether you want users created by the qmail package + to be removed when this package is purged. Yet another template to turn into boolean. Adding a long description to give more details about what is prompted. Template: qmail/recipientmap -Type: note -_Description: WARNING +Type: error +_Description: Changes for virtual users recipientmap is gone from qmail-1.03. The virtualdomains mechanism - has been expanded to support virtual users. You will need to fix your setup. + has been expanded to support virtual users. This machine's setup + needs to be fixed. As above (first template), the synopsis really need to have more details (imagine such note popping up in the middle of installation of a dozen packages.and, with the GNOME interface that only display the synopsis of notes (the long description appearing as a pop-up dialog). Template: qmail/qlist Type: note -_Description: WARNING - qlist has been split into a separate package by Dan Bernstein (the - author of qmail)
Re: [RFR] templates://qmail/{qmail.templates}
No problem. I will be happy to wait. I didn't see any emails from Justin. Did he perhaps send it to just the list? If the package descriptions need an update, please let me know when you file the bug. I believe I have removed most of the illegal notes. If I need to remove any more, please let me know. Cheers! Jon On Mar 23, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote: Quoting Jon Marler (jmar...@debian.org): Thank you for working on this Christian. I like the changes, and I approve all of them without exception. Please let me know how you would like me to proceed. Shall I wait for your bug report to file a new package, or shall I do that now? Better waiting. There might still be some discussion (see Justin's comment about the package descriptions). I'll send an LCFC (last chance for comments) mail in a few days, then a bug reportand finally I'll work on a call for translations. In short, you don't need to worry about anything until you get a final summary from /me in the bug report that will propose changes to debconf templates and debian/control. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-l10n-english-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8f3c916d-c2ed-4770-af86-92d3e94c8...@debian.org
Re: [ITR] templates://qmail/{qmail.templates}
Please proceed. Cheers! Jon On Mar 20, 2010, at 10:01 PM, Christian PERRIER wrote: Dear Debian maintainer, The Debian internationalisation team and the Debian English localisation team will soon begin the review of the debconf templates used in qmail. This review takes place for all packages that use debconf to interact with users and its aims are: - to improve the use of English in all debconf templates; - to make the wording of debconf templates more consistent; - to encourage more translations of templates. Even if your first language is English, this process is likely to help track down typos or errors, and improve consistency between the debconf templates of your package and that of other packages in the distribution. The process involves both debian-l10n-english contributors and Debian translators. The details of the process are given in http://wiki.debian.org/I18n/SmithDebconfReviewProcess. I will act as the coordinator of this activity for qmail. The first step of the process is to review the debconf source template file(s) of qmail. This review will start on Wednesday, March 24, 2010, or as soon as you acknowledge this mail with an agreement for us to carry out this process. All parts of the process will be carried out in close collaboration with you, and, unless you explicitely ask for it, no upload nor NMU will happen for qmail. If you approve this process, please let us know by replying to this mail. If some work in progress on your side would conflict with such a rewrite (such as adding or removing debconf templates), please say so, and we will defer the review to later in the development cycle. Thank you for your attention. -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-l10n-english-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1540e330-a977-4ba3-9333-9fd2f2712...@debian.org
Re: [ITR] templates://qmail/{qmail.templates}
Please proceed. Cheers! Jon On Mar 20, 2010, at 10:01 PM, Christian PERRIER wrote: Dear Debian maintainer, The Debian internationalisation team and the Debian English localisation team will soon begin the review of the debconf templates used in qmail. This review takes place for all packages that use debconf to interact with users and its aims are: - to improve the use of English in all debconf templates; - to make the wording of debconf templates more consistent; - to encourage more translations of templates. Even if your first language is English, this process is likely to help track down typos or errors, and improve consistency between the debconf templates of your package and that of other packages in the distribution. The process involves both debian-l10n-english contributors and Debian translators. The details of the process are given in http://wiki.debian.org/I18n/SmithDebconfReviewProcess. I will act as the coordinator of this activity for qmail. The first step of the process is to review the debconf source template file(s) of qmail. This review will start on Wednesday, March 24, 2010, or as soon as you acknowledge this mail with an agreement for us to carry out this process. All parts of the process will be carried out in close collaboration with you, and, unless you explicitely ask for it, no upload nor NMU will happen for qmail. If you approve this process, please let us know by replying to this mail. If some work in progress on your side would conflict with such a rewrite (such as adding or removing debconf templates), please say so, and we will defer the review to later in the development cycle. Thank you for your attention. -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-l10n-english-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/7e340f17-f22e-4746-abac-14b7009fc...@debian.org
Accepted qmail 1.03-48 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:54:30 -0500 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-48 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler jmar...@debian.org Changed-By: Jon Marler jmar...@debian.org Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 505908 Changes: qmail (1.03-48) unstable; urgency=low . * Removed ability to override existing installation (Closes: #505908) * Setup po-debconf for translation * Various lintian suggested tweaks Checksums-Sha1: 59a9604abec9cc911285876154531bc8b50d0c17 1647 qmail_1.03-48.dsc 257e816a16b021b0dc8e25230bdf5691788ec02a 350480 qmail_1.03-48.diff.gz aa3f94b12c12b4c387491304211eb5a5e5a5bb6e 583372 qmail-src_1.03-48_all.deb Checksums-Sha256: 51e86a4b0674dfe69b8ed96662492a82c8cdec4b2afd5e61260585f520bb4f8a 1647 qmail_1.03-48.dsc e85cd05f902a6903dbddc96811c37ae911b7461d6354fe1d28e2e8d2af482d04 350480 qmail_1.03-48.diff.gz 030d2e5e9b57b2e29b53d7411e17ffc5f2ea33bd30f9c7920fb6609791bb6256 583372 qmail-src_1.03-48_all.deb Files: b3457e725ae6aa641de7828386fe633b 1647 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-48.dsc 3f3ce28a4e7e8eab5129fe8ffa897c95 350480 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-48.diff.gz 79313abc261e09c448c35e4cfd4d4297 583372 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-48_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJLm2jPAAoJEJ4rmWfDPxJtNxkP/jYL2w1vH29T/fb9e1v/XfYB gScUqDGGkPGd5w0u1lnm+DvrLJyEW7JM3Cg0QR4X82JOEDsL87LryN4DqKf9lMiU Xukh38X7HEBMxaRkRTA7yFt/EQw8g8fCyU+DKs1uGXtBqGipIbr15L6o04rvC6TG Ulsjf/0oGGx1C3Q8X3kT0qvJiA3bqgYFFplaF0GJ03W7jNGwMZfetb9Cn+Rj3BuZ 4gKGFfhA1df7TbRhStHiAPbajDKTK7njARckCYLNWDubm0EsQdWIeTjPARmBcrRD VzzYurJ2kquAGcLVtqyItX2FtnixezfkdSd2/baaA+hJAu9v0UKZ6/Sh/TeMPLZv 92SJ6/4eO1dZI+QOPgQ/Dp94AAjaT2SxBBkAcItaymWAEyYiBAl1XpsMkQODr6dn fu4KXhr8mcjpOe5/9mh5sMgq3m3Nq8PNvnbFTEEq95KCwKCk9u/jua29VXVFbH5H U5vhZKjrTntXXRr50PeR8KMvoUpNjhddSLvd9ZhcADYpsPopBuv4f+4fCo46m1xf mZ+RWZ5IAOtA0BMrY2GA2FT1ftZVqunF32swzBHwyAdQ5GXagSvGPgfSNezMruzQ em1nttwjO9AQ2hsa6Ucc5VoiuzagbEh5wru1fLciecVjqQQ7/evE9LOpfUcFIU9e m88LbXX6FcpCqGcurwKu =Y5HT -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-48_all.deb to non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-48_all.deb qmail_1.03-48.diff.gz to non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-48.diff.gz qmail_1.03-48.dsc to non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-48.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-changes-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1nqyvk-00075g...@ries.debian.org
Bug#548788: qmail: not packaged in debian, despite being released into the public domain some time ago
Please go and read the material. You will see that even though the ITP bug was opened in 2007, the debate continues. There have been some very recent comments on both the ITP bug, and the mail list. Sometimes the process takes time, and the process is just taking a while in this case. There are a lot of really smart people involved, and a lot of factors to consider. I would also invite you to join the deliberative process, and make your voice heard as a user of Debian. We are an open community and will welcome the fresh point of view. The bug I linked you to is an ITP bug. That stands for Intend To Package. So, to answer your question, yes. Gerrit intends to package qmail. The first step in that process is an ITP bug agains wnpp. Gerrit has already packaged qmail, which is available on his website, but not in the official Debian archive. Gerrit is a well accomplished Debian Maintainer that is already taking care of packages in Debian, and as soon as his ITP is approved, will have a qmail binary package ready for upload into the archive. I have worked with Gerrit in the past, and he is very easy to work with, and very accommodating. If the ITP ends up not approved, we will stay with the current source- only package. Either way, the proper process is already being followed, hence the closing of this bug. Cheers! Jon On Sep 28, 2009, at 7:36 PM, db wrote: Ok. I am confused. The previous bug from 2007, was regarding qmail-source not qmail. It also was not touched for some time now. Hence, i filed this bug. Sure by all means close this bug. However, you should note that this was a wishlist report and not a bug report, as such Does Gerrit intend to package qmail ? 2009/9/29 Jon Marler jmar...@debian.org: Well, the merge attempt was an epic fail. I'm going to go ahead and close this. Gerrit is getting this all sorted out, and with any luck, we will have a resolution soon. I'm trying to stay out of it and let the process work it's way through. Cheers! Jon On Sep 28, 2009, at 2:39 PM, dave bl wrote: Package: qmail Version: 1.03 Severity: wishlist qmail is not in debian main. there is a qmail-source package in contrib. however,qmail 1.03 was released into the public domain as per http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html . Thank you -- System Information: Debian Release: 5.0.3 APT prefers stable APT policy: (900, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.26 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#548788: qmail: not packaged in debian, despite being released into the public domain some time ago
I requested a merge of this bug with #457318 Gerrit Pape filed an ITP for qmail in Dec. of 2007. There is an ongoing debate on how to handle qmail, and I suggest you look through the maillist archives or the ITP bug report for more information. Also, Gerritj has an excellent binary package of qmail that he distributes on his website at http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/ I highly recommend his work. Cheers! Jon On Sep 28, 2009, at 2:39 PM, dave bl wrote: Package: qmail Version: 1.03 Severity: wishlist qmail is not in debian main. there is a qmail-source package in contrib. however,qmail 1.03 was released into the public domain as per http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html . Thank you -- System Information: Debian Release: 5.0.3 APT prefers stable APT policy: (900, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.26 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#143098: Please add TLS support in qmail !
Thanks for the suggestion. Adding TLS support would basically require every user to setup certs just to get a base qmail system up and running. This would also mean breaking existing configurations. May users are using other mechanisms, such as stunnel, to provide SSL and/or TLS encryption. Just slamming TLS in would likely cause these systems to break as well, or at a bare minimum, require considerable planning ahead to move certs around and adjust listening ports. I appreciate the bug report, but I am going to mark this as wishlist. Considering the enormous impact this patch would have, I'm hesitant to just add it to the default package. One of the things that I have in-place in the build-qmail script is the ability to add your own patches before building. I would invite you to add this patch when building qmail on your own systems. Cheers! Jon On Aug 26, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Thomas de Grivel wrote: Hi Jon, Thanks for maintaining qmail-src package. However I think many more people would use your great package if it included the TLS patch which is needed to secure connections with qmail-smtp. It is very regrettable to see this package not fully functional in production setups on such an insecure network such as the internet. Please let me know if you can handle this shortly, I will be glad to help. Regards, -- Thomas LowH.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
[Logcheck-devel] Reassigning 532484
reassign 532484 qmail stop # qmail-src generates no logs ___ Logcheck-devel mailing list Logcheck-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/logcheck-devel
Bug#466074: qmail is free : what about a binary package now ?
