Re: /var/run and scripts

[Gunnar Wolf]

Pierre THIERRY dijo [Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 03:25:18AM +0200]:
> > If not where should it be?
> 
> What about /usr/local/ or /var/opt/? The former seems
> to be the best one, to me...

/usr should be mountable read-only... I would go for /var/opt or -if it
is a disposable script- /tmp or /var/tmp (of course, excercising enough
care) 

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5630-9700 ext. 1366
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


pgpISXYIOOxwL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

hi我发垃圾

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

a

Re: /var/run and scripts

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 11:31:28AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 11:25, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> > > If not where should it be?

> > What about /usr/local/ or /var/opt/? The former seems
> > to be the best one, to me...

> /usr/local is not good for files that will be created automatically from 
> programs that are part of a package, it should be reserved for files created 
> by the administrator.

> /var/opt sounds reasonable.

The /var/opt directory corresponds to /opt, and is not available for
Debian package use.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgppLdvU877iy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: /var/run and scripts

[Russell Coker]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 11:25, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> > If not where should it be?
>
> What about /usr/local/ or /var/opt/? The former seems
> to be the best one, to me...

/usr/local is not good for files that will be created automatically from 
programs that are part of a package, it should be reserved for files created 
by the administrator.

/var/opt sounds reasonable.

-- 
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page

WARNING! Virus detected

[its-help]

This message was created automatically by virus scanning software (Exiscan).

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

  [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
VIRUS FOUND IN MESSAGE

This message has been scanned by virus scanning
software and found to contain a known virus.

Information generated by the virus scanning software (including the name of
virus detected):

 -=--= START OF SCANNER OUTPUT =-=-
 /var/exim/exiscan/checkqueue/19uMO6-0001kS-00-complete/movie0045.pif
 Found the W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] virus !!!
 
 -=---= END OF SCANNER OUTPUT =--=-
 

The message has been deleted.  Please contact <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
if you have any queries.

IMPORTANT: some viruses (in particular, Klez) use fake 'From' addresses,
from the infected machine's address book, and so this message may not have
been sent by you.  While your machine may be clean, the infected person
probably has you in their address book, so may have tried to send you a
virus, or at least had contact with you - you should check your machine's
anti-virus software is up-to-date.

-- Some information about the message. -

From: 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Wicked screensaver


-- 
Message generated by exiscan at The University of Reading

Bug#208463: ITP: tla-load-dirs -- Import upstream archives into tla/arch

[John Goerzen]

Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-09-02
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: tla-load-dirs
  Version : 1.0.0
  Upstream Author : John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://arch.complete.org/
* License : GPL
  Description : Import upstream archives into tla/arch

 Tom Lord's arch/tla system is capable of importing upstream directories
 into a tla archive for some archives,  For situations where the upstream
 renames or moves files and directories on a regular basis, version
 information can be lost.
 .
 tla-load-dirs works with tla to import these things and preserve
 changes.  It works on a principle similar to Subversion's
 svn_load_dirs.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux heinrich 2.4.21-ac1 #1 Wed Jun 18 08:39:11 CDT 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_US

Re: /var/run and scripts

[Pierre THIERRY]

> If not where should it be?

What about /usr/local/ or /var/opt/? The former seems
to be the best one, to me...

Quickly,
le Moine Fou
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A


pgprcp3ynRiSh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: @variables@ in debian/ scripts

[Artur R. Czechowski]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 02:07:59AM +0200, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> If there are multiple binary packages from one source package some
Well... I should read debian/rules for those packages more carefully.
Please ignore this thread.

Cheers
Artur
-- 
Czesiu: Dlaczego wypiłaś cały dzbanek herbaty?
Croolik: Bo był.

/var/run and scripts

[Russell Coker]

The FHS is not clear on whether it is OK to put a script in /var/run.

If a program wants to create a script and then run it, where should it be 
placed?  Red Hat has apmd creating such scripts under /var/run.  Is this 
correct?  If not where should it be?

