Re: [developers-l] Re: [debian-devel] Re: security enhanced debian branch?

[Peter Busser]

Hi!

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 06:39:28PM +, Magos?nyi ?rp?d wrote:
> A levelez?m azt hiszi, hogy Matt Zimmerman a k?vetkez?eket ?rta:
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 09:07:02AM -0400, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> > > Second, any such effort shouldn't be a branch, but should be mainstreamed 
> > > in 
> > > Debian proper.  Please see http://wiki.debian.net/CustomDebian for a 
> > > possible approach for this sort of project.
> > For cases where the added functionality is provided by additional packages,
> > this is easy.  However, some of the things which are being experimented with
> > include compiler patches to produce binaries which make certain types of
> > exploits more difficult, and that kind of thing is not easy to merge into
> > Debian proper.
> 
> I think this kind of stuff could be handled in new architectures. For
> example the Adamantix project could be merged back by creating
> an architecture i386-adamantix for the stack protected stuff, and 
> the other parts being a "CDD" by the terminology of the above link.

Such solutions have been discussed since Trusted Debian 1.0 was released,
which was end of April this year. But discussions do not get the work done.

> (I do not know enough about the history of the project to tell if its
> developers would consider merging back a good idea or an organisational
> impossibility. But the main point is not about that, or even that project
> in particular.)

Merging is a bad idea. Adamantix and Debian are different projects with
different goals.

It is IMHO a good idea to put back stuff from Adamantix in Debian. Currently
I am fully occupied by development of RSBAC support in Adamantix, so I cannot
do it myself. But anyone who wants to work on this stuff for Debian can join
#adamantix on irc.freenode.org or send e-mail. There are always people on
#adamantix who are willing to share information and answer questions
(including so called stupid questions). Even if you don't know much about this
stuff, we can get you up to speed and try to help when you get stuck.

People who talk badly about Adamantix either do not know what they are talking
about or do so deliberately. I.e. by spreading FUD, making it look like a fight
between ``us'' and ``them'', as if there is nothing in common between the two
projects. All in all, it seems to me that there are a few people in Debian who
think that it is against their personal interest when Adamantix stuff is added
to Debian, even though it is clear that it is in the interest of all Debian
users to have better security.

Anyone related to Adamantix that I know of has been helpful with helping
others, including Debian users and developers. There is a good relationship
with Gentoo hardened. And there is no reason at all why there is no such
relation between Debian and Adamantix. A good start would be if some Debian
developer started to write a plan for putting Adamantix stuff in Debian. Then
we can discuss it and determine what needs to be done by whom. And then start
working on it.

Groetjes,
Peter Busser

Re: Services I'd like from auric

[Martin Loschwitz]

On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 03:56:02PM -0700, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
> I certainly miss the varied and up-to-date information that I was able
> to get from auric. Taking James Troup's advice from his announcement
> of discussing information we'd like from auric, what's on my mind
> today is the ability to check the NEW queue.
> 
> I frequently add new packages to Debian and, at the moment, I'm not
> sure of what new packages I've uploaded before the recent breech and
> what versions they were.
> 
> Thus, if the ftpmasters are planning on a long-term restriction on
> auric, mirroring the data in the new queue [at least filenames and
> upload dates] would be of significant help to me.
> 
> Thanks for considering the request,
> 
> Kevin


I myself do not consider restricting access to auric to be of any sense. 
For one, auric was not affected by the recent attack to Debian machines, 
so there really isn't any provocation that would give restricting auric
a sense. As we could see, it obviously was easy to check the files on 
auric for integrity (some hours after compromise we were sure that 
nothing bad happened). Additionally, we would be able to track changes 
to the archive quickly as rsync logs on remote machines will show 
conspicuous entries (if the atacker started a mirror push; if he 
didn't, checking against a "known-to-be-good-source" would be enough).

I generally see the following problems with the proposal made by James
Troup:

1) A "mirror" of auric would certainly be good; however, for one, you
would need to find a sponsor for yet another (probably quite expensive)
box (and housing for it, somebody who pays the monthly bill, someone 
who administers the new box, somebody who controls it for security 
related things ...). Additionally, mirroring auric probably could not 
be done "simultaneously" so that people who have to rely on the data 
from the "mirror"-auric would have outdated data all the time.