Please see bug #457318. Cheers! Jon On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:45 PM, Greg Price wrote: Now that the author of this software has seen the light and made it free software, it'd be great to have it in Debian. Is there a particular obstacle known to be in the way of doing so, or is just a matter of someone doing the work? Thanks, Greg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#498869: ucspi-tcp-src: FTBFS
On Sep 13, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Carsten Hey wrote: Package: ucspi-tcp-src Severity: grave Hi, while checking whether bug #174353 build-ucspi-tcp fails on libc6 2.3.1-7 is still present and if it is release critical - more precisely, before I had the chance to do so, I tried to build ucspi-tcp-src using debuild -rfakeroot which failed. Since ucspi-tcp is now available in main, maintained by Gerrit Pape, do you think ucspi-tcp-src is still useful in Debian? I see two options: a) Remove ucspi-tcp-src from Debian. b) Fix this bug, then check if #174353 is still present, if it is, upgrade its severity to grave and fix this too. Users could decide oneself whether they want a precompiled package or your package which they might use since ages. I have been so far unable to reproduce 174353. I may flag it as unreproducible, and see if the anyone has the same issue before I spend a whole bunch of time on it. Gerrit and I have discussed the two packages, and have come up with a way for them to live together in harmony. Thanks for the bug report. I have uploaded -15 to the repository, and will request a freeze exception. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freeze exception request for ucspi-tcp-src
I would like to formally request a freeze exception for ucspi-tcp-src release -15. This fixes RC Bug #498869 that prevents the package from building using fakeroot which was reported yesterday. Hopefully, this should conclude my freeze exception requests for Lenny. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-47 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:58:36 -0400 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-47 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 485956 Changes: qmail (1.03-47) unstable; urgency=low . * Removed additional chown commands from rules script (Closes: #485956) Files: bcfc972ff33ffc2d984c2e1a406456ab 746 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-47.dsc 4a50361ae843f4025ca8a7850a996d38 349211 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-47.diff.gz bcc0737da7efe23bdda4918d551728ce 581332 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-47_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBSMv/rUS7Zkn0eJstAQJicgP/dguqQTsxvHCrpRnYGUxC9kLRMMjlHgDH DhQwXZTNXmnCToR7PpvUhICi3ImiStlkbLXOFcYiX5HyQojqHmzfuHNjZAOZQ55K hEeYna8bdGee2L17oqf3UKaZ+Plz0q48u0M/n6ZEnX/ZcIcuDBp+lKdJuo0b7Wj+ qXrnRToKJK4= =MNbQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-47_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-47_all.deb qmail_1.03-47.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-47.diff.gz qmail_1.03-47.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-47.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#485956: found 485956 in qmail/1.03-46
On Sep 13, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.28 #patch didnt touch debian/rules found 485956 qmail/1.03-46 Fixed in -47 Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#485956: found 485956 in qmail/1.03-46
On Sep 13, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.28 #patch didnt touch debian/rules found 485956 qmail/1.03-46 Fixed in -47 Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#485956: qmail rc bugs
According to my calculation, the -46 release should move into testing today, as the 10 day hold will have lapsed. Since the 10 day hold is up, I also filed requests to close the bugs. I had planned on doing it only after the migration to testing, but your snippy email has inspired me to close them early. Kicking qmail from lenny would only punish those who wish to use it. It would not punish me. Making such threats is counter-productive and very un-professional. I don't know very much about common professional discourse in Germany, but here in Texas, we find actions such as yours quite rude. I fail to see where such hostility is either necessary or warranted. A new package was uploaded 10 days ago, I followed the documented procedure for requesting a freeze exception, and was simply waiting the requisite 10 days for the package to migrate to testing. For your sake, I hope whatever other issues exist that are truly bothering you are resolved quickly. Life is too short to go through it so angry. Cheers! Jon On Sep 13, 2008, at 4:34 AM, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: Heya, As you might have heard, we are trying to release lenny, preferably soonish. To ease that, we remove rc-buggy packages which don't get fixed in a reasonable timeframe. Anyway, my point: Get off your ass or I will kick qmail from lenny in a week. Love, hugs and kisses, Marc -- BOFH #380: Operators killed when huge stack of backup tapes fell over. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freeze exception request for qmail-src
I would like to formally request another freeze exception for qmail- src release 1.0.3-47, which has just been uploaded to unstable. Bug #485956, which I believed to be fixed in -46, continued to prevail. I have uploaded a final and complete fix for bug #485956 in release -47. I do apologize for the oversight. Cheers! Jon On Sep 2, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Jon Marler wrote: I would like to formally request a freeze exception for qmail-src release 1.0.3-46, which is currently in unstable This release fixes 2 RC Bugs: #485956 FTBFS: uses chown inappropriately - Unable to buiild #491916 Preinst fails if /etc/inetd.conf does not exist Both bugs have been addressed and verified by the requester. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freeze exception request for qmail-src
I would like to formally request a freeze exception for qmail-src release 1.0.3-46, which is currently in unstable This release fixes 2 RC Bugs: #485956 FTBFS: uses chown inappropriately - Unable to buiild #491916 Preinst fails if /etc/inetd.conf does not exist Both bugs have been addressed and verified by the requester. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-46 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:26:55 -0400 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-46 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Changes: qmail (1.03-46) unstable; urgency=low . * Removed buggy inetd.conf code from preinst (Closes #491916) * Removed typos from control file (Closes #459616) * Added libc6-dev dependancy (Closes #478513) * Removed link-sync patch (Closes #466447) * Removed un-needed chown command from rules script (Closes #485956) Files: 08f077941bd518c3be8eed2ce9c21147 746 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-46.dsc ec8f6018d5b058178f0b2359cc7400f7 349160 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-46.diff.gz 00cffbbe30dc3ea4daa2b7c3b16bb8cf 581068 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-46_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBSKz7jkS7Zkn0eJstAQIEUQP/Vx1UtQxTAUccoTihz88fK65ICueC4Pcc 9JODlfE0t2h1OXkVLtBgN7JOar+Th7+AstLMdnA1a0hLLsRuJKXIqaqoN6abEIiT k/MhEjyj8qFJnXnRvidfR2oWZ4EKyqolefCm9fmsjRPWHiz+SnkP8gXhSlEy6Jgp 7KqnUFvHshQ= =m1Xt -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-46_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-46_all.deb qmail_1.03-46.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-46.diff.gz qmail_1.03-46.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-46.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#485956: FTBFS: uses chown inappropriately
On Jun 15, 2008, at 4:23 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Jon Marler wrote: If you use fakeroot to call dpkg-buildpackage, it works prefectly. Something is wrong with the way that dpkg-buildpackage is calling fakeroot. The chown calls work perfect, and you can build the package using a different syntax. There's nothing wrong in dpkg-buildpackage. The build target is called _without_ root rights. Only the clean and binary target are supposed to have root rights. However your build target depends on binary-src and binary-src contains the call chown -R root.root $(TMPSRC). You should arrange your build system to have the operations that require root to be called when debian/rules binary is called and not when debian/rules build is called. I've been digging around in this, and have found something extremely peculiar. This odd behavior only appears when trying to build release -45, but not -44. As far as I can tell, the differences between the two are very minor. I can't figure out what broke between -44 and -45 that has caused dpkg-buildpackage to fail. The rules file is the same in both releases, yet one builds and the other fails. Do you have any ideas why that might be? This bug is the last bug holding me back from uploading a new qmail- src for lenny. Any help you could provide would be appreciated. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#485956: FTBFS: uses chown inappropriately
On Jun 15, 2008, at 4:23 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Jon Marler wrote: If you use fakeroot to call dpkg-buildpackage, it works prefectly. Something is wrong with the way that dpkg-buildpackage is calling fakeroot. The chown calls work perfect, and you can build the package using a different syntax. There's nothing wrong in dpkg-buildpackage. The build target is called _without_ root rights. Only the clean and binary target are supposed to have root rights. However your build target depends on binary-src and binary-src contains the call chown -R root.root $(TMPSRC). You should arrange your build system to have the operations that require root to be called when debian/rules binary is called and not when debian/rules build is called. I've been digging around in this, and have found something extremely peculiar. This odd behavior only appears when trying to build release -45, but not -44. As far as I can tell, the differences between the two are very minor. I can't figure out what broke between -44 and -45 that has caused dpkg-buildpackage to fail. The rules file is the same in both releases, yet one builds and the other fails. Do you have any ideas why that might be? This bug is the last bug holding me back from uploading a new qmail- src for lenny. Any help you could provide would be appreciated. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#491916: qmail: Preinst fails if /etc/inetd.conf does not exist
On Aug 13, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: Jon Marler wrote: All of that inetd.conf stuff is old legacy code from a migration long long ago before update-inetd was available. I believe I will just remove it all together as it is no longer necessary, and probably never was in the first place. I have a release that I am preparing to clean out some other bugs, and will get this in there. Hi Jon, what's the status? Lenny release is getting closer... Cheers, Moritz It's coming. I don't have much free time, and my test machine recently died. I should have it out in the next week or so. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#491916: qmail: Preinst fails if /etc/inetd.conf does not exist
On Aug 13, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: Jon Marler wrote: All of that inetd.conf stuff is old legacy code from a migration long long ago before update-inetd was available. I believe I will just remove it all together as it is no longer necessary, and probably never was in the first place. I have a release that I am preparing to clean out some other bugs, and will get this in there. Hi Jon, what's the status? Lenny release is getting closer... Cheers, Moritz It's coming. I don't have much free time, and my test machine recently died. I should have it out in the next week or so. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#466447: qmail-local maildir delivery race condition
No problem.
I am working on a new release to fix the outstanding RC bugs, and will
get this fix in as well.
I am going to back out that link-sync patch. It's more trouble than
it's worth.
Cheers!
Jon
On Jul 28, 2008, at 3:18 PM, Pablo 'merKur' Kohan wrote:
I just started getting MANY complaints about duplicate e-mail
delivery
from IMAP users. Upon investigation, it turns out that Dan Bernstein
doesn't obey his own rules about manipulating Maildirs.
I'm having the same issues one of my servers.
Thanks for diagnosing it ! It drove my users crazy.
One comment though. While checking this, I found out that it's not in
the original qmail source, but it comes from one of the applied
patches:
Frank Denis's qmail-link-sync
http://www.thedjbway.org/qmail/patches/qmail-1.03.link-sync.patch
Alternatively, you can just ignore a failure to open. I.e. replace
if ((fd = open(fnnewtph, O_RDONLY)) 0 ||
fsync(fd) 0 || close(fd) 0) goto fail;
by
if ((fd = open(fnnewtph, O_RDONLY)) = 0)
{
fsync(fd);
close(fd);
}
This works very well, and is much less intrusive than Guenter's
syncdir
patch (which actually fsyncs the directory, as you mentioned).
Jon, could you please include the fix above in future qmail-src
releases ?