-- 
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page

! VIRUS VO VASEJ POSTE/VIRUS IN YOUR MAIL

[antivirus]

   UPOZORNENIE NA VIRUS
   V I R U S  A L E R T

Antivirovy system nasiel virus
Our viruschecker found the

(unspecified)

vo Vasej poste urcenej adresatom:
virus(es) in your email to the following recipient(s):

-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Skontrolujte si Vas pocitac alebo kontaktujte Vasu servisnu spolocnost.
Please check your system for viruses, or ask your system administrator
to do so.

Pre Vasu informaciu si mozete pozriet hlavicku Vasej posty:
For your reference, here are the headers from your email:

- BEGIN HEADERS -
Return-Path: 
Received: from gw1.nameserver.sk ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [62.168.95.194])
by ns.datacom.sk (8.12.9/8.11.0av) with ESMTP id h830GZj6059763
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Sep 2003 02:16:39 +0200 (CEST)
(envelope-from debian-devel@lists.debian.org)
From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Received: from [213.151.208.107] (helo=OBSLUHA)
by gw1.nameserver.sk with esmtp (Exim 4.20)
id 19uL59-0004gJ-Mh
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 03 Sep 2003 02:01:09 +0200
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: That movie
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 2:17:58 +0200
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="_NextPart_000_4A895CDB"
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- END HEADERS --

@variables@ in debian/ scripts

[Artur R. Czechowski]

Hello
If there are multiple binary packages from one source package some
developers use @variables@ in config and {pre,post}{inst,rm} scripts.
Where those variables comes from? Where can I find any documentation
about it?

Waiting your help

Artur
-- 
"#gaduly to jak wenezuelski serial. Nieważne, ile odcinków opuścisz
zawsze będziesz na czasie"
/Czesiu/

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Peter S Galbraith]

John H. Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> my experience with the installer .deb's is limited mostly to the
> installers made for pine and djbware.
> 
> they download the source, patch the source, then build the source. the
> result is a .deb. that .deb can then be installed. since it is a .deb
> installed by dpkg, it is under dpkg control and can be removed at any
> time. the additional benefit is that you can take that .deb and install
> it elsewhere, too.
> 
> this works for things like pine and djbware, since the source code is
> available. for things like flash or MS Office, source would not be
> available. the installer making a .deb out of a binary distribution may
> be harder, but i feel that it is certainly possible.

It's in fact easier.  Just `mv' the binary to debian/tmp/usr/bin.
XForms use to be like this.
 
> Mathieu Roy wrote:
>
> > I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian,
> > should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free
> > software, when installing it.

That's a good idea!
 
> the ones that i am familir with do exactly that. i cannot speak for all
> of them, though.

Most don't.

> > Some packages clearly identified that vrms can clearly identify, some
> > package we can easily track and remove completely at will.
> 
> IIRC, the qmail.deb is placed into section Local, which is why VRMS does
> not notice it.
> 
> > So I think it would be appropriate to fill a bug for any of these
> > installers, asking them to build a correct debian package for the
> > software they install.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> i would not mind if the installer's built .deb were listed as section
> non-free, so vrms could pick it up.

wishlist bug, but yes it's a good idea.  It could become policy when
enough of then do it.

Peter

Bug in cron postinst

[Steve Greenland]

YES, I know that the postinst doesn't work if you don't have any user
crontabs, feel free to stop reporting the bug -- I have enough.

You can get the installation to complete by editing 
/var/lib/dpkg/info/cron.postinst and removing these three lines near the end:

for ct in * ; do
chown $ct:crontab $ct
done

Then run 'dpkg --configure --pending'.

Yes, obvious in retrospect, and I'll put the brown paper bag on my head
after I upload the fix.

