concerns on how we handle this
going forward.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 05:44:25PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 07 octobre 2005 à 14:33 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
We're already doing it for libpng, as no one else seemed interested in
properly version the symbols. There haven't been any issues reported so
far
,
What alternative solutions do you propose for the problems that led up to
it being included?
I can't actually see anything in the bug log to indicate that
localhost.localdomain *does* solve any of the issues that were raised.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough
to the appropriate
section in the Debian policy or some other document?
No, because it's not standard at all. There are plenty of libraries in
Debian with sover 0 that *are* stable.
The right answer is, if binary compatibility isn't going to be provided,
don't ship a shared library.
--
Steve Langasek
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 03:35:40PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
There aren't that many good reasons for having one cert per service
anyway,
Preserving isolated security contexts for each service without having to
make the private key readable to all local users?
--
Steve Langasek
[Let's please keep this discussion on debian-devel, as debian-release is not
a discussion list, and not exactly widely followed either]
On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 10:28:33AM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
NMU policy
~~
After lots of experimentation with NMU
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 10:33:04AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
It's easy to understand why people are opposed to too-frequent NMUs. They
don't want to be seen as bad maintainers for having too many NMUs on their
packages; they worry about new bugs being introduced
, but
Joey include a Version: pseudo-header[2].
What is the preferred way of closing bugs that are not bugs
(e.g. mistake by the submitter)?
Closing without a version header retains the traditional semantics of
marking the bug closed in all versions.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
, or a sourceful upload of php4/5 that requires a rebuild on
all archs.
So depending on when you think you'll upload curl again, I need to decide
whether it's quicker to do a new sourceful upload of php4 and php5, or wait
for this transition package.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 10:28:55AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- don't NMU for feature requests (i.e., wishlist bugs) without the
maintainer's prior approval
Shouldn't NMU's without the maintainers approval be restricted to RC and
maybe important
test whether putting this in common-session works right
for all services?
This seems like an opportune time for someone to write a config interface
for /etc/pam.d/common-*, so that we have a generally useful means of
enabling other PAM modules as well.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
.
Your message would seem less confrontational if you would deign to explain
*why* Linux-specific kernel features are important in a ping implementation.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 11:44:45PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Oct 21, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your message would seem less confrontational if you would deign to explain
*why* Linux-specific kernel features are important in a ping implementation.
Because features like ping
addresses whose
postings should be automatically accepted.
The From: address of mails sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or to
bugs.debian.org is not going to match a short list. You need automatically
accept by header regex, or something like it.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long
], or it shouldn't have
been closed.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
[1] with the exception, currently
currently have in unstable, but I imagine
we'd need to move to the new version.
- --
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 12:18:27PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
Steve == Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 03:20:08PM -0400, Sam Hartman
Steve wrote:
Does the krb524 functionality disappear from the KDC if you
turn off krb4?
Steve
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 08:13:12AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:23:24 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Steve Langasek]
This seems like an opportune time for someone to write a config
interface for /etc/pam.d/common-*, so that we have a generally
.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 11:50:11PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 05:14:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 09:41:15AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
Brian == Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Along similar lines, if a have a closes: #nnn in my
need to be requeued now that the
tetex-bin bug is fixed and uploaded on both of those archs.
These have been given back for building, thanks.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world
when using flatfile /etc/passwd. Neither of these is particularly relevant
for system accounts, but if adduser gained support for something like this I
don't see any reason for system accounts to *not* use it.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian
. Well,
thank God no one uses pam_pwdb anymore, at least...
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
would have thought to block gcc-4.0 from being uploaded anyway,
so the mess would be the same, but with more busy work for the release
team...
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world
for binNMUs.
- --
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux
. If there are
detached symbol files that aren't working, that bug must lie elsewhere.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http
://www.erisian.com.au/market/.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 02:30:56PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Steve Langasek a écrit :
source packages that need to be updated! As a result, the release
team asks that the maintainers refrain from uploads of these packages for
any reason without coordination with the release team, until
policy is that if a package
is RC-buggy, it's a candidate for removal from testing at any time. We
would like to get notices to maintainers set up, but in the majority of
cases the presence of an RC bug on the package is already ample notice.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 09:27:06AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, it's a bug in dpkg-dev, which should know how to set ${Source-Version}
correctly for binNMUs.