2 (very subjective, though)) I have no idea why, but the speed i get
when uploading to auric is significantly lower than the speed I get
when uploading to gluck. This made me end up with uploading packages
to gluck and downloading them from auric locally to get them into the
archive (as this was the much faster solution) -- that just wouldn't
be possible anymore once auric is restricted on the long term.

3) Mirroring auric on a box that is accessible by all developers will
somehow rule out the possibility to use the mirror as "fallback" if 
auric has problems itself (as then we're down to exactly the same 
problem we have if we just have the unrestricted auric itself all 
the time -- the possibility of breakins into a very critical point
of the Debian infrastructure)

I understand the ongoing efforts to make the Debian development boxes
more secure and I appreciate them as they will probably help to save
our users better from security issues related to the Debian machines.
However, I think that we should not burden our own work that hard in 
the name of security. 

-- 
  .''`.   Martin Loschwitz   Debian GNU/Linux developer
 : :'  :  [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
 `. `'`   http://www.madkiss.org/people.debian.org/~madkiss/
   `- Use Debian GNU/Linux 3.0!  See http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Services I'd like from auric

[Scott James Remnant]

On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 08:15, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> >> There's the question of botched uploads.  I think we've all accidentally
> >> botched an upload one time or another, and having access to auric means
> >> we can fix it without having to call on the ftpmasters for help.
> > It depends on whether the queue daemon allows overwriting existing files, I
> > suppose.  There isn't much that you can't undo by overwriting or superseding
> > an upload.
> 
> Just upload a signed .commands file to remove the broken upload. Doc is
> in the README in the UploadQueue dir or maybe in Devel-Ref too.
> 
Certainly ain't documented anywhere other than in the README that I've
ever seen.

Additionally:

How hard would it be for a developer to implement something like
"testing" without access to auric?  How about the implementation and
testing of package pools or future experimental changes to the archive
structure?

A lot of the really neat stuff that's been done to improve things has
been done by random developers who had a bit of free time and an urge to
scratch.

If they're unable to login to ftp-master, it might prevent them from
being able to do something really neat the project could benefit from.

In effect, closing auric access to an elite list (all of whom are very
busy people) prevents the rest of us from inventing new ways of using
it.

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?



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

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Danilo Piazzalunga]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]

Alle 21:13, mercoledì 17 dicembre 2003, Nathan Hawkins ha scritto:
> If you wanted Greek names, there are plenty of obscure nymphs, satyrs,
> centaurs, etc. to choose from.

Here's the name index from Ovid's Metamorphoses. If the geek in you ;-) can 
live without Tolkien's names, take your favorite ones.

http://www.tkline.freeserve.co.uk/Webworks/Website/Ovhome.htm

Best Regards,
Danilo

- -- 
Danilo Piazzalunga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Linux User #245762 |
   | ICQ #105550412 |
Public key:  search.keyserver.net  ++
Fingerprint: D018 815E 8C7F 2AE2 5565  0C36 B5F6 DB20 B800 CB9F |
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/4iqytfbbILgAy58RAiEOAJ0WqecR/nbslqy2Bz8pRSeMzlRNwwCeP++s
U7OEnh4I64O7nLBALVZzOP4=
=6/Ur
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: udev and /sys mounting [was: mounting tmpfs (and sysfs) defaultly in sarge?]

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 06:39:13PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 18, GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>  >OK, I would like to rename from /etc/init.d/devpts.sh to
>  >/etc/init.d/mountfs, because (1) for example there is mountnfs which
>  >mounts nfs (2) umountfs in initscripts un-mounts filesystems, so
>  >"mountfs" makes a name pair.  Any comments?
> Looks good. OTOH, maybe it's not a good idea to pair mountfs with
> umountfs, as they operate on different kinds of file systems, so
> mountkernfs could be a possible alternative.

Yes, I agree with Marco.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:31:42AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:

> > Which would amount to saying "We won't tell you why, but please change
> > your name." I think that would be discouteous in the extreme.