Steve

- 
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world.   -- seen on the net

Bug#208446: ITP: guile-db -- Berkeley DB module for Guile

[Sam Hocevar]

Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-09-02
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: guile-db
  Version : 0.1
  Upstream Author : C. Ray C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.pyro.net/~crayc/
* License : GPL
  Description : Berkeley DB module for Guile

   The Berkeley DB module for Guile is a set of Guile Scheme functions to
facilitate database handling from within Scheme scripts.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux c18 2.4.21-rc5 #2 Wed May 28 22:10:14 CEST 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Brian May]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 04:56:51PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> > true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.
> 
> The usual reasons are that they don't allow sufficient redistribution
> for us to include them in the Debian archive at all, or that they don't
> allow distribution of modified versions (including Debian packages
> constructed from them).

An installer package could create a Debian package "on the fly"...

I don't think this would break any licenses.

It would also allow vrms to detect it as non-free software.
-- 
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Norton AntiVirus failed to scan an attachment in a message you sent.

[10AntiVirus]

Recipient of the attachment:  SEXCHANGE, RADIANT\RII, StellaHsieh(謝立欣)/收件匣
Subject of the message:  Re: That movie
No action was taken on the attachment.
  Attachment document_9446.pif was Logged Only for the following reasons:
Scan Engine Failure (0x80004005)

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Josh Lauricha]

On Tue  16:34, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Supposedly, it already does:
>   

Actually, my boss just installed that the other day and it apparently
does work well. How much of it is just WINE is a pretty wrapper, I'm not
to certain.

-- 


| Josh Lauricha|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Bioinformatics, UCR  |
|--|

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 13:54 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may
Supposedly, it already does:

needed by users. But I'm sure we can found 3000 companies that
would switch over GNU/Linux if Microsoft Office was available.
... start looking.

New version of ifupdown available

[Thomas Hood]

Marc Haber, Michael Weber and I have prepared a new version 
(0.6.4-4.5) of ifupdown.  Because this is intended to go into sarge
it includes only the safest changes, most of them fixing minor bugs
in documentation.  Bugs addressed are:
  86895 88948 112012 122422 138403 138694 141634 154517 156789
  156789 157698 160918 173101 174764 175679 178226 178630
  18 186316 200786 203636 204468
Please see the .changes file (in the directory given below) for details.

There is also a woody backport of this package available (version
0.6.4-4.4zg5).

We plan to NMU this version on Thursday.  The maintainer (AJT) has
given permission.

If you would like to do us the favor of testing it before Thursday
then you can get it from:

  deb http://debian.zugschlus.de/debian/zgpool/main/ifupdown/ /
  deb-src http://debian.zugschlus.de/debian/zgpool/main/ifupdown/ /

--
Thomas Hood

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Mathieu Roy]

> > I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian,
> > should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free
> > software, when installing it.
> 
> the ones that i am familir with do exactly that. i cannot speak for all
> of them, though.

If they all works this way, there no big bug, they just have make sure
the packages will be correctly listed as non-free.

I checked at least flashplayer-nonfree and it does not seem to build
any debian package at all. In fact, you have a ruby script that do
what dpkg and apt-get would be doing if flashplayer was debian
package. 




-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

Re: vrms and contrib installers

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Please follow up to debian-legal, where this belongs.

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
>> Op di 02-09-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mathieu Roy:
>> > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
>> > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
>> > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
>> > true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.
>> 
>> There's one single requirement for software to go in non-free: we have
>> to be allowed to redistribute it.
>> 
>> In some cases, the license prohibits the act of redistribution -- even
>> if the software itself can be downloaded gratis from the author's
>> website. That's when installer packages get written :-)
>
> And so we have some almost meta-package in contrib, called
> installers, that install software that do not even fit for
> non-free. It's a strange workaround, to use contrib to provide
> packages that we cannot even provide in non-free. 

Contrib is not a proper subset nor superset of  non-free; neither is
Main a proper subset nor superset of Contrib.