It can't really know, can it? If I have a control file with
Package: foo
anyway. We're only talking about keeping old binary packages around which
are no longer available from the new source package, which is precisely the
case that is at issue with library transitions.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
. It doesn't
mean that a broken Recommends: is not a bug.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/10/msg00646.html ff.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org
* say is that kernels are only exempted from being considered
part of the GPL definition of source code for a work *if* the GPLed work is
not distributed together with the kernel.
- --
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
of people who
apparently have failed to read the last clause of the definition they quote
at me? That hardly seems worthwhile.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED
standpoint because it imposes conditions on users use of the code which
other Free Software licenses do not. I don't see any incentive at all for
Debian, as an organization dedicated to Free Software, to try to sort out
this issue.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough
be happy to give
you any info I can; though tbh, if I understood this part of the system very
well, I probably would have written a patch myself already. ;)
Cheers,
- --
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can
files
located within the directory, which is unavoidable without moving to
per-uid session directories by default (which then doesn't meet the needs of
sites that share session files across security contexts).
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:20:06PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
We're only talking about keeping old binary packages around which
are no longer available from the new source package, which is precisely the
case that is at issue with library transitions.
Ahhh. I
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:40:07PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
For the record: there currently is not a 0-day NMU policy in effect. There
was a 0-day NMU policy through the sarge release, and there are 0-day NMU
policies during BSPs
debian-kernel@lists.debian.org)
libast_0.6-0pre2003010606.1.tar.gz (Laurence J. Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED])
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED
,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 10:13:25AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:20:45AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Second, thanks to some enhancements Ryan Murray has recently made to
buildd/wanna-build, it is now possible for the release team to
request automated buildd
be releasing binaries either.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
it depends or pre-depends on debconf.
So I would say that such a pre-dependency is safe, unless anyone else sees
a problem?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED
packages, either; and as the MIT
Kerberos version doesn't seem to have any RC bugs at present regarding the
status of its Kerberos 4 support, there doesn't seem to be any reason to cut
it before upstream does.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian
.
Looks like confusion on the part of those scripts.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
recompiling.
If anything has to be recompiled which *doesn't* depend on
libgssapi1-heimdal, then that's a bug that needs to be fixed in heimdal
first...
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world
packages made the upgrade path more difficult than it
should have been...
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org
.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
fixed. Since there are only 17 source packages
total, I expect to be done by the end of the weekend.
If you object to this plan, please speak up now.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
[1] http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html
[2] http://bugs.debian.org
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 08:17:18PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2005-01-28 sean finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 04:36:05PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 05:03:26AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
Over the past six months
aptitude?
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
for responding to
LWN interview questions
(all times UTC-0800)
I hope you'll be somewhat forgiving of the people involved for the
unfortunate case of timing at work here.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:57:25PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:36:47 -0800, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, sparc is not in any danger of being dropped from SCC. :) As I
said, none of the current sarge candidate architectures are.
Considered that ftbfs bugs
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:59:21PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Considered that ftbfs bugs for scc architectures are not going to be
RC any more,
Right, they'll be important instead of serious, the traditional severity
for FTBFS on non-RC archs
Somewhere else
has been proposed, given that keeping
release architectures in sync is the only thing we have that guarantees
the sources in testing (and therefore in stable) are in a releasable
state for each of those architectures.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description
to be a viable port, a year from now when
we're trying to release etch; and nothing says that one or more of the
other ports won't be in a position to meet those criteria and get added
to the release list.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:38:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The inclusion of ia64 in the release count is a projection, based on
where I believe things are today. Nothing the release team is doing
ensures that ia64 is going to be a viable
that alpha would fail this requirement by the time etch was released,
but it seems that's not the case after all. Color me pleasantly
surprised as an alpha aficionado, but all the same I don't actually run
stable on my alpha right now, so it doesn't directly affect me either.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:32:57AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:23:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:21:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 10:47:15PM -0800, Thomas
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:39:24AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
To be eligible for inclusion in the archive at all, even in the
(unstable-only) SCC archive, ftpmasters have specified the following
architecture requirements
Hi Aurélien,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
Steve Langasek a écrit :
The much larger consequence of this meeting, however, has been the
crafting of a prospective release plan for etch. The release team and
the ftpmasters are mutually agreed
trying to run a full
testing infrastructure, or build against testing instead of unstable, is
unlikely to be a good solution for those porters in practice because of
some of the issues that I've pointed out.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:57:27AM +, 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
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:28:15PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 16:09 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
You do know that m68k is the only architecture still carrying around
2.*2* kernels in sarge?
False. See sparc32.