Thanks,
Pablo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#491916: qmail: Preinst fails if /etc/inetd.conf does not exist
Thanks for the report. All of that inetd.conf stuff is old legacy code from a migration long long ago before update-inetd was available. I believe I will just remove it all together as it is no longer necessary, and probably never was in the first place. I have a release that I am preparing to clean out some other bugs, and will get this in there. Cheers! Jon On Jul 22, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: Package: qmail Version: 1.03-45 Severity: important On a minimal system with no /etc/inetd.conf, qmail installation fails: callisto:/usr/share/doc/qmail-src# dpkg -i /tmp/qmail/ qmail_1.03-45_i386.deb (Reading database ... 60331 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking qmail (from .../qmail/qmail_1.03-45_i386.deb) ... Performing install First installation of the Debian qmail package... Checking if qmail is already installed on this computer... no. Checking group qmail (gid 64010)... ok. Checking user alias (uid 64010, gid 65534, homedir /var/qmail/ alias)... ok. Checking user qmaild (uid 64011, gid 65534, homedir /var/qmail)... ok. Checking user qmails (uid 64012, gid 64010, homedir /var/qmail)... ok. Checking user qmailr (uid 64013, gid 64010, homedir /var/qmail)... ok. Checking user qmailq (uid 64014, gid 64010, homedir /var/qmail)... ok. Checking user qmaill (uid 64015, gid 65534, homedir /var/qmail)... ok. Checking user qmailp (uid 64016, gid 65534, homedir /var/qmail)... ok. Could not open /etc/inetd.conf dpkg: error processing /tmp/qmail/qmail_1.03-45_i386.deb (--install): subprocess pre-installation script returned error exit status 2 Errors were encountered while processing: /tmp/qmail/qmail_1.03-45_i386.deb Suggested fix: use update-inetd. Preferably do all this in postinst rather than preinst, then just Depend on update-inetd. Failing that, Pre-Depend on inetd. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#491919: qmail-src: Prompts should use debconf
Let's please not re-open that debacle. I was informed that Debconf was specifically -*not*- to be used to preset information to users, and had one of those spray-and-pray bugs filed against the package. I ripped all of it out because there was no other solution. You can't show it in debconf, and you can't show it in the terminal. Those messages are there strictly for informative purposes, and would violate policy if moved to debconf. If you feel that strongly that they shouldn't be there, they will have to be removed entirely. They only provide helpful guidance to an admin that may be accidentally attempting to remove qmail. I will remove them in true Debian fashion if you don't see their value, or believe that their presence violates the rules. Cheers! Jon On Jul 22, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: Package: qmail-src Version: 1.03-45 Severity: important Policy 3.9.1 suggests that user prompting should be done via debconf, not directly to the terminal. qmail's prerm (at least) prompts directly to the terminal, thus presenting an unfamiliar interface to users. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#491916: qmail: Preinst fails if /etc/inetd.conf does not exist
Thanks for the report. All of that inetd.conf stuff is old legacy code from a migration long long ago before update-inetd was available. I believe I will just remove it all together as it is no longer necessary, and probably never was in the first place. I have a release that I am preparing to clean out some other bugs, and will get this in there. Cheers! Jon On Jul 22, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: Package: qmail Version: 1.03-45 Severity: important On a minimal system with no /etc/inetd.conf, qmail installation fails: callisto:/usr/share/doc/qmail-src# dpkg -i /tmp/qmail/ qmail_1.03-45_i386.deb (Reading database ... 60331 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking qmail (from .../qmail/qmail_1.03-45_i386.deb) ... Performing install First installation of the Debian qmail package... Checking if qmail is already installed on this computer... no. Checking group qmail (gid 64010)... ok. Checking user alias (uid 64010, gid 65534, homedir /var/qmail/ alias)... ok. Checking user qmaild (uid 64011, gid 65534, homedir /var/qmail)... ok. Checking user qmails (uid 64012, gid 64010, homedir /var/qmail)... ok. Checking user qmailr (uid 64013, gid 64010, homedir /var/qmail)... ok. Checking user qmailq (uid 64014, gid 64010, homedir /var/qmail)... ok. Checking user qmaill (uid 64015, gid 65534, homedir /var/qmail)... ok. Checking user qmailp (uid 64016, gid 65534, homedir /var/qmail)... ok. Could not open /etc/inetd.conf dpkg: error processing /tmp/qmail/qmail_1.03-45_i386.deb (--install): subprocess pre-installation script returned error exit status 2 Errors were encountered while processing: /tmp/qmail/qmail_1.03-45_i386.deb Suggested fix: use update-inetd. Preferably do all this in postinst rather than preinst, then just Depend on update-inetd. Failing that, Pre-Depend on inetd. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#485956: FTBFS: uses chown inappropriately
If you use fakeroot to call dpkg-buildpackage, it works prefectly. Something is wrong with the way that dpkg-buildpackage is calling fakeroot. The chown calls work perfect, and you can build the package using a different syntax. Not sure what you need done here. Jon On Jun 12, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: Package: qmail Version: 1.03-45 Severity: serious Justification: fails to build from source On both etch and sid systems apt-get source qmail cd qmail... dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc -us results in: # Install debconf files #cp debian/qmail-src.config debian/tmp-src/DEBIAN/config #cp debian/qmail-src.templates debian/tmp-src/DEBIAN/templates dpkg-gencontrol -isp -pqmail-src -Pdebian/tmp-src chown -R root.root debian/tmp-src chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/share/doc/qmail-src/ changelog.D ebian.gz': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/share/doc/qmail-src/ copyright': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/share/doc/qmail-src/ README.Debi an.gz': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/share/doc/qmail- src': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/share/doc': Operation not permi tted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/share': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/bin/build-qmail': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/bin': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/src/qmail-src/ qmail_1.03-45.dsc ': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/src/qmail-src/ qmail_1.03.orig.t ar.gz': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/src/qmail-src/ qmail_1.03-45.dif f.gz': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/src/qmail-src': Operation not p ermitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/src': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/DEBIAN/control': Operation not perm itted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/DEBIAN/prerm': Operation not permit ted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/DEBIAN/postinst': Operation not per mitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/DEBIAN/postrm': Operation not permi tted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/DEBIAN': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src': Operation not permitted make: *** [binary-src] Error 1 dpkg-buildpackage: failure: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#485956: Errata - resetting severity
severity 485956 minor thanks Actually, I disagree. This is not a serious bug, and will build with the standard Debian tools, including the autobuilder. It doesn't work using the command you have chosen for it, but there is nowhere in the policy you referred to that states that specific command must be supported. I am not closing the bug, but it is not a serious bug. If you disagree further, I suggest you try a remedy other than changing the severity again, as I will simply change it back. Cheers! Jon On Jun 12, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: severity 485956 serious thanks On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 06:09:14PM -0500, Jon Marler wrote: severity 485956 minor Erm, no, this is a FTBFS bug, and deserves the severity I gave it. The package fails to build with standard Debian tools, called in their standard ways, and violates a policy MUST. Please see http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules and my other reply to this bug report. Dominic. -- Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/ PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#485956: FTBFS: uses chown inappropriately
If you use fakeroot to call dpkg-buildpackage, it works prefectly. Something is wrong with the way that dpkg-buildpackage is calling fakeroot. The chown calls work perfect, and you can build the package using a different syntax. Not sure what you need done here. Jon On Jun 12, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: Package: qmail Version: 1.03-45 Severity: serious Justification: fails to build from source On both etch and sid systems apt-get source qmail cd qmail... dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc -us results in: # Install debconf files #cp debian/qmail-src.config debian/tmp-src/DEBIAN/config #cp debian/qmail-src.templates debian/tmp-src/DEBIAN/templates dpkg-gencontrol -isp -pqmail-src -Pdebian/tmp-src chown -R root.root debian/tmp-src chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/share/doc/qmail-src/ changelog.D ebian.gz': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/share/doc/qmail-src/ copyright': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/share/doc/qmail-src/ README.Debi an.gz': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/share/doc/qmail- src': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/share/doc': Operation not permi tted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/share': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/bin/build-qmail': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/bin': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/src/qmail-src/ qmail_1.03-45.dsc ': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/src/qmail-src/ qmail_1.03.orig.t ar.gz': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/src/qmail-src/ qmail_1.03-45.dif f.gz': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/src/qmail-src': Operation not p ermitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr/src': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/usr': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/DEBIAN/control': Operation not perm itted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/DEBIAN/prerm': Operation not permit ted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/DEBIAN/postinst': Operation not per mitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/DEBIAN/postrm': Operation not permi tted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src/DEBIAN': Operation not permitted chown: changing ownership of `debian/tmp-src': Operation not permitted make: *** [binary-src] Error 1 dpkg-buildpackage: failure: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#485956: Errata - resetting severity
severity 485956 minor thanks Actually, I disagree. This is not a serious bug, and will build with the standard Debian tools, including the autobuilder. It doesn't work using the command you have chosen for it, but there is nowhere in the policy you referred to that states that specific command must be supported. I am not closing the bug, but it is not a serious bug. If you disagree further, I suggest you try a remedy other than changing the severity again, as I will simply change it back. Cheers! Jon On Jun 12, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: severity 485956 serious thanks On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 06:09:14PM -0500, Jon Marler wrote: severity 485956 minor Erm, no, this is a FTBFS bug, and deserves the severity I gave it. The package fails to build with standard Debian tools, called in their standard ways, and violates a policy MUST. Please see http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules and my other reply to this bug report. Dominic. -- Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/ PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#469183: qmail-src: qmail in the public domain
On Mar 3, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Luke Schierer wrote: As qmail is now in the public domain, it should be possible to build a binary-package of qmail and move it out of non-free. It would be nice to see this happen. Please look at old bug reports before reporting new bugs, as this bug has been opened several times. There is a binary qmail package coming. Gerritt Pape will be submitting and maintaing that package(s). qmail-src will stay around for those who like to roll their own and to satisfy those who prefer the status-quo. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-45 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:32:58 -0600 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-45 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Changes: qmail (1.03-45) unstable; urgency=low . * Updated prerm to remove dependancy on update-inetd (Closes #439702) Files: 14fbf9069bb32ad243fa9eb566d6d76d 746 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-45.dsc 3c032ceac453a39ef33c5ed2649e0ef4 348224 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-45.diff.gz 6b5c6e57a1f90b16edb01c229f5d58f8 580660 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-45_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBR18CsUS7Zkn0eJstAQLAwgP9ECBal8H8GVg/xI9Ra/7Vpl1BDHwCrvR5 4MHKTUgDA5hElhLHoZbSHexUdXNlhn9M5vMosey5dLyW/IQle3TcOvkzDNXbKElh y5CpG8IfzbW4WQQST4u7BSTcq+Xr7aO97Mi1BFxmc+ZRU+qMelytI83IWRy9McZY UqDEvz463ug= =v4Il -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-45_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-45_all.deb qmail_1.03-45.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-45.diff.gz qmail_1.03-45.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-45.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Handling of (inactive) Debian Accounts
I have a question ... How do I keep my Debian maintainer status if I miss the vote? Is there a website I can log in to raise my hand and keep from being booted out? Is there somewhere this is being debated where I can join the debate? I frequently respond to bug reports, upload new releases, etc. Shouldn't that clearly indicate that I am still active? I understand if you would rather not debate this privately. I just don't want to be booted out of the group because I missed a vote. Cheers! Jon On 2/9/07, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi as Debian gets more and more accounts it is only natural that we have more and more unused accounts. People get MIA, find different interests or simply lost interest in Debian but did not follow the normal procedure of retiring.[1] To reduce the security risk an unused open account has, and also to get the number of Developers to reflect the reality, we, the Debian Account Managers, decided to do regular WaT[2] runs. Selection of the people included in those runs will be done in a way that we avoid sending out such mails to active people. As a good start we will take the upcoming DPL vote as an input source, everyone who doesn't vote this year will be included in the first run. * Please note that you can vote without expressing an opinion! * Later on there should be more such runs, on a regular base. Input of affected accounts can be (apart from future DPL election non-voters) the great work from the MIA-team, but details for that need to be worked out. We currently have 4 states for any given account in LDAP: o [default] o Emeritus o Disabled o Memorial [default] is obviously what the majority of accounts has. No need to explain it. Memorial is a special state used for accounts that are disabled but which we don't want reused to avoid confusion (at best), e.g. with developers who've passed away. Now, for the handling of the WaT runs, Emeritus and Disabled are the two important states here: To get into the Emeritus state you voluntarily retire from the project, following [1] or by replying to a WaT mail. The account will be put into the 'emeritus' state. It will get locked and their keys are moved to a separate keyring. Their email will continue to work for 6 months. They lose vote, upload and -private reading privileges. People in this stage can get their DD status back with a reduced NM process. The disabled state is for people where the WaT mail bounced or who don't reply. For the first 12 months things are the same as 'emeritus', after that they will need to pass full NM if they want to get their DD status back. [1] http://www.us.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-developer-duties.en.html#s3.7 [2] *W*here *a*re *T*hey? -- bye Joerg It seems to me that the account creation step could be fully automated: checking the box approved by DAM could trigger an insert into the LDAP database thereby creating the account. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted ucspi-tcp 0.88-13 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:50:27 -0600 Source: ucspi-tcp Binary: ucspi-tcp-src Architecture: source all Version: 0.88-13 Distribution: unstable Urgency: high Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: ucspi-tcp-src - Source only package for building ucspi-tcp binary package Closes: 410125 Changes: ucspi-tcp (0.88-13) unstable; urgency=high . * Added patch to fix VERY dead default RBL (Closes: #410125) * Updated control file * Cleaned up rules script to allow autobuilding * Removed old usr/doc symlink code Files: 4f843a10fcea40b65a87e34194175e22 760 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp_0.88-13.dsc 505207486986c6474f9ebf23046e6d7e 58416 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp_0.88-13.diff.gz 3bba6fc71152ef3754766d90ad09ed4f 119026 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-13_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRcpZcES7Zkn0eJstAQK7wgP/SpUAymRIsARr0G/i9a4bUUnBjntLNEJt uAphdLWrGZD76D0gZE3OGNoBW6C4lk31QU9cUFdRGIbDzc2DrpM4NXZHpYdoY89U rRn4FCkccXjI5NsaVJe0j16jpGlc9vNO9zKvjV/+wXaEVFcoTxEyD9tqarfZBzJ8 zPpZm3/jihs= =ytfB -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-13_all.deb to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-13_all.deb ucspi-tcp_0.88-13.diff.gz to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp_0.88-13.diff.gz ucspi-tcp_0.88-13.dsc to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp_0.88-13.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#410125: ucspi-tcp: rblsmtpd queries eight-year-dead RBL by default