> No, they simply could have said that they were worried that people would
> be confused that NetBSD was a product of the Debian Project.

Isn't that what they did?

They added that such confusion might make it hard for them to defend
their trademark. Is that a threat of litigation against Debian? I
think not. It is simply an explanations of their misgivings.

> > > Possible approaches include:
> > > 1) don't ask, don't tell
> > > 2) order us to stop
> > > 3) grant us a license

> > 4) Ask us nicely to stop.

> Not compatible with mention of trademark.

Yes, because their trademark is one of the reasons why they would like
us to stop. That is called being open, not being threatening.

> > And (4). I don't think you have provided *any* evidence that (4) was
> > not what they did, and I think that to react as if (2) was the case
> > would be silly and excessively confrontational.

> There is no such thing as a common-law trademark.

I don't see the connection between that and what I wrote.

> Telling someone that they are (or "might be") diluting your
> trademark is putting them on notice that you think you have a
> potential tort claim against them.

Perhaps it has that legal implication. You are claiming that this
legal implication is *why* they told us about their misgivings. I find
it hard to believe that, when the alternative explanation that they
were just being polite is so much more likely.

> That's not polite in my book.

I still don't see how you think they could have explained their
problems in a polite way, then. Your book seems to say that being open
is impolite.

> In yours, for all I know, it's a means of romantic flirtation.

Please read what I wrote. Telling us why they are worried *is*
polite. Just telling us that they are worred, and deliberately
withholding information about why is impolite.

-- 
Henning Makholm"And why should I talk slaves' and fools' talk? I
   don't want him to live for ever, and I know that he's
   not going to live for ever whether I want him to or not."

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for December 12, 2003

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:18:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:32:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 05:00:13PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > There's certainly time to communicate with the Release Manager that
> > > the package should no longer be considered a removal candidate.
> > 
> > The way to do that is to fix all the release critical bugs filed against
> > the package, and upload to unstable.

> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:29:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 01:49:29PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > No, this points to a problem with the bug list as seen by the testing
> > > scripts.  update_excuses for gjdoc says 
> > >   gjdoc (source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, 
> > > powerpc, s390, sparc) is buggy! (1 > 0)
> > > which is clearly not true if the sarge version of the package has two RC
> > > bugs, no matter how you count.  (It should be non-buggy, 1 < 3; and even
> > > if the bug you describe existed, it would be 3 > 2, not 1 > 0.)

> > Uh, no, it's not "non-buggy" if it has RC bugs. If gjdoc has an RC bug,
> > it's not suitable for testing or release. Fix that now. The "less buggy"
> > stuff should be considered an optimisation, if it doesn't hit your package
> > when it should, the solution is to fix the RC bugs in your package.

> Why are you arguing with one of your release deputies[1] on a public
> mailing list, instead of working out procedures as a group, and present
> coherent and consistent recommendations to the rest of the Project?

These seem like reasonable clarifications to me; I don't begrudge
Anthony's correcting my imprecise wordings (the first seemed implicit to
me, the second was an obvious imprecision on my part).  If I
under-emphasize the importance of actually fixing the RC bugs in the
process of trying to help fellow developers grasp the testing
propagation process, I'm ok with the occasional "and fix your RC bugs!"
-- that seems preferable to letting the questions go unaddressed, or
leave Anthony the only one who can answer them due to my incomplete
grasp of the above nuances.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgp6n0nPV7RpX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Joel Baker]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 08:50:48PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > The 'slander', if such it is (and I, obviously, don't consider it such)
> > is against the named set of churches, and those that follow their doctrinal
> > decrees
> 
> Claiming that Christians are against civil liberties is slander in my
> book. You named, among other, a subset of Christians that I belong to,
> and claimed that our "doctrinal decrees" are against civil rights.
> I hold this to be untrue, and unless you can back up your claims, I am
> going to think of you as a liar.

No, I claimed that the doctrinal decrees included condemnations of specific
behavior which are turned into laws by a voting block that puts into power
politicians who make laws based on those decrees, among other things. The
end result of that process is one in which I am denied a specific civil
right.

