Missing packages files
It seems that all the hamm and slink packages files, as well as those for contrib and non-free (but not main) in potato are currently missing on three mirrors I have checked today. Agggh! Bob
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free --> non-dfsg)
Joey Hess wrote: > > I think it's not necessary that a developer agree with the DFSG. It > should be enough that they indicate they understand it and will abide > by it in what they produce for debian. Yes, but OTOH, it's a little hard to fathom why someone would *want* to work on Debian if they didn't agree with at least the basic outlines of the DFSG and the Social Contract cheers -- Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the or[EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Re: libpam, cracklib, and slink (was Re: Release-critical...)
Previously Ben Collins wrote: > Since no one else has spoken up, I will take over pam. Thanks, I was just about to offer the same thing :). Wichert. -- == This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/ pgpa7oNCQPEVF.pgp Description: PGP signature
organizer wanted! (was: Debian booth at LinuxTag '99?)
It looks like a couple of us are able to attend, and most will need some place to stay. I think we need a volunteer to organize all this. Any willing to do this? Wichert. -- == This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/ pgpaF5aoBFupc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free --> non-dfsg)
I think it's not necessary that a developer agree with the DFSG. It should be enough that they indicate they understand it and will abide by it in what they produce for debian. -- see shy jo
Re: Bug#27050 (fdutils): A cause for security concern?
I wrote: > Would you say the same of daemons that run as root? Avery Pennarun writes: > Coming from you, that sounds like a trick question. It isn't. My chrony package includes a daemon that runs as root. I've looked it over and don't see any holes, but I'm not a security expert. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: how rpm does it (Re: Dpkg Update Proposal)
Anthony Wong wrote: > |Oh and by the way, this user interface tends to confuse new users (at least > |it did me) who accidentially install many versions of the same package > |because they arn't aware they should be upgrading it instead. > > Because you already have the Debian way in your mind when you were using > rpm. I remembered that I looked very hard to find out how to upgrade a > .deb in Debian by dpkg when I first switched from Redhat to Debian, but > of course I found nothing because 'dpkg -i' handles both :) No. I had never used debian when I used rpm. This was um... 4 years ago? 3? something like that. I used redhat first for a year before going to debian and it took about 3 months before I cleared up this confusing point. > |I forget how rpm allows removing of one version of a package while leaving > |another version of it installed. > > IIRC you need to specify the version number as well. Ah, that makes sense. > |What happens if you then remove version foo? I'm not sure, it's been a while > |;-). I can say that rpm doesn't deal with this very well. It either has to > |leave version bar's files around, or delete them, either action leaves the > |installed version foo in an inconsitent state. > > Does rpm really do this? That's very silly... I think so. It has to do one or the other. As I said, it's been years since I had to deal with this.. > BTW, anyone has the feeling that the Debian package management system is > slower than RPM? Is it because the part in manipulating the package > information databsse is not doing as good as RPM does? Debian uses a database consiting of text files, which is slower than rpm's binary database. I think it also uses significantly more memory. -- see shy jo
Re: how rpm does it (Re: Dpkg Update Proposal)
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 03:42:15PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: | |So rpm's method of upgrading is the same as dpkg -i, whereas dpkg has nothing |equivilant to rpm's method of just installing a package. | |Oh and by the way, this user interface tends to confuse new users (at least |it did me) who accidentially install many versions of the same package |because they arn't aware they should be upgrading it instead. Because you already have the Debian way in your mind when you were using rpm. I remembered that I looked very hard to find out how to upgrade a .deb in Debian by dpkg when I first switched from Redhat to Debian, but of course I found nothing because 'dpkg -i' handles both :) |I forget how rpm allows removing of one version of a package while leaving |another version of it installed. IIRC you need to specify the version number as well. |Back end: | |I don't know much about this. I can intuit some things. | |Rpm can keep track of multiple versions of the same package that are all |installed. Presumably, this means its package database indexes the installed |packages by both package name and version, instead of just by package name |as dpkg does. | |What happens if you try to install version bar of a package while version |foo of that same package, which contains files of the same name, is |installed? Rpm will happily overwrite version foo's files. | |What happens if you then remove version foo? I'm not sure, it's been a while |;-). I can say that rpm doesn't deal with this very well. It either has to |leave version bar's files around, or delete them, either action leaves the |installed version foo in an inconsitent state. Does rpm really do this? That's very silly... |User interface: | |If we wanted to make dpkg have this capability, we could add a new command |line flag, say "--keep-old-version" that makes "dpkg --keep-old-version -i" |behave like rpm -i does. | |We would have to come up with some method to allow dpkg to remove one |version of a package while leaving another version of that package installed. I suggest that a version number must be given in this case, otherwise dpkg will just exit, saying that there are multiple versions of the same packages installed. BTW, anyone has the feeling that the Debian package management system is slower than RPM? Is it because the part in manipulating the package information databsse is not doing as good as RPM does? -- Rgds, [ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / ICQ UIN: C30E6 ] Anthony. [ http://icqtrack.hk.st -- Track your ICQ friend ]
apt-get: no instalation candidat
Hi trying to upgrade some packages apt-get fails with the msg. E: Package bigbrother has no instalation candidate Packages which fail (with this msg): bigbrother xplot xsplay xwatch my apt/source.list: # Use for a local mirror - remove the ftp1 http lines for the bits # your mirror contains. # deb file:/your/mirror/here/debian stable main contrib non-free # See sources.list(5) for more information, especial # Remember that you can only use http, ftp or file URIs deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable non-US #deb ftp://ftp.eecs.umich.edu/debian potato main contrib non-free #deb ftp://ftp.eecs.umich.edu/debian slink main contrib non-free deb http://www.uk.debian.org/debian slink main contrib non-free deb http://www.uk.debian.org/debian potato main contrib non-free #deb http://www.de.debian.org/debian potato main contrib non-free #deb file:/mnt/hdd2/linux.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/pub/linux/distributions/debian potato main contrib non-free non-US #deb file:/mnt/hdd2/linux.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/pub/linux/distributions/debian slink main contrib non-free non-US -- Alexander N. Benner And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. -*- The Bible (Mark 12:29-30)
