[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
plese help me stop this scrvice
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND
2284 debuser 16 0 51144 10m 48m S 41.0 4.2 110:14.86 amor
kill -9 2284 ? but apt-cache search amor says :
amor - a KDE creature for your desktop
garf.
-
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 12:05:37PM +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> plese help me stop this scrvice
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND
> 2284 debuser 16 0 51144 10m 48m S 41.0 4.2 110:14.86 amor
"amor" is a game for KDE :)
uninstall it if you don't wan
plese help me stop this scrvice
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND
2284 debuser 16 0 51144 10m 48m S 41.0 4.2 110:14.86 amor
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s)
and to other interested parties to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
Lorenzo Martignoni <[EMAIL PROTE
* Paul Gear:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> ...
>> It seems that shorewall generates an ACL that ACCEPTs all traffic once
>> a MAC rule matches. Further rules are not considered. The
>> explanations in version 2.2.3 seem to indicate that this was the
>> intended behavior, but its implications surpri
* Paul Gear:
> The maintainer is not the problem. Lorenzo has prepared 2.2.3-2 for
> sarge [1] and has tested the before and after situations and found that
> the bug is fixed. The problem is no response from Martin Schulze.
>
> [1] http://idea.sec.dico.unimi.it/~lorenzo/tmp/
This information s
Florian Weimer wrote:
> ...
> It seems that shorewall generates an ACL that ACCEPTs all traffic once
> a MAC rule matches. Further rules are not considered. The
> explanations in version 2.2.3 seem to indicate that this was the
> intended behavior, but its implications surprised upstream, and a
>
Florian Weimer wrote:
> ...
>>If we're going to have another crack at it, then, what track should we
>>take? Reopen the bug as Florian suggested,
> ...
>>email the security team, just keep pestering Joey?
>
>
> IMHO, the first step would be to convince the shorewall maintainer
> that a security
nope, there is no difference now, after the update. if it
was before i can not tell anymore because i have updated all my hosts...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:46:37 +0100
Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a difference in the output of "apt-cache policy php4" when you
> have a 'sarge
Is there a difference in the output of "apt-cache policy php4" when you
have a 'sarge' and a 'stable' line?
--
Sam Morris
http://robots.org.uk/
PGP key id 5EA01078
3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
hi
i run sarge.
there were the php4 (and more) security updates recently.
#---
my /etc/apt/sources.list contains this line:
deb http://security.debian.org/ sarge/updates main contrib non-free
--
now when i make:
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
it will make the courier upgrade but not the php4 php4
[Frans Pop]
> IMO the status of the security team is not changed by that mail: if
> it was delegated before that time, it still is, and similar if it
> was not.
Personally, I only find it reasonable that all groups in Debian with
special privileges within the Debian community are delegates. It
a
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 10:34, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Monday 29 August 2005 22:23, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>I've obtained permission from tbm to quote the message reproduced
> >>below in public. This should make it clear that the intent was to
> >>delegate: "Nac
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 29 August 2005 22:23, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>>I've obtained permission from tbm to quote the message reproduced
>>below in public. This should make it clear that the intent was to
>>delegate: "Nach [URL] hat debian-admin klar die Authorität" --
>>"according to [URL]
14 matches
Mail list logo