> > But, like I said. I'm willing to back it up, in private.
> 
> If you're not willing to back up your accusations in public, you
> shouldn't make them in public.

I already have, just not in this forum. Go read the other sources I listed.
But if you want more context in which to read, I'll offer you two words:
"Civil union" (I won't use "Marriage", because I find the mention of it
in law to be one of the primary examples of religion intruding upon the
secular law).

And no, it's not same-sex unions that are at issue (as I said elsewhere).
-- 
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter   : :' :
 `. `'
   `-


pgpK6HUMUaVcO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#224423: ITP: p3scan -- transparent POP3-proxy with virus- and spam-scannig

[Mats Rynge]

Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-12-18
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: p3scan
  Version : 1.0-rc6
  Upstream Author : Jack S. Lai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://p3scan.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
  Description : transparent POP3-proxy with virus- and spam-scanning

p3vsan uses iptables port re-direction to intercept outgoing POP3
connections. It provides different types of email scanning and is ideal
for helping to protect your "Other OS" LAN from harm, especially when
used in conjunction with a firewall and other Internet Proxy servers.

It is designed to enable scanning of incoming email messages for
virus's, worms, trojans, spam, and harmfull attachments. Because viewing
HTML mail can enable a spammer to validate an email address (via Web
bugs), it can also provide HTML stripping.

--

Note that this is going to replace pop3vscan (I'm the current
maintainer), which upstream was left in an unmaintained state. Several
attempts were made (publicly [1], and private) to get the project active
again. After a while, lots of patches had been submitted [2], and the
original maintainer was still MIA, so p3scan was created by using
pop3vscan as a base and incorporating most of the patches.

[1] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3162424&forum_id=9741
[2] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=55494&atid=477213

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> The 'slander', if such it is (and I, obviously, don't consider it such)
> is against the named set of churches, and those that follow their doctrinal
> decrees

Claiming that Christians are against civil liberties is slander in my
book. You named, among other, a subset of Christians that I belong to,
and claimed that our "doctrinal decrees" are against civil rights.
I hold this to be untrue, and unless you can back up your claims, I am
going to think of you as a liar.

> But, like I said. I'm willing to back it up, in private.

If you're not willing to back up your accusations in public, you
shouldn't make them in public.

-- 
Henning Makholm   "Hele toget raslede imens Sjælland fór forbi."

Re: GNU within the name

[Mathieu Roy]

Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

> Julian Mehnle dijo [Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:56:15PM +0100]:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > If we ever get a replacement libc that would really work as
>> > replacement... on such system GNU claims would become much weaker.  Not
>> > that there was a serious chance of that happening - drop-in replacement
>> > of glibc on Linux would be a lot of work and so far none of the
>> > alternative libc projects had tried to pull that off.
>> 
>> Why would anyone want to replace GLIBC in the first place?  To get rid of 
>> "GNU" in "GNU/Linux"?
>
> Maintainability? Many people (not me, I would lack that level of
> technical skills) have pointed out that glibc's code is a mess.
>
> Ability to distribute under another license? Yes, it might not be a
> priority in Debian (we are, after all, pro-GPL), but many people would
> like having a BSD-style libc for Linux...

The glibc is LGPLed, not GPLed. If even LGPL is not enough for
someone, I'm not sure he's looking to contribute to Free Software
development. 





-- 
Mathieu Roy

  +-+
  | General Homepage:   http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ |
  | Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/   |
  | Not a native english speaker:   |
  | http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english  |
  +-+

Re: GNU within the name

[Mathieu Roy]

Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

> Mathieu Roy wrote:
> ...
>> When I'm told that a system is running GNU/whatever, I expect first to
>> find there GNU coreutils, GNU bash, GNU Emacs, GNU Compiler
>> Collection, gzip, GNU awk,GNU make, the GNU Debugger, GNU sysutils,
>> GNU tar, GNUpg, GNU grep, GNU mailutils, GNU ncurses, GNU readline,
>> GNU shellutils, GNU wget...
>
>you can install these on pretty much any system... is my gaming
> machine running gnu/win xp? or did we use gnu/solaris at -xxx-?