Quoting Nick Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Package: ucspi-tcp Version: 0.88-9 Severity: important Tags: patch I rate this bug as Important, but if Paul does set a wildcard on maps.vix.com as discussed then it could quickly escalate. -- If we don't, some Debian users could lose email when Paul runs out of other options, as I expect he will do quite soon. After the last couple of years, you won't catch me publishing an RBL under a domain I still want to use myself :-/ Thanks for the excellent bug report and patch. I have uploaded -13 to the main archive, which includes your patch, and some other miscellaneous cleanup I've been waiting to complete. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-44 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:53:39 -0600 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-44 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Changes: qmail (1.03-44) unstable; urgency=low . * One minor fix in the control file for autobuild compatibility Files: 5f963200bd8857dfd08fa3768b35e9f5 746 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-44.dsc 7e747c1f72a7af698f0cf6902f4f203c 348111 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-44.diff.gz 7fc6766768aa81c1aac31d44986b3fcd 580468 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-44_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRbDNqES7Zkn0eJstAQJkvQQAo9jzEhNtCNfHIe4WotsslQRyEK3ArIBg qZx2TcksWcNHA0G7KeBijUtEObWnABPUCIazm8f+BVDIFKLydmji34AYPQxLul31 0r943drXW0xhl0RmARwqZly74MiKFeHa9epdiuAXWctL5DGCx6kJ9+N+KbpTB95h G6wCCT6oa3c= =sq/W -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-44_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-44_all.deb qmail_1.03-44.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-44.diff.gz qmail_1.03-44.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-44.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please unblock qmail-src 1.03-42
Quoting Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 01:16:14PM -0600, Jon Marler wrote: This is fixed in -43 which has just been uploaded. -43 also updates the standards version, and removes some old 1.02 upgrade code and fixes a usr/doc link issue thanks to a great patch that was included with the bug. It also introduces another policy violation. Build-Depends is a source package field, and you've removed it from the source package stanza and moved it to the binary package stanza. @@ -2,13 +2,12 @@ Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Section: non-free/mail Priority: extra -Build-Depends: dpkg-dev (= 1.4.0.20), patch (= 2.5-0bo1), gcc, make, fakeroot | sudo, groff-base, debconf | debconf-2.0 -Standards-Version: 3.5.0.0 +Standards-Version: 3.7.2 Package: qmail-src Architecture: all -Depends: dpkg-dev (= 1.4.0.20), patch (= 2.5-0bo1), gcc, make, fakeroot | sudo, groff-base, debconf | debconf-2.0 -Build-Depends: dpkg-dev (= 1.4.0.20), patch (= 2.5-0bo1), gcc, make, fakeroot | sudo, groff-base, debconf | debconf-2.0 +Depends: dpkg-dev (= 1.4.0.20), patch (= 2.5-0bo1), gcc, make, fakeroot | sudo, groff-base, adduser +Build-Depends: dpkg-dev (= 1.4.0.20), patch (= 2.5-0bo1), gcc, make, fakeroot | sudo, groff-base, adduser Conflicts: qmail-run, qmail-uids-gids Section: non-free/mail Recommends: ucspi-tcp-src, procmail That again fails the autobuildability requirement, and needs to be fixed. If you can fix this one issue, it shouldn't be a problem to get qmail back into etch. No problem. It is done. -44 has been uploaded with the requested fix. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-43 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 02:47:14 -0600 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-43 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 406990 Changes: qmail (1.03-43) unstable; urgency=low . * Updated to Debian Policy Standards-Version 3.7.2 * Fixed some non-essential errors in the control file * Removed old 1.02 transition code and usr/doc cleanup (Closes: #406990) Files: 1bb7bef1151726b7dd9d64de974d2e52 638 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-43.dsc 48c09046f284f36a8b03d6df0de72033 348073 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-43.diff.gz 0210e60bce0c828e7596aada61374017 580286 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-43_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRavWJ0S7Zkn0eJstAQIvMwQAsUz7wd7P45F06F4PMJqlsaasr53dSUx2 uDNqZ/zzDTy0rhagap5o6zsHdUGkdo/TpScRG2K/e4gR87+opfuEWVeYvpTnsz4o iLmiICldwhZlTQa+fXihbspRF2fxu/6FyMtErxy0pOjy6r+cvsecKN4LAFr9xT4o OPFk3BWON04= =CLLm -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-43_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-43_all.deb qmail_1.03-43.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-43.diff.gz qmail_1.03-43.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-43.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#406990: qmail: please finish /usr/doc transition
Quoting Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Package: qmail Tags: patch Hi, qmail still creates a /usr/doc symlink. Since 2002, policy has not required these symlinks, and we're waiting for all packages to be updated to remove them before the /usr/share/doc transition can be complete. This package is one of the few packages that still makes the symlink. If your package uses debhelper, you should be able to fix this bug by simply rebuilding the package. If it does not, you should remove the symlink management code from your maintainer scripts. If the symlink creation code was implemented properly before, your package should remove the old symlinks in its postrm when upgraded. If you don't use debhelper (or even if you do), please check that the symlink is gone after upgrade. Please see bug #322762 for some more details. I've attached a patch to accomplish this. Note that the 1.02 upgrading section also contained references to /usr/doc. Since upgrading from 1.02 directly is not supported anymore (that's from 1998) I thought it better to just remove that section. If you need help, or would like an NMU, please say so. By the way, you could take a look at the warnings that lintian emits, I think it indicates more possible improvements for the package. I love quality bug reports with quality patches! Thank you very much, I have applied your patch in full, and you should see the changes in -43. Qmail was removed from testing for an RC bug that I have fixed, and a regression, but I am working on getting that repaired. This release should help in that regard. I have also made a couple more updates that should clear up some of those lintian errors. Thanks again! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#351394: All debconf stuff can probably be cleaned from the qmail package
Quoting Thomas Huriaux [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I don't see any reason to close this bug. If you don't want to fix this issue, please tag it as wontfix. In order to have this bug fixed, I wrote a full patch. Here are my comments on the debconf templates, as the rest just depends on these fixes: The reason to close this bug is that is has been fixed. The problem was that I included information using debconf that didn't need to be there. All of the qmail-src debconf entries did not fit the policy, and have been removed. I am the package maintainer, and I am allowed to make decisions on what information is included and displayed when the package is installed. I have decided that my previous use of debconf has been deprecated, and therefore, I have no further use for debconf. In fact, I have removed all dependency on debconf from qmail-src. I won't close this bug, but I'll move it to the wishlist. The package does not violate the spirit of what debconf was intended for, or any Debian policies, or even interact in any way with debconf. Technically, what you are now asking, is that I add in new debconf support. Thank you for the suggestion, I will add it to the wishlist. If that is not enough to placate you, please feel free to waste more of everyone's time and whine on. Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please unblock qmail-src 1.03-42
I have fixed the RC build bug (#402331) in qmail-src 1.03-42. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-42 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:54:58 -0600 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-42 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 402331 Changes: qmail (1.03-42) unstable; urgency=low . * Attempt #2 at fixing autobuild bug (Closes: #402331) Files: 4ca7967f3170fc090961d37a235df1f7 762 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-42.dsc 78b1a71a4aef9ad6a2232e3c7aa6f3b6 347471 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-42.diff.gz ef4b18eff105c0cfdf496619d18ee2a8 579812 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-42_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRYsSH0S7Zkn0eJstAQK/WQQAh0mLjEKr+5Cmd36fDsG20sdChMoBiIoW NiFwiWMems+mtAXG99566oOlo0wcjrc6LOf/cIGnMLvE9QaSswb2PhSrfVrthfs+ EwZnhV+yTchLm8p+4b4usRMzgJ4Llz2rlWhkM09+UvqgKL8GH5hYh5HiQ6pudm8C r0yTnyqp2qg= =82af -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-42_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-42_all.deb qmail_1.03-42.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-42.diff.gz qmail_1.03-42.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-42.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted ucspi-tcp 0.88-12 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:13:33 -0600 Source: ucspi-tcp Binary: ucspi-tcp-src Architecture: source all Version: 0.88-12 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: ucspi-tcp-src - Source only package for building ucspi-tcp binary package Changes: ucspi-tcp (0.88-12) unstable; urgency=low . * Fix to allow building -src package without building binary package Files: eeecaae61b720cc0c8226a2a72103dbb 654 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp_0.88-12.dsc 9460edcb4e9fdb421a9a2f4d88b874d1 57819 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp_0.88-12.diff.gz fafab741e45ae05fb70b2f2be710f0a8 118172 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-12_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRYsVUUS7Zkn0eJstAQK88wP/WB+NJUg0l1Ck+AI8Icoa49xCz/hFYlRa 4v1FpR4w9Ahr+E1bdQi6o1ien8VfBKFoEcvUUcSYxEhS+7Jjqqia8GMrUtjjSnvc HyxwcWCoyuitPtlMz1rUuNct4Q6EcAa6OXA3PNYop0cgycUeb0vFxfdzKnaZU5ai V9SNcO66NZY= =HJlf -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-12_all.deb to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-12_all.deb ucspi-tcp_0.88-12.diff.gz to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp_0.88-12.diff.gz ucspi-tcp_0.88-12.dsc to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp_0.88-12.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402331: FTBFS: unable to find user alias
Quoting Thomas Huriaux [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (21/12/2006): Quoting Thomas Huriaux [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Note also that once this is fixed, you should update the description of the qmail-src package. I am not exactly sure what pbuilder is doing here, but I don't get the same behavior when executing debian/rules binary to build -*just*- the qmail-src package. If you are trying to build the qmail package as well, you will have to have the users. Period. I am not trying to build the qmail package, I am trying to build the only package listed in debian/control, i.e. the qmail-src package. It still fails. See Steve's answer: The problem seems to be that your debian/rules is misusing the binary-arch and binary-indep targets for purposes other than building the packages listed in debian/control. qmail is not an official Debian package. qmail-src is an official Debian non-free package. I believe that the problem here is that your default invocation of pbuilder is attempting to build both the qmail-src and the qmail packages, which are two separate things. I did find where attempting to build the qmail-src package would require the users, and I have fixed that bug. It appears that you are now reporting the same error, with a different package, that is not part of Debian. Please separate out the two. As far as I can tell, I have fixed the bug in qmail-src. The remaining complaint about the qmail package is moot, as qmail is not part of Debian. Also, I do not see where or why I need to update the description of the qmail-src package. Update what exactly? If you want a change in the description, please file a different bug report. Because If you try apt-get source --build qmail-src it will most likely fail because the users do not exist. You MUST install the qmail-src package first. won't be true anymore once your package is fixed. This seems to be closely related enough to not deserve a new bug. I see what pbuilder is doing now. I wasn't testing it that way ... pbuilder, and dpkg-buildpackage both execute debian/rules build, rather than debian/rules binary. This is the crux of my problem. My debian/rules build command would build the binary package, and the -src package, rather than just the -src package. Look in the archive for -42. It should build now with apt-get source -b, dpkg-buildpackage, and pbuilder. Hopefully this release will put this bug to rest. I have also updated ucspi-tcp-src with a similar fix, just to head you off at the pass ;) I have also updated the control file, as suggested. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402331: FTBFS: unable to find user alias
Quoting Thomas Huriaux [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (21/12/2006): Quoting Thomas Huriaux [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Note also that once this is fixed, you should update the description of the qmail-src package. I am not exactly sure what pbuilder is doing here, but I don't get the same behavior when executing debian/rules binary to build -*just*- the qmail-src package. If you are trying to build the qmail package as well, you will have to have the users. Period. I am not trying to build the qmail package, I am trying to build the only package listed in debian/control, i.e. the qmail-src package. It still fails. See Steve's answer: The problem seems to be that your debian/rules is misusing the binary-arch and binary-indep targets for purposes other than building the packages listed in debian/control. qmail is not an official Debian package. qmail-src is an official Debian non-free package. I believe that the problem here is that your default invocation of pbuilder is attempting to build both the qmail-src and the qmail packages, which are two separate things. I did find where attempting to build the qmail-src package would require the users, and I have fixed that bug. It appears that you are now reporting the same error, with a different package, that is not part of Debian. Please separate out the two. As far as I can tell, I have fixed the bug in qmail-src. The remaining complaint about the qmail package is moot, as qmail is not part of Debian. Also, I do not see where or why I need to update the description of the qmail-src package. Update what exactly? If you want a change in the description, please file a different bug report. Because If you try apt-get source --build qmail-src it will most likely fail because the users do not exist. You MUST install the qmail-src package first. won't be true anymore once your package is fixed. This seems to be closely related enough to not deserve a new bug. I see what pbuilder is doing now. I wasn't testing it that way ... pbuilder, and dpkg-buildpackage both execute debian/rules build, rather than debian/rules binary. This is the crux of my problem. My debian/rules build command would build the binary package, and the -src package, rather than just the -src package. Look in the archive for -42. It should build now with apt-get source -b, dpkg-buildpackage, and pbuilder. Hopefully this release will put this bug to rest. I have also updated ucspi-tcp-src with a similar fix, just to head you off at the pass ;) I have also updated the control file, as suggested. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-41 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:30:32 -0600 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-41 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 402331 Changes: qmail (1.03-41) unstable; urgency=low . * Changed rules file to allow building -src on systems without qmail users (Closes: #402331) Files: c25c54b4677c7facfd5328fc009ec0c9 762 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-41.dsc d51a40b1c98f339758e98fd7285223b0 347368 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-41.diff.gz f12b2026abd2d40bd8b1f7a1a0a87d43 579678 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-41_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRYnPC0S7Zkn0eJstAQIOdgP9HeNWpErc/JWLRPDH3eCfmctxG+8/4aCy hA3nAw+1ww9wLruOAbQE/XmgF9Y8KOsV7EWSVjpuzq2knYGTua1Nli+hKfvIGqTK 5wtUKm2GKZJ/vsYrDuVbfZpoxpDFKOYsVXG3N5ROFjocubgUQgcUg45j2L4rRncl ESOnQKFsYXQ= =+iNC -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-41_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-41_all.deb qmail_1.03-41.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-41.diff.gz qmail_1.03-41.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-41.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402331: Agree with Steve Langasek's analysis.