> I'm puzzled. At first, I was thinking it was some kind of workaround
> to avoid entering non-free but, in fact, it would be a workaround for
> to enter debian for packages that would not be allowed at all in any
> other case -- which is in fact more sensible, easier to understand. 

You are incorrect.  Contrib is not part of Debian, any more than the
bug reports in the BTS are part of Debian: both are software
collections distributed by Debian.  If the installer packages were in
Main, you'd have something to complain about, but they're not.

> Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may
> have a free software in contrib that will install it,

I suspect MS would object to this.

> without the possibility to remove it with the standard debian tools.

By all means, file (wishlist?) bugs against any installer which does
not clean up the program when purged.

> Someone may say that are included in Debian only software estimated
> needed by users. But I'm sure we can found 3000 companies that
> would switch over GNU/Linux if Microsoft Office was available.
>
> That's ok if we stick to the policy. But I'm not sure it was the
> spirit of the policy to allows that. And I think more important to
> try to stick to the spirit of the policy than to it's letter. Because
> changing its letter is always an option while changing its spirit is,
> I'm sure you'll agree, definitely not an option.

I think this contrasts interestingly with your stance on the GFDL:
even confronted with the intention of the author of the DFSG, you
argued that by the letter of its title, the DFSG should not apply to
software documentation.

Indeed, your opinion seems to have shifted from what would provoke an
argument there to what will provoke an argument here. 

> I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian,

Conveniently, they're not in Debian, they're in Contrib.

> should be forced 

IANADD, TINDA, but Policy in general seems to be descriptive, not proscriptive.

> to build a real debian package for this non-free
> software, when installing it. Some packages clearly identified that
> vrms can clearly identify, some package we can easily track and remove
> completely at will. So people would know what they exactly have on 
> their computer. And I think that was the main point of the person who
> started the thread, the ability for the user to track this non-free
> software he got.

So should my web browser have to make .deb packages when I download an
RPM?  How about when I download a TGZ?  How about an ISO with a
Windows installation on it?

> So I think it would be appropriate to fill a bug for any of these
> installers, asking them to build a correct debian package for the
> software they install.
>
> What do you think?

I think that's insane.  The installers are in contrib because they are
free software -- small installer programs -- which require non-free
software -- big useful non-free programs -- to run.  They probably
should clean up after themselves when --purged, but I can see good
arguments against that as well.

-Brian

-- 
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: authen sasl

[Davide Puricelli]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 04:12:06PM +0200, Sergio Rua wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>   Looks like nobody is packaging Authen SASL perl module that 
> is required by the last versions of openwebmail. I am very surprised of
> not finding this module in Debian.
> 
>   Are there any special reason? If not and nobody is packaging it,
> I will ITP it. Thanks.
> 
> Note: please Cc me, I'm not subscribed now

Hi, I need libauthen-sasl-perl because I maintain libnet-ldap-perl and
it depends on it, I already have a working package, I'll upload it in
the next days.

Best Regards,
-- 
Davide Puricelli, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian Developer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.debian.org
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna
PGP key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgpsU2iexH6AF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Joey Hess]

John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> my experience with the installer .deb's is limited mostly to the
> installers made for pine and djbware.

Strictly speaking those are not installers. The source is available in
the debian archive, we just can't distribute compiled binaries from it.

Installers for gratis, non-free binaries much more often take the form
of the old realplayer installer: Download the binary and drop it
somewhere, possibly deal with upgrades to the binary, and when removed,
delete the binary.

-- 
see shy jo


pgpQaSpc2ZhYJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Any chance to get Debian-Med added to tasksel?

[Andreas Tille]

Hello,

bug #186085 which asks for inclusion of Debian-Med into tasksel is now
nearly half a year old.  I wonder if there is any chance to get this
fixed before Sarge will be released.  While it is a wishlist bug per
definition for the tasksel package it has quite an importance for the
Debian-Med project and I would love if this would be fixed right in time.

Kind regards

 Andreas.