Maybe, yes.

>this GNU narcissism is pretty annoying... where's the freedom RSM
> is promoting? the software is released under GPL and that's
> it.

You can call that narcissism. In these days, I do not think that the
freedom Richard Stallman, via the GNU project, promoted are so famous
that we can afford to forgot an occasion to advertise.


> Nowhere in the GPL it says you have to call your project
> GNU/something.

Is there anybody that ever made that request? You now, it is not about
giving to the Linux project, a kernel project, the GNU prefix. It is
about naming the system itself, system composed partly, but only
partly, of the Linux kernel.



-- 
Mathieu Roy

  +-+
  | General Homepage:   http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ |
  | Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/   |
  | Not a native english speaker:   |
  | http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english  |
  +-+

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Joel Baker]

[ Re-adding Cc to debian-bsd, since it's a serious naming proposal ]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:12:05PM -0500, Jim Penny wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:42:23 -0500
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Actually, I think daemons first showed up in the _Fiend Folio_, which
> > means we have the British to thank for this confusion.  ;-)
> >
> 
> What about Maxwell's daemon?   This is usually thought to be the
> computer origin of the term.  19th Century.
> http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Daemon.html

Debian Faraday, Feynman, Fermi, ...
Debian Newton, Nobel, ...
Debian Ohm, Oort, Oppenheimer, ...

Ladies and gentlemen (and the rest of y'all, too) - I submit that this
might well be a winner. For nearly every letter in the alphabet, we have
multiple possibilities, a great many of whom will be casually recognizeable
to any geek audience, and quite a few of whom are dead and unlikely to
object.

(Oh, and for those playing along, there are two other interesting letters
to check...)

Debian Hale, Halley, ... (jeez. Hurd folks will have so many good choices!)
Debian Landau, Lawrence, Leibniz, Lorentz, ... (oh, man - Linux gets Lovelace!)

Debian Mach, of course, must be reserved for a FreeBSD-on-Mach port :)
-- 
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter   : :' :
 `. `'
   `-


pgpVvekXXZ7pw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU within the name

[Erik Steffl]

Mathieu Roy wrote:
...
When I'm told that a system is running GNU/whatever, I expect first to
find there GNU coreutils, GNU bash, GNU Emacs, GNU Compiler
Collection, gzip, GNU awk,GNU make, the GNU Debugger, GNU sysutils,
GNU tar, GNUpg, GNU grep, GNU mailutils, GNU ncurses, GNU readline,
GNU shellutils, GNU wget...
  you can install these on pretty much any system... is my gaming 
machine running gnu/win xp? or did we use gnu/solaris at -xxx-?

  this GNU narcissism is pretty annoying... where's the freedom RSM is 
promoting? the software is released under GPL and that's it. Nowhere in 
the GPL it says you have to call your project GNU/something.

erik

2.6 and SE Linux

[Russell Coker]

I have attached a copy of the README.Debian file from my kernel-patch-2.4-lsm 
package which documents the kernel configuration settings for using SE Linux.

I believe that Debian should do the same thing as Red Hat in terms of SE Linux 
kernel support.  That is 2.6 kernels should be built with SE Linux support 
and let the user decide whether to enable it.  If the 
CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM kernel option is enabled and you boot with 
"selinux=0" (or if the Debian kernel source was modified to make selinux=0 
the default and require selinux=1 to boot with SE Linux) then there is no 
performance cost to SE Linux.

The only cost for including SE Linux in the default kernel is a small amount 
of memory and a small amount of disk space for vmlinuz (both less than 50K 
last time I checked).

This has already been done in the 2.6.0-test kernels from Red Hat.

-- 
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
kernel-patch-2.4-lsm for Debian
-

This patch supplies the Linux Security Modules.  It is needed for NSA Security
Enhanced Linux (among other things).

To apply automaticaly, set PATCH_THE_KERNEL=YES before first running of
make-kpkg (from package: kernel-package) and "make-kpkg clean" to remove.

When configuring your kernel do the following:
(Under Networking Options, enable Network Packet Filtering.
 Under Security Options, enable Capabilities and enable
 both IP Networking and SELinux as built-in options.)


