reassign
Package: wu-ftpd
Version: 2.4-13
The attached message shows wu-ftpd producing unnecessary output during
cron.monthly.
Ian.
--- start of forwarded message (RFC 934 encapsulation) ---
Return-Path: root
Received: by chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk
id m0tAX23-0002YUC
(Debian /\oo/\
David Engel writes (Re: ELF conversion (was Re: 1.0 issues: FSSTND compliance
preparation for a.out abolishment)):
2. Secondly, we arrange that all the new base packages have code in
the preinst that checks for the existence of the ELF libraries
(perhaps by running /usr/bin/elf-available
Juho A. Vuori writes (Bug#1785: Default font.):
Package: kbd
Version: 0.90-3
This is not an actual bug, but in my opinion, it's not wise to have
default8x16 as the default font in /etc/rc.boot/console. Shouldn't it
rather be iso01.f16 in unix world?
As I have reported several times before,
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 13:16 GMT
From: Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ian Murdock writes (Re: Release management and package announcements):
Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0?
If so, I'd agree that this is what we should do (and what I'll do
if we
From: Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ian Murdock writes (Re: Release management and package announcements):
Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0?
If so, I'd agree that this is what we should do (and what I'll do
if we all think this is the best
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Engel)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 14:14:27 -0600 (CST)
Some people have suggested that the stuff in /lib be moved to
/lib/a.out or similar. This shouldn't be necessary as the ELF
stuff that goes in here should coexist.
Ah, yes. Of course. libc.so.4
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Somehow the FTP site maintainer's programs also need to know which
section (subdirectory) the files should go in. I suggest that this
information be provided by the `overrides' file on the FTP site, which
is already used by the npdpkg
- Transcript of session follows -
550 ac.netg.se... User unknown
Hi Andres,
Found a little typo in the description.
PACKAGE: bison
MAINTAINER: Anders Chrigstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VERSION: A2.5
PACKAGE_REVISION: 0
Diff original description and corrected
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
`Depends' lines won't stop you replacing an earlier version of a
package whose dependencies were satisfied with a newer one shose
dependencies aren't.
This is necessary so that you can install or upgrade your system in
any order. However, what we need
Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill Mitchell pointed out that if we use totally 100% un-modified
extra-virgin upstream sources, debian-driven updates to debian source
packages become much smaller, since we're just changing the delta. [...]
You're giving me credit for thinking further
Also, I get the impression (since you mentioned you have permission to
include things on your CD-ROMs that other vendors do not) you have had
more experience with dealing with authors who have distribution
restrictions --- do you think distributing original source as separate
files might have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The DELTA file is described by Bruce as containing patch input. I'm
thinking it'd be better to have it contain a script to debianize the
sources. The patch input itself (and perhaps multiple patch inputs
for the multiple upstream sources) could be contained
Should I physically copy everything from debian-0.93 to debian-1.0, or
should I use symbolic links when possible to save disk space? I know
it isn't a problem on ftp.debian.org, but it might create problems for
the mirrors.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
it might create problems for the mirrors.
I think that while it is in its current state, 1.0 should not be where
mirrors will find it unless they are explicitly looking for it. That
means put it under private/project or something. We can have a few designated
mirror sites
However, more directly to the point of moving elfward, I like Ian's
suggestion about a elf-available(8) test during preinst of elf-dependent
(elfish?) packages. It seems clean, simple, and effective to me.
Perhaps, but just for this one, single, isolated case.
I think you are focusing too
Package: latex2rtf
Version: 1.1-0
This command line:
latex2rtf file.tex file.rtf
yields this error message:
latex2rtf: ERROR: cannot open file 'fonts.cfg'
even when fonts.cfg is in the right place:
bash# ls -l /usr/lib/latex2rtf
total 8
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3491 Nov 1 14:23
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Bill Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
However, more directly to the point of moving elfward, I like Ian's
suggestion about a elf-available(8) test during preinst of elf-dependent
(elfish?) packages. It seems clean, simple, and effective to me.
And if the
Michael E Deisher writes:
Michael On Wed, 1 Nov 95 12:30 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael said:
Michael Strange. It installs fine on my system. Anyway, I'll upload a
Michael new, fixed package soon.
I bet you still have an X11 release from the pre-virtual-package-name area.
Here I
In the reasonably near future fvwm version 2 will be released (ie,
within the next few weeks, I am told).
fvwm 2 has a radically different ~/.fvwmrc format, such that everyone
will need to modify theirs before being able to even use fvwm2.
The fvwm2 distribution will come with a shell script
Package: dosemu
Version: 0.60.3-0
Hi Dirk,
I hope you don't mind me entering your comments (and my additional
comments) as another debian bug report. Hopefully, documenting these
problems will prevent a lot of redundant bug reports.
On Wed, 1 Nov 95 16:14 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi Mike
On Wed, 1 Nov 95 16:25 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I bet you still have an X11 release from the
pre-virtual-package-name area. Here I get
Time to upgrade X on my machine.
For xlockmore, I have written Depends: xbaseR6 | X11R6 so that it
can cope with both settings.
Good idea.
--Mike
Bill Mitchell writes (Re: Release management and package announcements):
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Somehow the FTP site maintainer's programs also need to know which
section (subdirectory) the files should go in. I suggest that this
information be provided by the
David Engel writes:
This elf-available bit is too klugy for me. Why can't we just use
dpkg's standard dependency checking? Isn't that what it's there for?
`Depends' lines won't stop you replacing an earlier version of a
package whose dependencies were satisfied with a newer one
Package: dosemu
Version: 0.60.3-0
Michael E Deisher writes, replying to a private mail of mine
Michael I hope you don't mind me entering your comments (and my additional
Michael comments) as another debian bug report.
Maybe we should have kept it private for an iteration or two to keep
J. H. M. Dassen writes:
[Ian Jackson writes:]
7. Unpacking a source package should not require one to execute parts
of it (ie, source packages should contain only data, not code used
during the extraction). This is important for security reasons.
If you don't trust the packaging parts,
Agreed. I don't think the location should be decided by individual
package maintainers, though they will be free to suggest a location.
The Section field from the control file can be used for this.
If the SECTION field is not going to reliably contain the section name
where
I just looked around a bit on my box via dpkg -l and saw that I had
archie, xarchieR6
dvips, dvipsk
fvwm, fvwmR6
ghostview, ghostviewR6
xdvi, xdvik
xpm, xpmR6
installed. That is really quite some avoidable clutter.
Not that I am in favour of
I moved these first few parts to the beginning to get them out of the
way since they're really side issues.
I suppose this explains why
dpkg doesn't squawk at me when I temporarily downgrade ld.so for
testing when I know the elf-* packages explciitly require a
semi-current version.
I
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 22:05 GMT
From: Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce Perens writes (Re: debian-1.0 ):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
it might create problems for the mirrors.
I think that while it is in its current state, 1.0 should not be where
mirrors will find it
30 matches
Mail list logo