Quoting Alex Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As others have said there is no need to compile the source when building a source as binary package. Hence there is no need to have depandancies on specific users when building the qmail-src deb from the qmail source deb. There are two ways of solving this... [1] the same way as pine by only having a source deb in the archive. (The difference here is that we would need to build depend on a trivial package which adds the required users in it's postinst) [2] (and more like the package presently tries) the same way as kernel module packages. Here we tar up a debianised source tree into a binary deb with a postinst that adds the required users. For insperation look at some kernel module source packages... eg: qla2x00 from sarge. From memory a different debian/rules is copied into the debianised source tree which ends up in the binary than exists in the source. Currently the issue seems to be that the qmail source deb really wants to build the qmail deb directly and the qmail-src debv seems to have been hacked in to debian/rules. It also seems that the SAME debian/rules is used BOTH the qmail-src deb and the qmail deb. This is in my opinion asking for trouble. See earlier comment about looking a kernel-module source packages for insparation. I hope this analysis helps!?! Alex Owen I worked up a possible fix for the problem, and sent it to Steve, but he hasn't tried it yet. I don't have a system that replicates the behavior, so it always works for me. I believe I found the offending single line of code, and made an updated package. It looks like you're analysis was spot-on. The debian/rules file would build the qmail package in tandem with the -src package. A one-line fix in the debain/rules file makes that unwanted behavior stop. If I don't hear back from Steve in a day or two, I'll just upload it and he can re-open the bug if it isn't fixed. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402331: Agree with Steve Langasek's analysis.
Quoting Alex Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As others have said there is no need to compile the source when building a source as binary package. Hence there is no need to have depandancies on specific users when building the qmail-src deb from the qmail source deb. There are two ways of solving this... [1] the same way as pine by only having a source deb in the archive. (The difference here is that we would need to build depend on a trivial package which adds the required users in it's postinst) [2] (and more like the package presently tries) the same way as kernel module packages. Here we tar up a debianised source tree into a binary deb with a postinst that adds the required users. For insperation look at some kernel module source packages... eg: qla2x00 from sarge. From memory a different debian/rules is copied into the debianised source tree which ends up in the binary than exists in the source. Currently the issue seems to be that the qmail source deb really wants to build the qmail deb directly and the qmail-src debv seems to have been hacked in to debian/rules. It also seems that the SAME debian/rules is used BOTH the qmail-src deb and the qmail deb. This is in my opinion asking for trouble. See earlier comment about looking a kernel-module source packages for insparation. I hope this analysis helps!?! Alex Owen I worked up a possible fix for the problem, and sent it to Steve, but he hasn't tried it yet. I don't have a system that replicates the behavior, so it always works for me. I believe I found the offending single line of code, and made an updated package. It looks like you're analysis was spot-on. The debian/rules file would build the qmail package in tandem with the -src package. A one-line fix in the debain/rules file makes that unwanted behavior stop. If I don't hear back from Steve in a day or two, I'll just upload it and he can re-open the bug if it isn't fixed. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402331: FTBFS: unable to find user alias
Quoting Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I think you are letting your crankiness interfere with your logic. The people arguing that qmail is non-free are a different group than those that have anything to do with funding anything. If you can't adequately maintain the package, say so instead of finding random third parties to explode at. Being unable to maintain qmail strikes me as a good thing, frankly, and nothing to be ashamed of. Actually, to be exactly precise, it was a board decision to remove the qmail users from Debian's default passwd file. I worked with Wichert Akkerman on removing these users, and he is the one who told me the decision came from the board, which funds Debian. I'm not just making this stuff up ... Don't take my word for it, ask Wichert. Also read: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/11/msg01176.html http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/b/base-passwd/base-passwd_3.4.1/changelog Again, I can't force them to add the users back in, and I most definitely can't fix everyone's system. The compromise made YEARS ago was to add a script that will add the users when the qmail-src package is installed to save the user the trouble of doing it themselves. The way qmail works in Debian is a hack. It's ugly, and it's not the most graceful thing, but it works. You both seem like smart guys, and I'm sure you can figure out how to add a user. I'm not the one who wrote qmail such that it requires specific users to be present before you build, hardcoding the uid/gid's into the compiled package, that was DJB. If you install qmail-src, or manually add the users, the package builds fine. If you don't like it, feel free to take it up with DJB, or mark the bug as sent-upstream. From my experience with DJB, you have a snowball's chance in hell at getting as much as an email back from him ... good luck! Debian and Qmail had a rather ugly parting of ways early on in the life of the distribution. At one point in time, all of the official Debian mailsevers were Qmail servers. After the unfortunate ugliness (which was before my time) qmail ended up the non-free red-headed bastard stepchild it is today. It languished for a while, and I ended up taking over the package for Phil Hands and got 1.03 hacked in. I have made 40 releases of qmail since I started managing the package, and take it quite seriously. Your childish comments at the end there made me chuckle. It's very typical of Debian package maintainers, and the #1 reason I stopped reading -private years ago. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402331: FTBFS: unable to find user alias
Quoting Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I think you are letting your crankiness interfere with your logic. The people arguing that qmail is non-free are a different group than those that have anything to do with funding anything. If you can't adequately maintain the package, say so instead of finding random third parties to explode at. Being unable to maintain qmail strikes me as a good thing, frankly, and nothing to be ashamed of. Actually, to be exactly precise, it was a board decision to remove the qmail users from Debian's default passwd file. I worked with Wichert Akkerman on removing these users, and he is the one who told me the decision came from the board, which funds Debian. I'm not just making this stuff up ... Don't take my word for it, ask Wichert. Also read: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/11/msg01176.html http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/b/base-passwd/base-passwd_3.4.1/changelog Again, I can't force them to add the users back in, and I most definitely can't fix everyone's system. The compromise made YEARS ago was to add a script that will add the users when the qmail-src package is installed to save the user the trouble of doing it themselves. The way qmail works in Debian is a hack. It's ugly, and it's not the most graceful thing, but it works. You both seem like smart guys, and I'm sure you can figure out how to add a user. I'm not the one who wrote qmail such that it requires specific users to be present before you build, hardcoding the uid/gid's into the compiled package, that was DJB. If you install qmail-src, or manually add the users, the package builds fine. If you don't like it, feel free to take it up with DJB, or mark the bug as sent-upstream. From my experience with DJB, you have a snowball's chance in hell at getting as much as an email back from him ... good luck! Debian and Qmail had a rather ugly parting of ways early on in the life of the distribution. At one point in time, all of the official Debian mailsevers were Qmail servers. After the unfortunate ugliness (which was before my time) qmail ended up the non-free red-headed bastard stepchild it is today. It languished for a while, and I ended up taking over the package for Phil Hands and got 1.03 hacked in. I have made 40 releases of qmail since I started managing the package, and take it quite seriously. Your childish comments at the end there made me chuckle. It's very typical of Debian package maintainers, and the #1 reason I stopped reading -private years ago. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted ucspi-tcp 0.88-11 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:34:54 -0600 Source: ucspi-tcp Binary: ucspi-tcp-src Architecture: source all Version: 0.88-11 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: ucspi-tcp-src - Source only package for building ucspi-tcp binary package Closes: 402339 Changes: ucspi-tcp (0.88-11) unstable; urgency=low . * Removed information about building to comply with policy 3.9 (Closes: #402339) Files: 2d6dd38c5670ef56a4101341ef5e6229 654 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp_0.88-11.dsc 02ffd567cb04c7a8b8f02040da476b8f 57774 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp_0.88-11.diff.gz 02530c47fa9bb0b3b78e58a313fe7085 118098 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-11_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRX9ZQ0S7Zkn0eJstAQJpeAP/cFD5PhKx2jwVmhvLg63x1eEHmO4vQPov 9B3kSxaly6qa1OJEvhtHJ7mNMUhdq/D0gvZpgF9zQTMK/h+Ya9s/3uV27pfkwLXT wKv+3qmB6Ygtl/ACnhMxwzMNTXd+d6kWf8sNADoxktHtvoXLpbidVMm8aFz2BdQh 4ZYAwQjsVX4= =2gRR -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-11_all.deb to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-11_all.deb ucspi-tcp_0.88-11.diff.gz to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp_0.88-11.diff.gz ucspi-tcp_0.88-11.dsc to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp_0.88-11.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402339: ucspi-tcp-src: Should not stop installation with usage instructions
Quoting Thomas Huriaux [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Package: ucspi-tcp-src Version: 0.88-10 Severity: normal While installing ucspi-tcp-src, my installation stopped with: To build ucspi-tcp binary package, you have to run build-ucspi-tcp Press ENTER to continue... According to policy 3.9, * prompting the user by hand is deprecated * displaying instructions on how to use a program during the installation is inappropriate. Never a dull moment with Debian ... Be watching for an updated release to remove the pause, and offending message. How this will make the distribution better is beyond me ... but I'll do it. Cheers! Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-40 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:40:16 -0500 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-40 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 388952 Changes: qmail (1.03-40) unstable; urgency=low . * Disabled all debconf notes per Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED], and [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Closes: #388952) Files: e8c3c4739dea273adfcc8662eaa90371 764 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-40.dsc cc5029ee75ee67490ef0e8a45619808c 347312 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-40.diff.gz e22d97743f91e14816311f2456b75fb2 579562 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-40_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRRrKkkS7Zkn0eJstAQIbfgP+NifYkkjKDK3oQAyWiSn/txCzFkPhzmUL Smp7yF566+3/WbSs7G0UnmZ9EOSMeHf53cB7/ZQJVjbJ6IA0S1YzG5HtFzqc2d2G xdx8tjZmtLDf/MH6PqAyekN2grfNyPyWTEF1JIgxpPsR6SJE+l+qFz2J0nxO6nje vjEj3/0Kq/U= =Sxxh -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-40_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-40_all.deb qmail_1.03-40.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-40.diff.gz qmail_1.03-40.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-40.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388952: Processed: There has to be an explanation for closing bugs
Quoting Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:02:29 -0500, Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: This bug is being closed as it is not a bug. It was a request from a translator to make a change that I disagree with. As the package maintainer, I am allowed to make that decision. While the person filing the bug may have been a translator, this was discussed on -devel, and a broad concensus reached. This is not a one off request, there is a nascent policy that debconf notes are only meant for critical information all installer must see. Low priority notes vioalte that. This constant harassment over this bug is becoming quite annoying. Then just fix your bloody package, man. I did not see a vote on any policy changes. Policy changes require a vote, and I don't remember any vote. You have not addressed any of the concerns in my last email, most notably the fact that I contend this violates section 4 of the social contract. I'm not fixing the bloody package, man as I do not see it as broken. Don't you people have anything better to do than harass me over something as trivial as the severity of a message in a debconf file? I mean ... honestly ... Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388952: qmail-src: [annoying_notes] Abuse of debconf note(s)
Quoting Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: First of all, thank you, Jon, for giving me more input on the background of your reaction to this bug report. I was actually not asking for more and I regret that we went in this long argument. Please also note that this mail has been initially written before Manoj and Joey mails yesterday. I delayed it because it was not completely finished. I still want to send it in the hope that you'll read it. I personnally consider that we made progress in the dialog, from my POV. The mere act of a mass bug-filing is in effect the first volley in a war against the developers affected. I hate these mass bug filings over something as trivial as the severity of a message. Some people consider this trivial. Some others don't. Long time ago, when debconf was introduced and several maintainers jumped on it for this and that, many users have been complaining about Debian installs being constantly interrupted by long and verbose notes and questions. Only a very long and patient work hand in hand with maintainers has helped improving this and some mass bug filings have been involved. These messages are marked low because they are low priority. They should not be seen by power users, but should be seen by someone who wants to know every little thing. This is why I am annoyed ... That reasoning is perfectly understandable and this is indeed an opinion that some developers share. The majority, however, does not share this opinion and tend to think that notes to users should not be displayed during package installs and do more pertain to documentation like README.Debian. Most part of your reaction seems to come from a bad timing in suggestions you received for your package (first switch to debconf, then switch to po-debconf to allow translationsthen finally some jerk suggesting you that your debconf stuff is useless...:-)) I may understand that and we should take this as the infortunate part of a MBF: sometimes we just come at the wrong moment. Point taken, definitely. However, no MBF is indeed requesting that the issue is ugently fixed. In that specific case, we already know that this is a long-term work and that every maintainer will handle this at his|her own paceand, even, take time to discuss with the bug reporter about the issue and bring more context. Now I get a bug from you complaining that the severity of my messages is too low, forcing you to do more translation work, when it was someone in the user base that specifically asked me to enable such a thing. Actually, the someone (Thomas) who sent the switch to po-debconf suggestion could perfecly have been the same someone who sends you the please remove notes bug report. Thomas does a regular survey of packages using debconf and not po-debconf and systematically reports this to their maintainers (the requirement for po-debconf should become a requirement for etch+1, thus making the issue RC). He usually does not always look closer inside the package code to detect whether the use of debconf fits philosophy of the protocol (in short, not abusing notes). It's this constant power struggle within Debian of enforcing standards over this little thing, that little thing, and everything in-between that slows down our release cycle, and brings attention away from real issues like bugs that -*actually*- affect the usability of the system. Spending time rewriting Well, this is part of the package maintenance. No packaging is perfect and we all slowly improve it by learning this or that specific part we were previously ignoring or misunderstanding. debconf rules because someone decided that they don't like low priority note messages, is in my opinion, a waste of time. Those messages are low for a specific reason: so they can be ignored. If I wanted everyone to have to read them over and over again, I would have marked them with a higher priority. I What I'm explaining you in this bug report is that using a low priority mostly makes the messages invisible to your package users...which is also a waste of your time because you certainly took great care writing them...:-). Hence the suggestion to move this in a more convenient place. I also point, in the BR, that the debconf protocol will quite probably ignore the note type in the future (please get in touch with Joey Hess to get confirmation of this). This would make these notes completely invisible and I'm afraid that the wasted time would be even greater. There aren't that many messages in qmail-src, and if I remember correctly, the number is less than five. You have spent more time and energy arguing with me pointlessly over this crap than it would have taken to translate the miniscule number of messages into several different languages. I am only a native English speaker, and do not want to do any translation myself for fear of