This means having the following in your /usr/src/linux/.config:
CONFIG_NETFILTER=y
CONFIG_INET=y
CONFIG_SECURITY=y
CONFIG_SECURITY_NETWORK=y
CONFIG_SECURITY_CAPABILITIES=y
# CONFIG_SECURITY_ROOTPLUG is not set
CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX=y

This release of SE Linux depends on XATTR's.  For the Ext3 file system
use the following settings:
CONFIG_EXT3_FS_XATTR=y
CONFIG_EXT3_FS_XATTR_SHARING=y
CONFIG_EXT3_FS_SECURITY=y

The options CONFIG_EXT3_FS_XATTR_USER and CONFIG_EXT3_FS_XATTR_TRUSTED are
not required for SE Linux, but do not do any harm either.

For the DEVPTS file system (required as the new SE Linux does not support
devfs or the old-styly /dev/pty) the following options are needed:
CONFIG_DEVPTS_FS=y
CONFIG_DEVPTS_FS_XATTR=y
CONFIG_DEVPTS_FS_SECURITY=y

In the recent kernel patches MLS should be functional, but I have never tested
it...

Also note that the labeled networking code is experimental, and that SE Linux
currently doesn't stack with the other security modules (so turn off OpenWall
and LIDS if you plan to use SE Linux).

The CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_DEVELOP config option allows you to turn the SE
capabilities on and off at run time, I recommend that you use it when first
trying SE Linux (otherwise policy mistakes may prevent your machine from
booting).

The CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM config option allows you to entirely
disable the SE Linux code.  If you have development mode turned on and boot
with no policy then the machine will give the same behaviour as a non-SE
machine, however there will be a small (maybe 2%) performance hit.  If you
enable this option and boot with "selinux=0" appended to the kernel command
line then SE Linux will be entirely disabled and the performance hit will be
removed.

If you want to use User-Mode-Linux (UML) with SE Linux then you need to apply
the UML kernel patch, the LSM kernel patch, and an additional patch that can
be found on http://www.coker.com.au/uml/ .

Feel free to ask me if you have any queries about how to do this properly.
Russell Coker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for December 12, 2003

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:32:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 05:00:13PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > There's certainly time to communicate with the Release Manager that
> > the package should no longer be considered a removal candidate.
> 
> The way to do that is to fix all the release critical bugs filed against
> the package, and upload to unstable.

On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:29:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 01:49:29PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > No, this points to a problem with the bug list as seen by the testing
> > scripts.  update_excuses for gjdoc says 
> >   gjdoc (source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, 
> > s390, sparc) is buggy! (1 > 0)
> > which is clearly not true if the sarge version of the package has two RC
> > bugs, no matter how you count.  (It should be non-buggy, 1 < 3; and even
> > if the bug you describe existed, it would be 3 > 2, not 1 > 0.)
> 
> Uh, no, it's not "non-buggy" if it has RC bugs. If gjdoc has an RC bug,
> it's not suitable for testing or release. Fix that now. The "less buggy"
> stuff should be considered an optimisation, if it doesn't hit your package
> when it should, the solution is to fix the RC bugs in your package.

Why are you arguing with one of your release deputies[1] on a public
mailing list, instead of working out procedures as a group, and present
coherent and consistent recommendations to the rest of the Project?

It's been almost four months since Joey H., Colin W., and Steve L. were
officially deputized; I would have thought this sort of thing would have
been hashed out by now.

Also, why aren't the assistant release managers mentioned on Debian's
organization page?

