On Saturday 12 November 2005 05:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
To be more specific: I don't believe that the fact that software A
is being packaged with Debians tools is a derived work of said
tools,
Hmm. What about software bits of the package (maintainer
scripts, added utilities,
On Friday 11 November 2005 06:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:07:33PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
[0] Presuming the FSF's claims about dynamic linking hold up in this
case, anyway.
I consider a Debian-derived distribution a derived work of the contained
Debian
On Friday 11 November 2005 21:19, George Danchev wrote:
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 00:53, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:50:01PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
Here's the 2nd part of the answer:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is, are you going to pursue a legal
On Friday 11 November 2005 19:36, Erast Benson wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 06:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
Let's consider this dpkg binary from the GNU/Solaris LiveCD, which I have
loop
mounted:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/gnusolaris/livecd-mnt/usr/bin$ ./dpkg
bash: ./dpkg: No such file or
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 05:18, Anthony Towns wrote:
For those playing along at home, the CDDL isn't GPL compatible, and
OpenSolaris's libc is CDDL'ed -- so anything GPLed can't link to libc
since that would violate 3(a) [0]. The reason GPL'ed software is okay
for regular Solaris is the
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:48, Erast Benson wrote:
www.gnusolaris.org is *the same place*.
Oh, I expected some tar-ball to be linked from the same place as the ISOs
(i.e. the Downloads page) not some point-and-click SVN-webinterface.
this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 17:17, Erast Benson wrote:
OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has
everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our
modifications for every package we are using.
We are preparing cron job, so, will update them every
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 20:29, Erast Benson wrote:
For example, I have found
http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt/dists/elatte-unstable/main/binary-solaris-i
386/base/apt_0.6.40.1-1.1_solaris-i386.deb which seems to be installed on
the ISO image, but no corresponding source package under
that other components on the CD are Free Software too. Therefore I again
request you kindly to make the sources to the used libraries[4] available to
me.
Regards, David Schmitt
[1] http://www.gnusolaris.org/elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz,
md5sum:17b70141a1c4a3d877af5271b1caf920
[2] See /usr
On Monday 07 November 2005 21:29, John Hasler wrote:
David Schmitt writes:
I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your
website and found a dpkg binary on it.
Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary,
despite it being obviously under
Dear Alex!
On Monday 07 November 2005 21:58, Alex Ross wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
David Schmitt writes:
I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your
website and found a dpkg binary on it.
Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary
Dear Erast!
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:01, Erast Benson wrote:
Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and libgcc_s.so.1,
which must be provided under terms no more restrictive than GPL
sections one and two.
On Friday 06 May 2005 02:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
[ thanks for this summary ]
Given the above, the relevant questions would seem to be:
If a binary package is built by a third party from unmodified Debian
sources, should its Maintainer field be kept the same as the source
package, or
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 23:21, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Thomas Hood dijo [Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:19AM +0200]:
I have been looking at the lsb init functions and am beginning to feel
that they are a bad idea.
It will be a hard time converting to them, but in the end I think it
will be a net
[since my comments are post-sarge, I dropped -release]
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 04:33, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Anyway, that would be a solution local to the KDE metapackages (though
I believe other sets of metapackages are doing it like that), but it's
certainly suboptimal.
I've
On Friday 01 April 2005 02:12, Scott James Remnant wrote:
I was initially thinking along these lines myself
http://www.dpkg.org/NewSourceFormat, however I'm now starting to lean
towards not allowing arbitrary shell to just open up a source package;
it doesn't feel safe enough.
I also don't
[Cc:s trimmed. Probably should go to -dpkg]
On Friday 01 April 2005 02:12, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 11:37 +0200, David Schmitt wrote:
To prepare the sourcecode for inspection and/or minor modifications an
additional argument for debian/rules would fit well
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 19:00, ERNRDT PODLUVKY wrote:
PLEASE UNSUBSUBSCRIBE ME AS OF TODAY---THANK YOU
Please read and follow the instructions on
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg01444.html
Regards, David
--
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott
On Monday 28 March 2005 00:04, Eduard Bloch wrote:
I suggest debian/README.Debian.Maintainers as the filename.
Hmm .. Following from README to README.Debian, wouldn't AUTHORS.Debian make
more sense?
Also, often this list is already present in debian/copyright (packaged
by ...)