Bug#208412: ITP: xmms-rplay -- RPlay Output Plugin for XMMS

[lantz moore]

Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-09-02
Severity: wishlist


* Package name: xmms-rplay
  Version : 1.0.2
  Upstream Author : lantz moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/rplay/
* License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)
  Description : RPlay Output Plugin for XMMS

XMMS can use this output plugin to write audio data to an rplay server.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux scooter 2.4.20scooter #1 SMP Thu May 8 13:14:29 PDT 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[John H. Robinson, IV]

I don't need to be CC:'d, thanks.

Mathieu Roy wrote:
> 
> Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may
> have a free software in contrib that will install it, without the
> possibility to remove it with the standard debian tools. 

my experience with the installer .deb's is limited mostly to the
installers made for pine and djbware.

they download the source, patch the source, then build the source. the
result is a .deb. that .deb can then be installed. since it is a .deb
installed by dpkg, it is under dpkg control and can be removed at any
time. the additional benefit is that you can take that .deb and install
it elsewhere, too.

this works for things like pine and djbware, since the source code is
available. for things like flash or MS Office, source would not be
available. the installer making a .deb out of a binary distribution may
be harder, but i feel that it is certainly possible.

> I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian,
> should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free
> software, when installing it.

the ones that i am familir with do exactly that. i cannot speak for all
of them, though.

> Some packages clearly identified that vrms can clearly identify, some
> package we can easily track and remove completely at will.

IIRC, the qmail.deb is placed into section Local, which is why VRMS does
not notice it.

> So I think it would be appropriate to fill a bug for any of these
> installers, asking them to build a correct debian package for the
> software they install.
> 
> What do you think?

i would not mind if the installer's built .deb were listed as section
non-free, so vrms could pick it up.

-john

爱?

[吴军]

http://www.wy263.com/";>

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Mathieu Roy]

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :

> Op di 02-09-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mathieu Roy:
> > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> > true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.
> 
> There's one single requirement for software to go in non-free: we have
> to be allowed to redistribute it.
> 
> In some cases, the license prohibits the act of redistribution -- even
> if the software itself can be downloaded gratis from the author's
> website. That's when installer packages get written :-)

And so we have some almost meta-package in contrib, called
installers, that install software that do not even fit for
non-free. It's a strange workaround, to use contrib to provide
packages that we cannot even provide in non-free. 

I'm puzzled. At first, I was thinking it was some kind of workaround
to avoid entering non-free but, in fact, it would be a workaround for
to enter debian for packages that would not be allowed at all in any
other case -- which is in fact more sensible, easier to understand. 

Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may
have a free software in contrib that will install it, without the
possibility to remove it with the standard debian tools. 
Someone may say that are included in Debian only software estimated
needed by users. But I'm sure we can found 3000 companies that
would switch over GNU/Linux if Microsoft Office was available.

That's ok if we stick to the policy. But I'm not sure it was the
spirit of the policy to allows that. And I think more important to
try to stick to the spirit of the policy than to it's letter. Because
changing its letter is always an option while changing its spirit is,
I'm sure you'll agree, definitely not an option.

I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian,
should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free
software, when installing it. Some packages clearly identified that
vrms can clearly identify, some package we can easily track and remove
completely at will. So people would know what they exactly have on 
their computer. And I think that was the main point of the person who
started the thread, the ability for the user to track this non-free
software he got.

So I think it would be appropriate to fill a bug for any of these
installers, asking them to build a correct debian package for the
software they install.

What do you think?


-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

Packages-arch-specific update

[Ian Lynagh]

Is [EMAIL PROTECTED] the best place to e-mail to get the latest version
of Packages-arch-specific in CVS (with some GHC changes) to be used?


Thanks
Ian, curious as to why debian-autobuild was killed

Bug#208406: ITP: ldap-account-manager -- LDAP Account Manager (LAM) manages Unix and Samba accounts in a LDAP directory.