Bug#388952: qmail-src: [annoying_notes] Abuse of debconf note(s)
Quoting Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well .. if notes are going away, that's something entirely different. I looked at the .config file in question, and I have three notes. I have a warning message that is marked as high, a message that tells the user how to actually build the package, which is medium, and I check for the presence of another essential package and display a warning if it is missing. qmail-src/build could either be considered important enough to have its priority raised to high...or could maybe move to README.Debian. Considering that users who install qmail-src probably already know that they will have to do something special to get the qmail binary, I'd probably suggest moving that one to README.Debian The same probably goes for the qmail-src/warning for about the same reasons. qmail-src/ucspitcp could be considered an error and thus use the error template type. Such error templates are recommended to be used in situation where a previous check verifies whether some conditions are fulfilled or not. The reason it was coded that way, was that I read this in the packaging manual at http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/debconf_specification.html: note This template is a note that can be displayed to the user. As opposed to text, it is something important, that the user really should see. If it is not possible to display it, it might be saved to a log file or mailbox for them to see later. In the discussion that lead to the mass bug filing, Joey Hess mentioned that this has been abandoned (at least partlyIIRC debconf only mails critical notes, or so...better ask Joey directly. This tells me that note is exactly what I want to use to display info to the user. This is the entire reason I implemented debconf in the first place, was to display messages to the users. If that is not going to be possible anymore, I will have to switch back to dumping the messages to the console. If I don't include the message that you have to take an additional step to actually build a binary qmail package, most users won't figure it out, don't know where the readme files, and will simply get frustrated and either complain about it or file a bug. Well, your package description is saying: Source only package for building qmail binary package. From my POV, it makes very clear that installing this package will *not* give you a working qmail but you'll have to do some other actions to have it running properly (namely compile it). It is my understanding that users who will install this package will be some kind of power users...at least powered enough to go looking in /usr/share/doc/qmail-src I could change the type to text, which will have no effect on the end users experience, but would remove the evil note. I just need to force the user to see the message, and click OK. I don't really care if it's a note, text, whatever. I just need them to see it, and acknowledge it. That's all. error type could be considered appropriate as an alternative to README.Debian even if we're not exactly speaking about an error I can't promise that noone will criticize this later, thoughprobably with the rationale that wanting to display this information in all cases could be considered as too strong. Unfortunately, you're giving the users far too much credit. I have had to deal with bug reports for issues far more trivial than that. I do, however, run into some bright people every now and then. I'll just go ahead and just remove all the debconf prompts all-together, I'm sick of having to argue about it. If people get pissed off about it, I will direct them to you. Expect a new qmail-src shortly. Will that end this once and for all? Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388952: qmail-src: [annoying_notes] Abuse of debconf note(s)
Quoting Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: user debian-i18n@lists.debian.org usertag 388952 + no-cooperation thanks I could argue my case with you, but I see no point in it. If you have gone through all the trouble to do a massive bug posting against most likely countless hundreds of packages, you will stand your ground and refuse to capitulate no matter how sound my logic, or articulate my debate. Why are you assuming that at least I won't listen to your arguments? Why do I assume so much? As a direct result of your actions. All you do is keep whining that I have not capitulated to your demands without so much as a reason why. I gave you my reason. I disagree with you, and that is all. If this holy jihad continues, I will seek other remedies as afforded by the Debian social contract. I'm afraid that *you* are insulting. Or at least, you want to be insulting. Unfortunately, it seems that your deep ignorance of the exact meaning of the word jihad in the muslim culture prevents you from understanding that I should feel honored by this word. So, indeed, thank you for using it...this is really appreciated. I see what you're trying to do, and I won't take the race bait. Your inner struggle is exactly that ... A struggle with yourself. Get down off your high horse, and think about what you're doing before you do it. Waging war on the rest of the Debian community is not the way to fix a distribution that is already in horrible dis-repair. It is people like you that keep Debian the laughing stock of the open source community. I would indeed be really glad to see what would happen if you choose the other remedies offered by the Social Contract...but, dear, I'm afraid I already know the result and I don't really like when fellow developers feel ridiculous. I'm sure you understand that feeling quite well. Jon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted ucspi-tcp 0.88-10 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:43:31 -0600 Source: ucspi-tcp Binary: ucspi-tcp-src Architecture: source all Version: 0.88-10 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: ucspi-tcp-src - Source only package for building ucspi-tcp binary package Closes: 105610 142736 151550 255707 Changes: ucspi-tcp (0.88-10) unstable; urgency=low . * Added IPV6 Patch (Closes: #151550) * New man pages included with IPV6 patch (Closes: #142736) * Added man pages back into build script (Closes: #105610) * Moved ucspi-tcp-misc programs into ucspi-tcp package (Closes: #255707) Files: c4c15a2caa44304e1c87fa4ceed21c9a 654 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp_0.88-10.dsc c392620176f46a13d1b855a90704356d 57338 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp_0.88-10.diff.gz 954f3e86e8f9e16328ded6c5a52b33ca 117518 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-10_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBQ96Z00S7Zkn0eJstAQLHIAP+IekM522zyhirExpwSWozi2xHo0/FLXEJ FZWptokgaX/M1U8zLANJFIGTk7Ipbj2yyxz6t0EfBepilV5Lzr4mJQDquADiOzrK bEZ9nrbSlWb11hJQUlN+kC21kIQZwumj5wce4Ujhb70H3jvO296lPZu1O6wuvr96 kT6gXXMFSJ8= =tiim -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-10_all.deb to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-10_all.deb ucspi-tcp_0.88-10.diff.gz to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp_0.88-10.diff.gz ucspi-tcp_0.88-10.dsc to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp_0.88-10.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-39 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:29:40 -0500 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-39 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Changes: qmail (1.03-39) unstable; urgency=low . * Added debconf-2.0 dependancy option Files: 45217cc8f20bb8fa24a06cddd903a6d5 762 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-39.dsc e7c1d637fb771a492dbca5f0831e250f 346954 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-39.diff.gz 637a7956a41443d1f8a5c4ffebb6f96d 579586 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-39_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBQzg+1ES7Zkn0eJstAQLdnQP/YlyL3WddVzKnjDSJDQxhOEps4pKS+Fsh alN56cqDmbFu49qvuNoQfCYWAz11cVYZHrj0YnO73rVt9uDPpU7d94MsTodxTR+R RU6j0VGpPFfohizrRUluA2b4mEsgLaZUywYwQo/CbPX33ZJTiI3j36orGUh27BP9 eZNsgpAf3xU= =F25j -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-39_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-39_all.deb qmail_1.03-39.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-39.diff.gz qmail_1.03-39.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-39.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#326415: Please support IPv6 or Advertise lack
Quoting Elliott Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sendmail definitely supports IPv6, and I strongly suspect Postfix does as well. This makes Qmail the unusual one in /not/ supportting IPv6. Given the increasing prevalence of support, I'd suggest either documenting the lack of support or including the Qmail IPv6 patch. IPV6 support is not presently required for MTA's in Debian, regardless of how many other MTA's do support IPV6. I'm marking this as a wishlist bug for further consideration in a future release. Cheers! Jon --- This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#57102: ucspi-tcp-src: This is severe bug, and wrongly categorized as a wish list item
Quoting G A Craig Carey [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Package: ucspi-tcp-src Version: 0.88-9 Followup-For: Bug #57102 After years of having . at the start of the PATH, it eventually one problem can be discovered: the install of just this package fails. I really don't understand how having a broken, insecure PATH configuration is a severe bug with ucspi-tcp-src. With a configuration like that, you've got much bigger problems than ucspi-tcp-src not building. Cheers! Jon --- This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I need qmail-src added back into sarge
I have uploaded a new release of qmail-src that fixes a security bug into unstable. I would like to request that it be added back into sarge. Cheers! Jon --- This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-38 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 11:22:27 -0500 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-38 Distribution: unstable Urgency: high Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 309048 Changes: qmail (1.03-38) unstable; urgency=high . * Added ISO C patch taken from netqmil to fix 64-bit crashes (Closes: #309048) Files: 4dcb475a1b58a866eeefdf26a744772b 736 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-38.dsc 4f40546eba982c91b382eb9286e91027 346923 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-38.diff.gz b0a33b3862ee9b795cde1b3f8d688cc2 579358 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-38_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBQod6WkS7Zkn0eJstAQEISQQAkDyaYFOBilNMrWPeKoebZnez1UndsxKm 2KABJsa1ye4eH23XoqDdiZTl207+5PQLqNEwwwu8tWnvz/uo6enlCjEYITNKkmVA +cNU8Q95tTuVHAXjiM3Qu8lUIy+NQxkGhkdYpF4sQRm+vCPnhRNRxvj1seLbajd7 HnnQ6lgb8/k= =Wiyq -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-38_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-38_all.deb qmail_1.03-38.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-38.diff.gz qmail_1.03-38.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-38.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#309048: several security issues on 64 largemem systems (CAN-2005-1515, CAN-2005-1514, CAN-2005-1513O
Quoting Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Package: qmail-src Severity: important Tags: security Apparently qmail has some security bugs on 64 bit systems with large amounts ( 4 gb) of memory: http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-1515 http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-1514 http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-1513 I looked into this a bit more, and there is no real security concern here. It is possible to get qmail to crash from resource exhaustion, but you can do that to just about anything. The exploit can only manage to -*potentially*- overwrite a single byte. The chances of using this for arbitrary code execution do not exist. There is some heated discussion going on in the qmail lists (read as flamewars) regarding this issue. Apparently, the person who reported this likes to pop up every now and then screaming the sky is falling with some kind of arbitrary security advisory that usually ends up being nothing. He's attacked qmail in a similar fashion before discovering that on a 64-bit system, you can cause qmail-smtpd to segfault by sending a 2GB header. The whole problem revolves around the idea that on some platforms, an integer is 32-bit, while a memory pointer can be 64-bit. QMail was coded such that integers and pointers are interchangable, thus leading to the potential benign crashes. In the qmail list, the general concensus seems to be that using ulimits prevents the crash from happening in the first place. Luckily for me, I am using ulimits in the init.d script for starting qmail. From the init.d script: --snip-- # prevent denial-of-service attacks, with ulimit ulimit -v 16384 --snip-- This limits the amount of memory that qmail-smtpd and tcpserver can use to 16MB. This should be enough to stop any DoS attacks, or potential exploit attempts. I've gone a step further, and included the ISO C patch as well, to add another layer of protection. The only affects from the patch should be to mitigate any exploit not prevented by the ulimits (which can be removed by the sysadmin). The patch is included in -38 which will be uploaded today. Thanks again for the heads up. Cheers! Jon --- This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#309048: several security issues on 64 largemem systems (CAN-2005-1515, CAN-2005-1514, CAN-2005-1513O
Quoting Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Package: qmail-src Severity: important Tags: security Apparently qmail has some security bugs on 64 bit systems with large amounts ( 4 gb) of memory: http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-1515 http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-1514 http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-1513 Thanks for the report Joey. I'll start digging into it immediately. Have you heard/seen any mention of a possible fix/patch? Cheers! Jon --- This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#282932: Other location?