Regards,
On Saturday 26 March 2005 20:25, David Nusinow wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 03:59:49PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:02PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Do you have any arguments for this that do *not* basically
On Thursday 24 March 2005 00:09, Petri Latvala wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 07:35:35PM +0100, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : Name [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.example.org/
* License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)
On Thursday 24 March 2005 14:37, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
[analysis skipped]
I'm not sure what to do now. Is it possible to link our wxgtk2.4 against
glib2.0? Or unlink libsdl from using libglib?
I found the cause:
libSDL.so from libsdl1.2debian-all links against glib2.0 (and much other
On Tuesday 22 March 2005 08:22, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
No. There needs to be some override procedure like we have for
maintainers not doing their job. But that's
On Monday 21 March 2005 02:19, Kyle McMartin wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 08:20:40PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
kernel-latest-2.6-hppa 2.6.8-1
source hppa unstable
1 month Kyle McMartin
debian-kernel managed kernel-image tracker packages seem to be called
kernel-image-$ver
On Sunday 20 March 2005 12:08, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:40:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
On Friday 18 March 2005 13:26, Sven Luther wrote:
And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted.
Vapourware. I believe that for most packages
On Friday 18 March 2005 07:27, Karsten Merker wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
m68k, mips, mipsel, hppa: I've got one in the basement, and I like
to brag that I run Debian on it; also I occassionally get some work out
of it, but it'd be trivial to
On Friday 18 March 2005 11:35, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
Porters who have worked on getting an arch to REGUALR status are in a
much better position (demonstrated commitment, technical aptness and
experiencewise) to solve those problems than random-joe-developer.
I have no idea what
On Friday 18 March 2005 13:26, Sven Luther wrote:
And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted.
Vapourware. I believe that for most packages it is quite easy to see why they
are not allowed into unstable. Compile this list+reasons so that everyone who
is interested in
On Thursday 17 March 2005 02:59, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
That's for sure but I want to be able to do automatic upgrades for the
simple cases. And at least help the admin by dumping the directory
before starting the upgrade and taking care of the old database files in
case he decides to
On Thursday 17 March 2005 01:19, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, David Schmitt wrote:
Collecting tidbits of
information concerning the various packages rotting in NEW and making
that information public.
A list of packages-in-NEW is available on the Web, including binary
package names, bugs
On Thursday 17 March 2005 00:21, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:51:16PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
libraries transitioned is a big point against testing:
Transitions of API-compatible libraries are a pain _only_ due to
testing. In unstable, such a transition can easily be done
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 20:12, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What would really win, of course, is Architecture: !hurd-i386. But
negative declarations are currently not yet supported. They should
be.
Research the problem (especially on
http://lists.debian.org/debian-{dpkg,release}/, but also
On Thursday 17 March 2005 20:22, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[very sensible suggestions removed]
Any problems with that?
Not with the procedure in itself. I just want to chip in, that it is (not
only) my opinion, that a REGULAR Debian release cannot allow delaying
security updates and there
On Thursday 17 March 2005 22:09, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10231 March 1977, David Schmitt wrote:
Collecting tidbits of
information concerning the various packages rotting in NEW and making
that information public.
A list of packages-in-NEW is available on the Web, including binary
On Thursday 17 March 2005 07:31, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
Don't even bother bringing up redundant fiber. It may be, if it hasn't
been regroomed, and twenty plus years of network administrators have
learned the hard way that the gun is ALWAYS loaded. The best you can hope
for is a misfire.
Debian is
On Thursday 17 March 2005 23:06, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:15:50PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
To know in how many packages to split or not to split the packages ?
That would be one of the things that maintainers have gotten wrong in the
past, yes.
Would it be possible
On Thursday 17 March 2005 23:44, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:22:04PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 20:55]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
If that happens for a too long period, we
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 20:10, Greg Folkert wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 00:58 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
This isn't being used to measure the use of the architecture; it's being
used to measure the *download frequency* for the architecture, which is
precisely the criterion that should
On Monday 14 March 2005 05:45, Steve Langasek wrote:
Further plans for etch
--
[...]
Meanwhile, much of the release team's energy will be focused on
coordinating the many major changes that are sure to hit the archive
shortly after sarge's release. We already know of a
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 13:55, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op wo, 16-03-2005 te 12:09 +1000, schreef Anthony Towns:
The reason for the N = {1,2} requirement is so that the buildds can be
maintained by Debian, which means that they can be promptly fixed for
system-wide problems, and which
Hi Martin, *!