[gruber]

Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-09-02
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: ldap-account-manager
  Version : 0.3
  Upstream Author : Roland Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://lam.sourceforge.net
* License : GPL
  Description : LDAP Account Manager (LAM) manages Unix and Samba accounts 
in a LDAP directory.

 It runs on a webserver and is controlled via your browser. It supports the
 Samba 2.x and Samba 3 schema. There is also a script included which manages
 quota and homedirectories, you have to setup sudo if you want to use it.
 LAM can be accessed at http(s)://localhost/lam.


-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux tux1 2.4.21 #2 Tue Aug 12 12:16:32 CEST 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C

Bug#208405: ITP: ldap-account-manager -- LDAP Account Manager (LAM) manages Unix and Samba accounts in a LDAP directory.

[Roland]

Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-09-02
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: ldap-account-manager
  Version : 0.3
  Upstream Author : Roland Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://lam.sourceforge.net
* License : GPL
  Description : LDAP Account Manager (LAM) manages Unix and Samba accounts 
in a LDAP directory.

 It runs on a webserver and is controlled via your browser. It supports the
 Samba 2.x and Samba 3 schema. There is also a script included which manages
 quota and homedirectories, you have to setup sudo if you want to use it.
 LAM can be accessed at http(s)://localhost/lam.


-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux Roland 2.4.21 #2 SMP Die Jun 24 19:23:40 CEST 2003 i686
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Colin Watson]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.

The usual reasons are that they don't allow sufficient redistribution
for us to include them in the Debian archive at all, or that they don't
allow distribution of modified versions (including Debian packages
constructed from them).

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[David Weinehall]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:

[snip]

> So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.

Yes, some (a lot of) non-free, but gratis, software do not allow
redistribution, or imposes limits on the redistribution such that it
cannot be packaged even for non-free.


Regards: David Weinehall
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander  (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/   Full colour fire   (/

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Wouter Verhelst]

Op di 02-09-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mathieu Roy:
> So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.

There's one single requirement for software to go in non-free: we have
to be allowed to redistribute it.

In some cases, the license prohibits the act of redistribution -- even
if the software itself can be downloaded gratis from the author's
website. That's when installer packages get written :-)

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
  -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.


signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Mathieu Roy]

"John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :

> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > > 
> > > >He might even be running vrms - and vrms
> > > >will not complain about the non-free software he has installed!
> > > 
> > > Then file a bug report (on vrms). Perhaps it'd even be useful if 
> > > installer packages somehow marked that they've installed non-free 
> > > software, then vrms could look at that.
> > 
> > Random package:
> > Provides: non-free-installer
> > 
> > vrms:
> > Conflicts: non-free-installer
> > 
> > Done.
> 
> won't work:
> 
> you install the installer, vrms gets removed. you run the installer, and
> then dpkg -i the resultant .deb. you --purge the installer, and install
> vrms again.
> 
> you now have a non free package _and_ vrms installed, and vrms _still_
> is not telling you about it.

That's lead me to this conclusion: these installers's debian packages
in contrib install packages on Debian systems without using the true
debian software management tool (dpkg). 

So these non-free softwares installed get ignored by vrms... In fact,
these installers should build a debian package for the non-free
software they install, to keep the debian installation clean. It would
be easier to track down their installation, to remove them, to upgrade
them.

But it will be also makes more obvious the complicated justification
of their presence inside contrib... 

Maybe we should reconsider these packages and think them as package
builder for non-free software instead of installers (if they follow
the idea of building a debian package of the software they
download)... because there is already an installer in Debian
(dpkg). But in fact, there is also already a package builder in
Debian...  

So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
"installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.