Do you have another location for that patch, or perhaps more information? I've been unable to get to that URL, or find a different patch than the one included. Cheers! Jon --- This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-37 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:54:04 -0600 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-37 Distribution: unstable Urgency: high Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 226753 262906 272072 272806 291437 293484 302677 Changes: qmail (1.03-37) unstable; urgency=high . * Updated qregex patch to 20040725 version * Added Build-Depends line (Closes: #302677) * Added pidfile settings to init file (Closes: #293484) * Applied 0.0.0.0 local patch (Closes: #226753) * Increased default ulimit to 16384 for x86_64 (Closes: #291437) * Applied localtime patch (Closes: #272072) * Fixed bug in qmail-procmail to allow arguments (Closes: #262906) * Updated postrm to remove /etc/qmail/users on purge (Closes: #272806) Files: 4b16f958b330248f74121f0e89654fcb 736 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-37.dsc 53b73e71ac5d0043ae3912311adc3522 343101 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-37.diff.gz 6e1cb3e9f6eaa41cfc933546431cf5e0 575652 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-37_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBQnqaDkS7Zkn0eJstAQH4zQP+IhPWZHdnPo2oPMEeDUriz4nhc4iKFQiv 6yzFYJ3qFxAQAxC+QzS42g3TD3YaWq5OikMXEYkHj/7fISOljh4GTLmSDshn2rF/ 8sGVIZ+mozBKyhIFs7ApXTU6pG9klOdsrifbTh/NoJZEmQzD32NiLZG4y8Bh8N/S 7CuvHhJBjTI= =Kc9N -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-37_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-37_all.deb qmail_1.03-37.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-37.diff.gz qmail_1.03-37.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-37.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#302677: qmail: FTBFS: Missing Build-Depends on 'groff-base' and missing users and groups
Quoting Tomas Hoger [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi! I think it is an FTBFS bug. The following should generally work: apt-get source qmail cd qmail-* dpkg-buildpackage For qmail, this does not work because of the missing Build-Depends on groff-base and because of the missing users/groups. Those are needed to create 'qmail-src'. It should be possible to build the 'qmail-src' package. Yes, you're right. I missed one point: it's also FTBFS for qmail-src, not only for qmail (and caused by qmail). My mistake! Hopefully, someone will be able to upload new version soon. I will be uploading a new version that should keep everyone happy in the next day or so. Cheers! Jon --- This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#302677: Fix for missing build-depends
I am including a fix for the missing build-depends line in the control file. However, I am not changing how the package presently handles creating the users. qmail-src is not in the main package repository. It's in the non-free repository, which, in reality, means it's not officially part of Debian. It's a quick package that, when used properly, allows you to hack some non-free software into your Debian system (tainting it) with a minimal amount of effort. It's not a very well liked package among many with Debian as there is bad blood between Debian and DJB ... not to mention DJB's hostility towards the OSS community in general, and the lack of any kind of offical license for qmail. That said, it's working as designed, and I am taking steps to correct the missing Build-Depends line. I will close the bug out after -37 has been uploaded. Any additional request to change the user/group mechanism will be handled seperately. In all reality, they are two separate issues. Cheers! Jon --- This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#302677: qmail: FTBFS: Missing Build-Depends on 'groff-base' and missing users and groups
Quoting Tomas Hoger [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi! I think it is an FTBFS bug. The following should generally work: apt-get source qmail cd qmail-* dpkg-buildpackage For qmail, this does not work because of the missing Build-Depends on groff-base and because of the missing users/groups. Those are needed to create 'qmail-src'. It should be possible to build the 'qmail-src' package. Yes, you're right. I missed one point: it's also FTBFS for qmail-src, not only for qmail (and caused by qmail). My mistake! Hopefully, someone will be able to upload new version soon. I will be uploading a new version that should keep everyone happy in the next day or so. Cheers! Jon --- This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#302677: Fix for missing build-depends
I am including a fix for the missing build-depends line in the control file. However, I am not changing how the package presently handles creating the users. qmail-src is not in the main package repository. It's in the non-free repository, which, in reality, means it's not officially part of Debian. It's a quick package that, when used properly, allows you to hack some non-free software into your Debian system (tainting it) with a minimal amount of effort. It's not a very well liked package among many with Debian as there is bad blood between Debian and DJB ... not to mention DJB's hostility towards the OSS community in general, and the lack of any kind of offical license for qmail. That said, it's working as designed, and I am taking steps to correct the missing Build-Depends line. I will close the bug out after -37 has been uploaded. Any additional request to change the user/group mechanism will be handled seperately. In all reality, they are two separate issues. Cheers! Jon --- This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#296309: ITP: qmail-ldap-src - Qmail 1.03 with LDAP patch
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist I currently maintain the qmail-src package. I would like to fork qmail-src into qmail-ldap-src as a separate package to handle Debian users who wish to use the qmail-ldap patch from André Oppermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have had several users ask for a version of qmail that works well with the LDAP patch. I think the best way to accomplish this is through a separate package. --- This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#296308: ITP: qmail-ldap-src - Qmail 1.03 with LDAP patch
Package: wnppp Severity: wishlist I currently maintain the qmail-src package. I would like to fork qmail-src into qmail-ldap-src as a separate package to handle Debian users who wish to use the qmail-ldap patch from André Oppermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have had several users ask for a version of qmail that works well with the LDAP patch. I think the best way to accomplish this is through a separate package. --- This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#296309: ITP: qmail-ldap-src - Qmail 1.03 with LDAP patch
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist I currently maintain the qmail-src package. I would like to fork qmail-src into qmail-ldap-src as a separate package to handle Debian users who wish to use the qmail-ldap patch from André Oppermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have had several users ask for a version of qmail that works well with the LDAP patch. I think the best way to accomplish this is through a separate package. --- This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#293328: Fwd: Bug#293328: qmail-src: use tcpsvd instead of tcpserver
I received the following wishlist bug today, and really like the idea. My thoughts are to change the dependancies to allow ipsvd to be used in place of ucspi-tcp and ucspi-tcp-src. I'll need to do some magic to get the init.d file to work properly, but I can just make that a build-time debconf option, or add some intelligence into the build script. I'll probably want to add a build-dependancy on ipsvd or ucspi-tcp as well to ensure that the intelligence works properly. Can you think of any other things that I may need to consider? I don't want to do a complete daemontools packaging, just a drop-in-replacement of ucspi-tcp. Cheers! Jon - Forwarded message from Bastian Kleineidam [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:26:10 +0100 From: Bastian Kleineidam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Bastian Kleineidam [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bug#293328: qmail-src: use tcpsvd instead of tcpserver To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: qmail-src Version: 1.03-36 Severity: wishlist Hi, the tcpsvd program is a free drop-in replacement for tcpserver. It would be nice to use it (located in the ipsvd package) instead of having to install and compile ucspi-tcp from the -src package. Regards, Bastian -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (900, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-treasure3 Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15) Versions of packages qmail-src depends on: ii debconf 1.4.42 Debian configuration management sy ii dpkg-dev 1.10.26Package building tools for Debian ii fakeroot 1.2.4 Gives a fake root environment ii gcc 4:3.3.5-1 The GNU C compiler ii groff-base1.18.1.1-6 GNU troff text-formatting system ( ii make 3.80-9 The GNU version of the make util ii patch 2.5.9-2Apply a diff file to an original ii sudo 1.6.8p5-1 Provide limited super user privile -- debconf information: * qmail-src/ucspitcp: * qmail-src/warning: * qmail-src/build: - End forwarded message - --- This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-35 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:15:19 -0500 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-35 Distribution: unstable Urgency: high Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 272164 272248 272797 272804 Changes: qmail (1.03-35) unstable; urgency=high . * Fixed debconf errors (Closes: #272248, #272164, #272797, #272804) * Added testing to release list Files: 15465a715bd944ffad24d0fb0c4af30d 628 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-35.dsc b09f598e478c14d19b9315f00f318596 284568 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-35.diff.gz c0048d26aa6a28bb0c5e633363001d08 516910 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-35_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBQY+yw0S7Zkn0eJstAQEF0AP/XOwC+/YaPKJYK/lTbvjQdqXLeu7+NZpC s05JqC/3KnloagS1nAiYFNZrxz8/cGcNgeiG/RKHF8/bnQg/HIpmDxeOUbA0ZxI7 rAQtHRxCioyNtltzFwwXW0+eXxIdb59shzQnIuAX4nyxDMpLig7dAWH2cvP//i05 iKgmbhrEsw4= =4JRW -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-35_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-35_all.deb qmail_1.03-35.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-35.diff.gz qmail_1.03-35.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-35.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-34 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:50:39 -0500 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-34 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 271118 Changes: qmail (1.03-34) unstable; urgency=low . * Moved logcheck ignore file to docs directory (Closes: #271118) * File is already included in logcheck-database which seems more logical Files: 8a1426279298ca1b2793fc73179d4c03 628 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-34.dsc 4207e3818a50f1d0d87c798def2f831d 284194 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-34.diff.gz 7e8fb38f365301d46136f9fb3a7dcac2 516492 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-34_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBQUWM40S7Zkn0eJstAQGZlgQAyOtlT4cIBzKy8iQfZydBBc8sRas1k4Bn fDMs4qAeWlXfnwE09GM6mfHnYknz8ngJMHHIIWqlicT/CtbwO84lWEbgtscw2xIW NF9zL+toMMDO0jEll/Jh2cMxKjxSe6ttkzCpX7d6rmeabEm/uYy4vYezypSlItAx KqWDxs12nsk= =nItA -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-34_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-34_all.deb qmail_1.03-34.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-34.diff.gz qmail_1.03-34.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-34.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-33 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:36:51 -0500 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-33 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 266010 266143 269119 Changes: qmail (1.03-33) unstable; urgency=low . * Added -R -H to example POP3 server call (Closes: #269119) * Added sample logcheck ignore files (Closes: #266143) * Fixed hang bug in postinst (Closes: #266010) Files: 4eff9c7499adcf699dd2b45a6cb8fa49 628 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-33.dsc 43e78c12833780a570d8feedb2918e1f 284109 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-33.diff.gz 7edf65d12dc650a97b0b4b6a31da3ddd 516368 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-33_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBQTT0i0S7Zkn0eJstAQEFlwP/RY7atUiylFWODb3AVpqcsWqjK5X9cPNX /KOoNI/pxAbAC9TmFhGiWJZEdJt0tOCwg0GWahZ4/MrmQb0XTqx2RKMyitKXND5t yrxIWcqRsEkWjOO8FTxgsvpVAdEryKH7Xx0VbHEPbNLufgx9Gjr1/8Mg9zT7nlYN FT5IBEspQjE= =2b/l -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-33_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-33_all.deb qmail_1.03-33.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-33.diff.gz qmail_1.03-33.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-33.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-32 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:24:49 -0500 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-32 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 246408 246574 Changes: qmail (1.03-32) unstable; urgency=low . * Initial debconf implementation - Please file bug reports for questions i missed * Removed reference to bmtpatch. (Closes: #246574) * Leaving bmtpatch in -src pacakge as many users still use it * Applied latest qregex patch (Closes: #246408) Files: 0ee3154b9d40cf59a966c3b6f0bc0e95 628 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-32.dsc 855086c768f2dd5f2bc3dac50add456a 283851 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-32.diff.gz 4179620c261aa5aec863c570670bb48c 516068 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-32_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBQRqYPkS7Zkn0eJstAQHUOgP/YU5WT5Crz9rXbWfKQ1vxdPu0Zqp6GuHd IC2YIr4Kx60iovsdTOHgBT/VLyVBR5vn8RuxC1Wv3FMhRwJylpPv5SnrkLEF+FkU pc4skMEdM8Q1W9NlWqUofvl6JJvSThMiRRJfMsMDiqQ70UwwqFpdmQuUq1Yx4Y36 ITJw/FUzWtQ= =sCAj -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-32_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-32_all.deb qmail_1.03-32.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-32.diff.gz qmail_1.03-32.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-32.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Keep non-free