I spent a lot of my time reading the list in the last few days. The following
is a short summary of the the answers I observed on d-devel in the last days.
I'll amend that with observation I made in the last years from the sidelines
as a interested non-DD.
Thank you for
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 19:14, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote:
As far as a NEW-review team, when I raised this about a week ago, aj said
that you'd effectively be ftpmasters, so why not be an ftpmaster?
Umm, no. I presume ftpmaster has other duties. Besides, eyeballing
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 18:12, Adrian Bunk wrote:
I already sent two mails [1,2] where I expressed my opinion that dumping
testing might be an option since it's the main reason for the underlying
problems that seem to cause the proposed removal of two third of the
Debian architectures from
On Monday 14 March 2005 22:30, Bdale Garbee wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Schmitt) writes:
On Monday 14 March 2005 11:10, Rene Engelhard wrote:
pcc is barely at 98%. I don't think that barrier should be that high. We
*should* at last release with the tree most important archs: i386
On Monday 14 March 2005 19:36, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, as long as the discussion is on dropping from the mirror network,
yes, you may be right, but the proposal is to drop from stable/testing
altogether, isn't it ?
Quoting from the Nybbles proposal:
[...] the list of release candidate
On Monday 14 March 2005 19:38, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:17:08PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
Both are currently happening. The current release and security teams
say that they cannot support the tier-2 arches for etch. The porters jump
up and prove them wrong by creating
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 07:49, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have eternal security support for m68k
(or whatever compiles the kernel most slowly), but if I don't get that
choice, given late or never I'll happily take the former.
Then read the Nybbles proposal as a
On Monday 14 March 2005 19:25, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I think the only criteria m68k fails are the 2 buildds have to
suffice to keep up with etch and the 10% download shares.
The second criterion is only for the mirror network, not for tier-1. Please
read the Nybbles proposal again:
the
On Monday 14 March 2005 22:58, Christian Kurz wrote:
On [14/03/05 19:05], David Schmitt wrote:
They do so now. Are you (all) prepared to take up the call?
Pardon, but where do you see any public e-Mail from any of the the
people doing release, ftpmaster, etc. asking for help? I've yet so see
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 10:41, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:21:59AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
that aren't being kept in sync. First,
On Monday 14 March 2005 20:24, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
If it weren't for sarge blocking us we would have submitted multiarch
patches as early as one year ago. Should we start submitting / NMUing
them for _experimental_ now to get this change running and tested? Or
should we keep waiting
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:02, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:21:39 -0500, Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So far as I can tell, the governing rule in Debian thus far has always
been that the people doing the work get to make the decisions about
their corner of the project.
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 11:10, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
towards making Debian, and the ftpmasters are doing a decent chop of
things too.
Sure, and I won't say the contrary. But having a great infrastructure
(which is the case) and great people doing
On Monday 14 March 2005 16:23, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Basically, you're just leaving a number of Debian users out in the
cold. Users who choose Debian because we were the only distribution
out of there to provide serious support
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:18, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:12:29AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:54:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It is not unstable that I am (most) worried about.
It is the lack of any possibility of a stable release that
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 03:09, Anthony Towns wrote:
Soon everyone loves you, and you get a huge userbase, and hit 10% of
i386+amd64 downloads or five times powerpc's current userbase or so, and
say I wanna be on ftp.d.o!! Then you get moved across over a month or
so, and become a tier-1 arch.
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:08, Frank Küster wrote:
(exactly because of arches like s390 who
should be able to reach tier-1 easily, but really have no reason to be on
the mirror network).
But it does *not* say that s390 is likely to be among the released
architectures. And I do not
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:57, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This really makes unstable snapshotting, or building stable once it's
released as Anthony has also suggested in this thread, look like much
better options than trying to build out of testing.
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 14:34, Julien BLACHE wrote:
David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, and I won't say the contrary. But having a great infrastructure
(which is the case) and great people doing good work is of no help in
making Debian if you haven't got any packages. We have some
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 02:02, John Goerzen wrote:
Simply making a snapshot -- or posting a set of .debs -- does not make
Debian stable. See #2, for instance.
See below, please.