-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[John H. Robinson, IV]

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > 
> > >He might even be running vrms - and vrms
> > >will not complain about the non-free software he has installed!
> > 
> > Then file a bug report (on vrms). Perhaps it'd even be useful if 
> > installer packages somehow marked that they've installed non-free 
> > software, then vrms could look at that.
> 
> Random package:
> Provides: non-free-installer
> 
> vrms:
> Conflicts: non-free-installer
> 
> Done.

won't work:

you install the installer, vrms gets removed. you run the installer, and
then dpkg -i the resultant .deb. you --purge the installer, and install
vrms again.

you now have a non free package _and_ vrms installed, and vrms _still_
is not telling you about it.

-john

authen sasl

[Sergio Rua]

Hello,

Looks like nobody is packaging Authen SASL perl module that 
is required by the last versions of openwebmail. I am very surprised of
not finding this module in Debian.

Are there any special reason? If not and nobody is packaging it,
I will ITP it. Thanks.

Note: please Cc me, I'm not subscribed now
--
Sergio

You have an ambitious nature and may make a name for yourself.

Re: .iso conflict, discussion of resolution

[Ralf Nolden]

On Sonntag, 31. August 2003 00:08, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:34:39PM -0700, Mike Markley wrote:
> > A quick summary of this bug:
> > Arson, a KDE CD burning application, includes two .desktop files to
> > associate certain files with it:
> > /usr/share/mimelnk/application/x-iso.desktop
> > /usr/share/mimelnk/application/x-cue.desktop
>
> And presumably another application also wants to include these files?  Is
> KDE's file association system really so broken that two programs cannot
> both declare themselves able to handle a certain type of file?

You can do that, one program after another in the order the user wants to 
prefer a certain program for a certain mimetype as a handler. The issue here 
is that not every program written for KDE is provided by the KDE project so 
the packager has to take care of integrating files like the mimelnk's that 
the programmer maybe mistakenly added for his own make; make install laziness 
into the desktop by packaging.

Ralf
>
> --
>  - mdz

-- 
We're not a company, we just produce better code at less costs.

Ralf Nolden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

The K Desktop Environment   The KDevelop Project
http://www.kde.org  http://www.kdevelop.org


pgpXsm4sOS68C.pgp
Description: signature

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 23:40, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2003 17:51:42 +0200, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since
> > these packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I
> > think that even if there's no non-free stuff within the packages
> > themselves, the result of the installation of these packages (and
> > not their dependancies!) is to get non-free stuff. And so, it leads
> > me to the conclusion that, whatever the fact that the non-free part
> > is downloaded at the same time than the debian package or not, this
> > package itself contains non-free stuff.
> 
>   This is no different from any package in contrib that actually
>  depends on non-free software. You seem to be implying that contrib is
>  only supposed to be composed of software that may build depend on
>  non-free packages, but may not depend on, or install, non-free
>  packages.

Really? I read it as a request to be honest about the program's
intentions. When you install a program from contrib that depends on
something in non-free, you're clearly installing something in non-free
(vrms will recognize it, dselect will say that it's non-free, and so
on), in addition to the thing in contrib. Also, the thing in contrib is
suppossedly a useful piece of almost-free software, that happens to use
a non-free toolkit, compression library, or whatever. You may be
installing it to rewrite that part, for example.

The installer packages aren't recognized as non-free by vrms or dselect,
and I would question the copyrightability of the installer (is a
wget/dpkg line copyrightable? I doubt it). Furthermore, the installer is
totally useless for doing anything but writing another non-free
installer, since it's so trivial. There is no reason to install the
installer unless you plan to install and use the non-free software.
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#208339: ITP: greed - A UNIX-hosted, curses-based clone of the DOS freeware game Greed

[Pierre Machard]

retitle 208339 ITP: greed -- A UNIX-hosted, curses-based clone of the DOS 
freeware game Greed
thanks

 * Package name: greed
   Version : 3.4
   Upstream Author : Eric S. Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 * URL : http://catb.org/~esr/greed
 * License : BSD-like
   Description : A UNIX-hosted, curses-based clone of the DOS freeware game 
Greed

   Try to eat as much as possible of the board before munching yourself
   into a corner.
   .
   Author: Eric S. Raymond
   Homepage: http://www.catb.org/~esr/greed/