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 01:48:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I propose that the Debian project resolve that: == Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, we reaffirm our commitment to providing the contrib and non-free areas in our archive for packaged versions of such software, and to providing the use of our infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) to help with the maintenance of non-free software packages. == seconded. -- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773. WARNING: This message is double ROT-13 encrypted. Any attempt to decrypt its contents is a violation of the US DMCA. pgpuap5ANaYqe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Accepted qmail 1.03-31 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:03:08 -0600 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-31 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 233015 Changes: qmail (1.03-31) unstable; urgency=low . * Added dependancy on perl-modules (Closes: #233015) Files: 2a475d5ab6bdffe76c7dc8940bbc595a 628 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-31.dsc 42201fb087db0055584ddc3c3bffbd7c 275991 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-31.diff.gz f9b55230bc9b58b5e1cd6d828ad91b01 507770 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-31_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBQDJnjkS7Zkn0eJstAQGuRgP/RfLXGf3K1FMMRdloXldUjpz9I4JYoasT hSoSBnnSe7ATgqPMCWyVN/NO26ShXNoy3iJ3waOuXcet49T0rJhKUBbv67Z2tteM nUpTtnxGZSFt2ZIONxlPuM1VIULBJ6/2E02DqwesxUxN5TdUcUfIXIPWL2d4il9w 8A2glPDn0gY= =dHoc -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-31_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-31_all.deb qmail_1.03-31.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-31.diff.gz qmail_1.03-31.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-31.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-30 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:57:18 -0600 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-30 Distribution: unstable Urgency: high Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Changes: qmail (1.03-30) unstable; urgency=high . * Added patch from Scott Gifford to correct qmail-smtpd crash Files: c150f1d5f70a8d7c900dfb22566c0448 628 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-30.dsc 7ca271a8c2677449409de3b0d1b04d12 275937 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-30.diff.gz 0b3814de097783a853c844575b3f15f1 507694 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-30_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBQA1sm0S7Zkn0eJstAQHJ2gQAvoFx/WKiVldXBm7xzRWKXICR7oj5kPJo apwnPAeDTlhhidBNQ0AcwpWP+W2PP1H6iWRwZsuu0uQ1rwJNb8Y6Xafh8+Ce0wHQ k4NRWqD491s4DHOUpD4d+HJMJebe165ZrMb0uMBy35MqGek5oGc/ivvQJKE/z+3U gJywuQgV5rU= =qvCM -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-30_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-30_all.deb qmail_1.03-30.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-30.diff.gz qmail_1.03-30.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-30.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted ucspi-tcp 0.88-9 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:28:04 -0600 Source: ucspi-tcp Binary: ucspi-tcp-src Architecture: source all Version: 0.88-9 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: ucspi-tcp-src - Source only package for building ucspi-tcp binary package Changes: ucspi-tcp (0.88-9) unstable; urgency=low . * Added patch to increase logging for rblsmtpd from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Files: bbb3e6da5927c8edec93ab3f6caffa6a 639 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp_0.88-9.dsc c19efb0ce2f3e415f501bafab514350c 8328 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp_0.88-9.diff.gz cc6305a65d7ab25db4019bdd62531a2c 68338 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-9_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBP/CPKUS7Zkn0eJstAQGAswQAtJ1rkLKaMWpJpaPcvufkNAbsat64HmH2 ica/HyfPml+ak5VUcQvvjY+MiOFsQgi0csqJ/tIeRe9VYbCtqWumFlZFU1bEuUul P/BWDZVBrVlIiXQ95QT3PNUJJ1biW6OZGPJr7dcf6ecCeT7fXL9izrPFf0NQuUmf Helna3PCd+g= =09md -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-9_all.deb to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-9_all.deb ucspi-tcp_0.88-9.diff.gz to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp_0.88-9.diff.gz ucspi-tcp_0.88-9.dsc to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp_0.88-9.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-installer status report
Quoting Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]: We're not doing so well on ports. There has been some activity on the ia64 and hppa ports since beta 1, and I hope to see one or both included in beta 2, but both need more testing. Of course powerpc continues to be supported. The mips port more or less works if you know what you're doing, and is on track to be included in beta 2. But there has been only some activity on sparc, mipsel, alpha, m69k (amiga), and s390; and little or progress on hppa, arm, various m68k subarches, and many less common powerpc subarches; and many of these architectures are nowhere near working. I would be willing to help with the sparc port. I have a sparc lx, sparc 5, and ultra 5 in my house that are doing nothing. I would be more than happy to help out in testing the sparc ports of d-i. If there are other people working on the sparc ports, please feel free to get in touch with me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have subscribed to debian-boot, and will get started this weekend. Cheers! Jon - This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-29 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:13:33 -0600 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-29 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 95353 213415 215152 218564 219872 219872 Changes: qmail (1.03-29) unstable; urgency=low . * Added patch to resolve new glibc errors (Closes: #218564, #219872) * Added patch to fix errno declaration errors (Closes: #219872) * Remove strict barewords from preinst (Closes: #215152) * Fixed minor type in build-qmail (Closes: #213415) * Added patch to make qmail-local behave better (Closes: #95353) Files: cae30d03e1323dfe5a1c04fc3769ddbf 628 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-29.dsc 22ce02d28e654ba76560a614ec0f0b49 275566 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-29.diff.gz c34c81e549d6412e71f65a8843bc1fea 507196 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-29_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBP7QSRUS7Zkn0eJstAQH+nQQAtdBDW7vtjlY7g1QVWC7e5qS/OAuEPx2I ffJ1Ao7WlnwyUQWnqGc8lgkPhpdyere0EcInGoSeAr4kj+6+J5bhK0vqkjaYBGyj s+IZSxgZXl5xCEJnSLihszpxAvikVg2MKuhDCjfqwWT83krkK+AuKy3vFD76Clp9 5uEc/arCTSI= =bS1Q -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-29_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-29_all.deb qmail_1.03-29.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-29.diff.gz qmail_1.03-29.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-29.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-28 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:48:34 -0500 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-28 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 179637 181021 187452 192116 Changes: qmail (1.03-28) unstable; urgency=low . * Fixed logging in init to handle rblsmtpd (Closes: #192116) * Added ability to override qmail installation check (Closes: #187452) * Changed groff dependancy to groff-base (Closes: #181021) * Removed rm -rf /etc/qmail command in postrm (Closes: #179637) * Added list of pre-applied patches in build script before binary build Files: f9b60d071a664ace663d26ee3ac7d64d 627 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-28.dsc 3596ab797db9b8d4c931a743f0e32dad 66118 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-28.diff.gz dc63cf91f98cc435f0913e04dedefafd 297608 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-28_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBP3NrlUS7Zkn0eJstAQHhSgP/dhXP8zxSSN/9tcZLEY/l26hu44y81Z3F 0JGfeF++AhIoUieAtGdyuv1ZsbXJXcquhsonQxzN0zZbQu2VfWArGCEXfdc6u0sX fpWBsSKiSNJC0q/PDYWqEljlzr7tqARfOZeAulPMjU9pjhsGnIpHcUuW6ehbzKcU P1jkVroSnWw= =EXfv -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-28_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-28_all.deb qmail_1.03-28.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-28.diff.gz qmail_1.03-28.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-28.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-27 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 16:16:41 -0600 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-27 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 179831 Changes: qmail (1.03-27) unstable; urgency=low . * Added stat to usage list (Closes: #179831) Files: 1982f375ca2d7f1ee06ef736611cf91a 627 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-27.dsc 9b46c9f2963c6db87a58507d207e1049 65545 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-27.diff.gz f69941a3ba8fe919e63ca2a0483e4739 296578 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-27_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBPkA8OES7Zkn0eJstAQFnOwP/ZLtZ72CTAnaSSAtrG1a+/4YaVA6jTWr+ I9pr22ndvHt8YIfzr1jX1yoo4Eeq4buKCtswSi5TGMgD3jlrHFtsUV8KYm76QBvw V88DiD9XkSOzVwU0aElVVjBfphOy5FXt5kGotzIgrdpaNRMMfIV34B+o5gVPNggI wqtcCRVphTM= =K+hN -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-27_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-27_all.deb qmail_1.03-27.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-27.diff.gz qmail_1.03-27.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-27.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qmail 1.03-26 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:56:19 -0600 Source: qmail Binary: qmail-src Architecture: source all Version: 1.03-26 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qmail-src - Source only package for building qmail binary package Closes: 179609 Changes: qmail (1.03-26) unstable; urgency=low . * Added -isp flag to dpkg-gencontrol (Closes: #179609) * Removed emacs settings from changelog Files: 45c87f3b2c858093f5b74e10112b62d2 627 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-26.dsc c851c0d09c5551d30996facc4dfad6d9 65511 non-free/mail extra qmail_1.03-26.diff.gz 063fbf771ab5e05625ba326beca7a99c 296532 non-free/mail extra qmail-src_1.03-26_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBPj6R1kS7Zkn0eJstAQHutAQAil9ksazKz/o9OwDzeY3bAENDdSuvKMpW T09Ekqw94gn1UqfmLXF2AkPOwFhb+ksZq4In0YjqAK7zfcSSdqmqbftjss2sGuWV NbrSE1yj9pd4XaZJd0ZlIUXJexv4UmMsOldRHfpLYMPBxgSaxRlRQxAjI1D9wzv7 NfIfKZFA9pA= =1r4i -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qmail-src_1.03-26_all.deb to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail-src_1.03-26_all.deb qmail_1.03-26.diff.gz to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-26.diff.gz qmail_1.03-26.dsc to pool/non-free/q/qmail/qmail_1.03-26.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted ucspi-tcp 0.88-8 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:57:27 -0600 Source: ucspi-tcp Binary: ucspi-tcp-src Architecture: source all Version: 0.88-8 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jon Marler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: ucspi-tcp-src - Source only package for building ucspi-tcp binary package Changes: ucspi-tcp (0.88-8) unstable; urgency=low . * Added -isp to dpkg-gencontrol Files: cf602b9c44b47bcf8b58e042a691d7b6 639 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp_0.88-8.dsc 242fd03fa6be42d013c8b11522377f18 7714 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp_0.88-8.diff.gz f093523f2b96c33049d93ca277c1dbf4 67686 non-free/net optional ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-8_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBPj6SSES7Zkn0eJstAQFDoQP/XBB9CHICMDimRKC8VSUNPf0JH9GcLcYp KZxtz7P8jK4telZRelUBR+IA2BDN+lr47lJbSckkmsBfdatQvK44Dr7hDGkNr43p XQnbMuJ6fU/U21fNGwO5FWHZiOtD+YpB4dQ5FzfsaEZEVMuP0IbWOVeGiDM08NTi 9naTeJFT0zQ= =460q -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-8_all.deb to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp-src_0.88-8_all.deb ucspi-tcp_0.88-8.diff.gz to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp_0.88-8.diff.gz ucspi-tcp_0.88-8.dsc to pool/non-free/u/ucspi-tcp/ucspi-tcp_0.88-8.dsc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recent DJB package GLibC problems
Quoting Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Eh? You don't understand the issue correctly. If you use errno.h (which is hopefully the fix you're talking about) then it will behave correctly; old glibc, new glibc, whatever. The change may be backed down for compatibility reasons, if we can get it to work (dubious) but that's no excuse for not doing it the right way. I agree that it should be fixed the right way. Once I can confirm that changing the QMail source will fix the problem, and not introduce any other bugs, I'll make the change and upload. I just didn't want to jump in too soon and make the wrong fix. If this was affecting stable, I would be more inclined to make a quicker change. Cheers! Jon - This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recent DJB package GLibC problems
To all users of the official QMail and Ucspi-tcp Debian source packages: I am aware of the recent libc6 problems, and appreciate your bug reports and input. I am currently analyzing what the best course of action to take is. I am worried that if I make a quick patch to the DJB packages, that libc6 may be changed again, breaking the DJB packages again, which would require the change to be backed out. I will most likely be using the patch provided by: Jurriaan [EMAIL PROTECTED] to fix both packages, once I have confirmed that the libc6 change is permanent. Is anyone able to confirm if this recent libc6 change will be permanent? If so, as of which Debian package release was this change made permanent? (So I can correctly change the Depends: entry for the DJB source packages.) I have asked Garrit Pape, the maintainer of the un-official packages, what his thoughts are as well. Bugs in reference: 174005 - Ucspi-tcp-src 174045 - Qmail-src If anyone has any questions, please let me know. Cheers! Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com
Re: Recent DJB package GLibC problems
Quoting Daniel Jacobowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Eh? You don't understand the issue correctly. If you use errno.h (which is hopefully the fix you're talking about) then it will behave correctly; old glibc, new glibc, whatever. The change may be backed down for compatibility reasons, if we can get it to work (dubious) but that's no excuse for not doing it the right way. I agree that it should be fixed the right way. Once I can confirm that changing the QMail source will fix the problem, and not introduce any other bugs, I'll make the change and upload. I just didn't want to jump in too soon and make the wrong fix. If this was affecting stable, I would be more inclined to make a quicker change. Cheers! Jon - This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail.com
Re: Compaq Smart array and DAC960 support on potato boot floppies -- your help needed
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Marc A. Donges wrote: On Sunday, January 30, 2000 at 22:41:36 (-0700), Randolph Chung wrote: [...] There have been several requests to support these popular RAID devices for potato boot floppies. Unfortunately, none of the current boot floppies developers have easy access to these systems to test on. If you have such a system, please help us test boot floppies to ensure that they will work. Current boot floppy snapshots are at http://lully.debian.org/~aph/bf-2.2.5-i386/ [...] Hi! I recently obtained a Compaq Proliant 2000, which has a Smart Array Controller built-in. I tested the boot floppies 2.2.4 and noted that they did not support the controller, so I was going to find out how to build my own boot-floppies, now luckily you already cared about it! I will test the boot-floppy snapshots you mentioned next friday, when I'm back home. I will then report any problems that I encounter. I hacked together a slink boot floppy that has the Compaq Smart Array drivers and the correct device files in /dev. The biggest problem that I had was that I had to manually partition, format, and mount the partitions on the array. Apparently dbootstrap did not recognize the array devices as devices that could be mounted and installed upon. I would be happy to dd them (rescue and driver) up and send them to anyone in a pinch that needs them. Once I got the system installed, it has worked flawlessly (knocking on wood here). Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Need help w/ netatalk papd
I have some Mac (the horror) users that are printing to papd through Appletalk and everything works great ... except one thing ... The print jobs stay in the queue and I have to do a lpc start all to get them to come out. When reading the papd documentation, it states: papd spools jobs directly into an lpd(8) spool directory and wakes up lpd after accepting a job from the network to have it re-examine the appropriate spool directory. The actual printing and spooling is handled entirely by lpd. Could the problem be that papd is not properly waking up lpd after the job is spooled? I am running this on a i386 Debian/GNU Linux potato box. Has anyone successfully done this before? Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