$ madison -a sparc -s testing -r 'kernel.*2\.2
able
to keep up.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:54:24AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would add as for the core set architecture:
- there must be a developer-accessible debian.org machine for the
architecture.
This gets a little tricky for non-RC architectures
in the official
testing, regardless of bug counts.
In that case, what value is there in using it as the basis for a stable
release?
For that matter, why is it necessary to follow testing on an ongoing basis,
instead of just building against everything in stable once it's released?
--
Steve Langasek
without any warning?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi Alastair,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:30:58PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
* Steve Langasek
| If you are planning any other transitions that will affect a lot of
| packages, please let us know in advance. We will need to complete the
| larger transitions as fast as possible, to get
up?
The partial answer I was given for this was to wait and see how well
ftp-master scales once connection caching is in place, before committing to
giving porters free reign to plug new autobuilders into the network.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital
and
only have to carry one version of this core library for etch.
IIRC, a slang transition directly or indirectly affects D-I, am I
right?
Yes, it does.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi Roland,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:04:45PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
Steve Langasek, 2005-03-13 20:45:09 -0800 :
It's also not clear how much benefit there is from doing stable
releases for all of these architectures, because they aren't
necessarily useful to the communities surrounding
in en_US were
idiot politicians, and they *did* pronounce the initial h.
For that matter, I can't recall ever hearing anyone drop an initial h just
because the syllable was unstressed.
On what do you base this claim of most?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description
problems which may crop up.
The BTS would also need an architecture flag in order to apply RC bugs
only to the testing migration of the affected architectures.
I understand architecture flags shouldn't be a problem; but performance of
archive tools could be.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern
to whether or not
it's a release arch, except that all FCC architectures will be release
architectures.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:37:11PM +, 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
sake, but that's about it, AFAICT.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
much source passes through unstable each
day, and how big a ccache would have to be to be useful on a buildd...
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
be
collected. As a matter of fact, I just started one[3].
Feel free to incorporate the above answers into that page; as noted before,
I don't think a wiki is a very effective tool for ongoing discussions.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:19:15PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 00:10 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
Well, my objection is basically the same as Thomas's here -- all package
builds are *not* equally urgent,
Of course not, that is exactly my point.
But from the POV
by building on the big three -- i386, powerpc,
amd64. If we know the software isn't going to be used, is it actually
useful to build it as a QA measure? What value is there, in fact, in
checking for bugs that will only be tripped while building software that
isn't going to be used?
--
Steve
architectures to build all of the packages? I think this
is a very pertinent question, and perhaps this discussion will lead us to an
understanding of whether, and for which architectures, we should be asking
for this.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital
as such.
If you're going to use the upload bug-closing convenience feature, use it
right -- your changelog should have something relevant to say about the bug,
which is *not*, in this case, New upstream version.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital
multiple buildd maintainers makes it hard to avoid stepping on one
another's feet, so I wouldn't want to set a requirement like this without
further discussion. Having multiple *local* admins, OTOH, follows from
having geographic separation of the machines.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:47:42PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:59:43PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
AFAI can tell, anybody can host an archive of packages built from
stable
sources
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:37:05PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Steve Langasek wrote:
This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc.
This is at odds with what I've heard from some buildd maintainers that
having multiple buildd maintainers makes it hard to avoid
circumstances or something of
that sort. Right?
Or do you realy want to remove i386 from the release if it fails 0
needs-build 10 times before etch release?
Andreas never said anything about this being the criterion for RC
architectures. He said it should be a *goal*.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern
architecture as a
result of one of the above-mentioned failure scenarios that you haven't
mitigated.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
lpr-ppd, or asking for someone on this list to act
to remove lpr-ppd from testing? To get this package removed from the
archive, you will need to file a bug against ftp.debian.org.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
/msg00213.html
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
immediately dropping Sparc from consideration as a
release arch.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 05:46:44PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 03:50]:
On Mar 18, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
and ports.debian.org
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2005-03-15 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
[...]
- there should be at least 2N buildd admins for this architecture. A lot
of problems with buildds
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:35:28AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:43:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
the more or less aspect of the urgency is relevant here. We
obviously have a system for classifying the severity of bugs in
packages, and it's possible to relate
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:10:51AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- While neither of the above concerns is overriding on its own (the
ftpmasters have obviously allowed these ports to persist on
ftp-master.debian.org, and they will be released
), which is something I don't think we'd
want.
The whole point of SCC was to go without mirrors.
*No*, the point is to not require all mirrors to carry all ports.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
901 - 1000 of 3869 matches
Mail list logo