2) Provides no way for such a stable release to be integrated into the
security build system;
That's
On Monday 14 March 2005 21:35, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Looking just at the ones I reported:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=submitterdata=brederlo%
40informatik.uni-tuebingen.dearchive=no
#249397: FTBFS: amd64 missing in Architecture list
Package: mga-vid; Severity:
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 17:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:57, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This really makes unstable snapshotting, or building stable once it's
released as Anthony
On Monday 14 March 2005 22:37, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 20:45 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
are not going to be left out in the cold.
I disagree. I feel that maintainers are going to ignore the SCC
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 06:20, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Another architecure that isn't keeping up to the 98% mark has a buildd
mainainter who insists (to the point of threating) that I don't build
and upload packages to help the build with its
On Monday 14 March 2005 11:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
In this case, it was a bug that required human intervention, a package
upload that accidentally would hose a chroot, which required the
chroot to be repaired for each affected buildd.
Even that can be mitigated by debootstrapping the
On Monday 14 March 2005 11:10, Rene Engelhard wrote:
pcc is barely at 98%. I don't think that barrier should be that high. We
*should* at last release with the tree most important archs: i386, amd64,
powerpc.
Please, 98% is not high. It is just a call to porters to get their act
together.
I
On Monday 14 March 2005 12:21, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
[...]
but in fact this is already a decission being
made by just a handful of people without asking those who will be affected
by that decision.
I always thought those who do the work, also get to make the decisions.
Regards, David
--
On Monday 14 March 2005 11:00, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:14:47AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
that aren't being kept in sync. First, if they're not being kept in
sync, it increases the number of
On Monday 14 March 2005 11:05, Sven Luther wrote:
Andreas Schuldei (DPL candidate)
Angus Lees (DPL candidate)
Branden Robinson (DPL candidate)
Jonathan Walther (DPL candidate)
[...]
And how do you reconcile the fact that most of those told us recently on
debian-vote
On Monday 14 March 2005 10:56, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
I think that supporting a lot of architectures is an important
difference between Debian and other distributions. Changing that could
have a dramatically influence of what users think of Debian. IMHO, such
an important decision should not be
On Monday 14 March 2005 12:05, Robert Lemmen wrote:
- there must be a way for a scc arch to get a stable release. why don't
we either keep testing for scc archs but not do releases, so the
porters can do their own stable releases of their arch or have
per-arch testing? (the latter might
On Monday 14 March 2005 15:31, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 01:45]:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Our goal is that the queue gets empty from time to time, and so,
On Monday 14 March 2005 14:29, Sven Luther wrote:
Obviously the aim is to have the tier 2
arches dropped from the main ftp-servers of debian (do we still run some of
those on sun-donated sparc machines though ?), and going into alternate
solutions like the amd64 move on alioth or whatever,
On Monday 14 March 2005 14:24, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
Hamish Moffatt a écrit :
I see it as more a practical consideration. If you can't buy the
hardware new then you will have trouble keeping up with a growing
unstable, especially given the requirement that you need = 2 buildds.
So the
On Monday 14 March 2005 16:27, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
If I had to think of a rationale for it, the only one I could think of
would be the architecture needs to be fast enough not to block security
updates.
This is not the only one. Taking days to build some packages also leads to
shlibs-skew
On Monday 14 March 2005 14:50, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Lots of people on arm, for a start. Debian is (to my knowledge) the
only common distro that supports arm, so there are _lots_ of people
out there running embedded machines using bits from Debian. Look at
the emdebian project. Of course, most
[Sven, pPlease teach you and your mutt the use of reply-to-list]
On Monday 14 March 2005 14:06, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:02:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
[...]
No, you didn't understand.
You are right.
let's tell the plan again :
1) people upload to unstable
On Monday 14 March 2005 14:06, Sven Luther wrote:
My answer is that I don't care enough for tow out of 15 boxes for the
hassle, I will update them to sarge, be grateful for the gracetime given
and - iff nobody steps up to do the necessary porting and security work -
donate them to Debian
On Monday 14 March 2005 18:11, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Speaking of the mirror network is a red-herring. Mirrors are not
forced to distribute every arch; they can and should eliminate archs
they aren't interested in distributing.
They are.
On Monday 14 March 2005 18:37, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This point is *not* about supported architectures, only about
architectures carried by the primary mirror network. We did consider
having a single set of requirements for both release
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:39, Frank Küster wrote:
David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On Monday 14 March 2005 16:27, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Not when the alternate choice is to not have Debian support $ARCH at
all.