-- 
Pierre Machard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://debian.org
GPG: 1024D/23706F87 : B906 A53F 84E0 49B6 6CF7 82C2 B3A0 2D66 2370 6F87



pgpq8Wy1gGcMh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Fwd: Processing of ferret_3.0-2_i386.changes

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:04:19PM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> What do I have to do to fix this problem?  My key is valid, has been
> signed, and was uploaded to the keyserver via "gpg --send-keys".
> 
> Why do I continue to get these messages?  The only way I can upload
> packages is to use SSH to connect to ftp-master and then use wget
> to fetch the various files from my home machine.

If you're already uploading using SSH, why not drop your packages
directly into /org/ftp.debian.org/queue/unchecked/ (or
/org/ftp.debian.org/incoming/, if you prefer) rather than going through
the extra complexity of the upload queue?

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Snort: Mass Bug Closing

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* Steve Kemp 

|   (Essentially apt-get + apt-cache for snort rules.  Clearly packaging a
|   single rule file within one package is a gross misuse of resources but
|   it might be sufficient if they were signed and hosted somewhere
|   sensible..)

They could all be packaged into a single package (or a small number of
them, if that makes sense) and just have the frontend enable/disable
the rules.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are  : :' :
  `. `' 
`-  

quick question: please help

[EarthAngel81]

Do you know who I could contact for a small business start-up grant?  Also, I
need to know if the majority of businesses that have recieved grants for
start-up (in the past) had obtained a degree in Business.  I am probably going
to get an Assoicate's Degree.  I need to know if this could help me get a
grant.  If not, I would like to postpone this education for a little while. 
If you do not know the answer to this, could you please forward it to someone
that would know?  Thank you for your time.

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:23:09 -0400, Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just my 2 cents.  I completely agree with Steve.  If the only
> freeness of an installer is being able to use it as a staring point
> to make another installer, then that's pretty weak.  It's sole
> purpose is to install something that isn't even free enough for
> `non-free', so why should it be listed in the freer than non-free
> contrib?

> Moving such packages to non-free would be more representative of
> their real state of freeness.

While I reject the argument hat installer packages ought to
 move to non-free since they cause non-free software to appear on the
 system (there are non-installer packages that also do that if they
 depend on non-0free packages), I do find this line of reasoning
 persuasive.

manoj

-- 
Depart in pieces, i.e., split.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: LWN subscription for Debian developers

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 01 Sep 2003 12:22:48 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 04:33:22PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow
>> wrote:
>> > Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > Hello.
>> > >
>> > > Last October, I announced a group subscription to lwn.net for
>> > > Debian developers, sponsored by HP.  I've recently received
>> > > numerous queries about whether this "deal" was still available,
>> > > and/or whether HP intended to continue sponsoring the
>> > > subscription.
>> > >
>> > > The answer to both questions is yes!
>> >
>> > What about NMs?
>>
>> Wait until you can drop the N, I guess.

> So I can have a LWN subscription in another 5 years or 10?

You can pay the subscription and get one immediately, I should
 think. 

manoj
-- 
I'm definitely not in Omaha!
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 31 Aug 2003 17:51:42 +0200, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since
> these packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I
> think that even if there's no non-free stuff within the packages
> themselves, the result of the installation of these packages (and
> not their dependancies!) is to get non-free stuff. And so, it leads
> me to the conclusion that, whatever the fact that the non-free part
> is downloaded at the same time than the debian package or not, this
> package itself contains non-free stuff.

This is no different from any package in contrib that actually
 depends on non-free software. You seem to be implying that contrib is
 only supposed to be composed of software that may build depend on
 non-free packages, but may not depend on, or install, non-free
 packages.

That is not how contrib is defined, sorry.

manoj
-- 
Bolub's Fourth Law of Computerdom: Project teams detest weekly
progress reporting because it so vividly manifests their lack of
progress.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C