Please cite where this was proposed. I read the original Nybbles
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:31, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
Frank Küster a écrit :
- First of all, we should take the details as a starting point for
discussion, not as a decision that has made. Nevertheless, we must
take into account that there are reasons for it: The people doing the
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:16, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support of
testing requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support (security
response time). Therefore the N=2
On Monday 14 March 2005 12:45, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 12:38 +0100, schreef David Schmitt:
On Monday 14 March 2005 11:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
In this case, it was a bug that required human intervention, a package
upload that accidentally would hose a chroot
On Monday 14 March 2005 19:18, David Nusinow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
current security team. Without that, vulnerabilities notifications won't
be available.
Why can't
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 01:42, David Härdeman wrote:
So the revocation could even be stored in cleartext on the usb key,
unless I'm mistaken?
Depending on the strength of the crypto/passphrase protecting your key, this
could lead at least to a DOS if the revocation is publicised without
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 15:20, Javier Fernndez-Sanguino Pea wrote:
- Basic system accounting (implement in sysstat)
- Basic logfile reporting (implemented through logcheck)
- Basic security checks (implemented through checksecurity and Tiger)
- Integrity file monitoring (through
[Please don't confuse my procmail with Cc's]
[http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct]
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 16:16, sean finney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:00:49PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
Why {c,sh}ouldn't they be implemented as cron.daily scripts in the
respective
On Monday 28 February 2005 01:51, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote:
[snip]
figuring the average email is about 13-15k, i believe an ext2/ext3
That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir) archive of d-u, the
average size is 4,959 bytes. Of course, there
On Saturday 26 February 2005 08:45, sean finney wrote:
so i'm thinking these two packages should be generated from their own
respective tarballs (and i'm not sure why they weren't in the first
place). however, one thing that's not clear to me is whether or not the
new second source package
On Friday 25 February 2005 18:43, Frank Küster wrote:
in order to test whether packages that build-depend on tetex can still
be built with the upcoming version 3.0, I would like to automatically
build as many of these packages.
Take a look at pbuilder. There are people recompiling the whole of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:24:09 +0100
Source: xmule
Binary: xmule
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.9.5-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi Kev, list!
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 08:27, Kevin Mark wrote:
after my initial work on a diagram, and the comments and the work of
madduck, I had some time to redo my diagram to produce a totally new
concept. any comment appreciated.
Really nice and clean. Great to see such fundamental
On Sunday 13 February 2005 18:47, Bastian Blank wrote:
I currently try to get gfs and the cluster infrastructure into a usable
state. One of the problems are the runlevel and sequence point settings
for each step.
Take a look at the NFS packages, while I'd venture that PCMCIA NICs are
On Friday 11 February 2005 18:50, Ricardo Mones wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:36:04 +0100
Enrico Zini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And a question: where do we collect this kind of tips?
Create a debian-tips package :)
Like fortunes-debian-hints?
Description: Debian Hints for fortune
This
On Wednesday 02 February 2005 10:21, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
On Tuesday 01 February 2005 21.49, Raphael Bossek wrote:
Message was signed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Key ID: 0x376941AB835EB2FF).
Warning: The signature is bad.
Something's broken somewhere...
Can anybody confirm so I can stop
On Sunday 30 January 2005 19:50, A L BRIGGS wrote:
Please remove my service to Callwave .
Hi!
Please take a look at the instructions at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg01444.html
Thanks, David Schmitt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Tuesday 25 January 2005 04:51, Sam Watkins wrote:
Dosage / mainline has a feature to download all supported comics, so it
is quite possible for someone (perhaps a child) to stumble across this
one by accident, as I did. Probably nearly everyone who tries dosage
will want to see the range
On Friday 21 January 2005 11:03, Marc Haber wrote:
This prompts a question I have been wanting to ask for ages: When a
security update for, say, libc6, libssl or libz is installed, do I
need to restart services or not? That's one of the question you ask
three people and get five different
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:04:22PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
As a practical matter, what if the Debian gcc team decide to release
etch with gcc 3.3 because 3.4 break ABI on some platforms and gcc-4.x is
not stable enough on all the platforms ? Will LCC follow ? If not, how
are we going to
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