[1] 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00010.html
[2] http://www.debian.org/intro/organization

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  A fundamentalist is someone who
Debian GNU/Linux   |  hates sin more than he loves
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  virtue.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  -- John H. Schaar


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Jim Penny]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:42:23 -0500
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Actually, I think daemons first showed up in the _Fiend Folio_, which
> means we have the British to thank for this confusion.  ;-)
>

What about Maxwell's daemon?   This is usually thought to be the
computer origin of the term.  19th Century.
http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Daemon.html

Jim Penny

让你的电脑分身有术

[sl]

His 
hare可以让您在本身拥有一台普通PC的情况下使您的电脑花最少的成本一分为二，为三，而不影响其本身的效果和速度。
在通常情况下，一台电脑的运作所占其CPU资源的10%左右，我们用His 
hare的最新技术把CPU所浪费的资源利用起来，使大家在购买或增加电脑的同时能节约更多的建设成本，但却能达到组装有盘电脑一样的效果和速度，电脑的升级和维护更简单，更方便。
His 
hare单机多用户网络系统是基于windows2000\XP技术而开发的，在您拥有一台普通PC的前题下，只需再增加一台显示器，一套鼠标和键盘，一片PCI显示卡，就可获得与主机同样配置，同样速度的电脑。您愿意吗？
His hare优势
  建设成本减少70%；
  设备维护只需维护一台主机，大大减少工作量；
  升级只需升级一台主机，节约成本；
  多人上网只需一人费用；
电话：0755-33340100  33340110
EmilL:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http//www.sl99.com
浏览这份邮件可能会耽误您宝贵的时间，如果您觉得没有需要，请随手删除；如果您觉得以后用得着，请保存。对于耽误时间，我们表示万分歉意。
谢谢！

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:31:42AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:12:21AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> 
> > I think you trimmed away content that was crucial for understanding the
> > parts you did quote, but whatever.  If you need reptition or
> > elaboration, I'll provide it.
> 
> Please do. I found nothing in your article that seemed to provide
> answers to my questions.

I thought I just did.

> > One possibility would have been to not raise the trademark issues at all.
> 
> Which would amount to saying "We won't tell you why, but please change
> your name." I think that would be discouteous in the extreme.

No, they simply could have said that they were worried that people would
be confused that NetBSD was a product of the Debian Project.

Compare "Microsoft Word" to "Debian NetBSD".

The habit, which the Debian Project practices extensively, of using the
same proper noun to refer all kinds of different things, contributes to
this.  NetBSD has it, too.  It is either an OS, a foundation, or a
community, depending on context.

> > Possible approaches include:
> > 1) don't ask, don't tell
> > 2) order us to stop
> > 3) grant us a license
> 
> 4) Ask us nicely to stop.

Not compatible with mention of trademark.

> And (4). I don't think you have provided *any* evidence that (4) was
> not what they did, and I think that to react as if (2) was the case
> would be silly and excessively confrontational.

There is no such thing as a common-law trademark.  Telling someone that
they are (or "might be") diluting your trademark is putting them on
notice that you think you have a potential tort claim against them.

That's not polite in my book.  In yours, for all I know, it's a means of
romantic flirtation.

> > I'm generally in favor of a "use or lose it" approach to "intellectual
> > property", but this is more like "be an asshole or lose it".
> 
> I still cannot see how you imagine that they could have *told* us
> about their misgivings at all in a way that you wouldn't equal with
> "being an asshole".

See above.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|No executive devotes much effort to
Debian GNU/Linux   |proving himself wrong.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Laurence J. Peter
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [debian-devel] Re: security enhanced debian branch?

[Russell Coker]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:39, Magosányi Árpád <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this kind of stuff could be handled in new architectures. For
> example the Adamantix project could be merged back by creating
> an architecture i386-adamantix for the stack protected stuff, and
> the other parts being a "CDD" by the terminology of the above link.

Why is a separate branch needed?  We can have a private repository of a few 
critical packages compiled with Propolice etc, if that works then the option 
should be put in the default gcc packages and the important packages should 
be built with it.

Either it's good enough to go into main reasonably quickly, or it's not good 
enough to be used at all.  I don't think there's any middle ground.

-- 
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

[OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:20:46PM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> Nathan Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > If you wanted Greek names, there are plenty of obscure nymphs, satyrs,
> > centaurs, etc. to choose from. Since the Greeks classified them as
> > neither evil spirits nor deities, many of them would qualify as daemons
> > in the classical sense.
> 
> We could also go for "species," especially if we wanted recognizable
> names:
> 
> FreeBSD -> faun
> NetBSD  -> naiad or nereid
> OpenBSD -> oread

I always liked licking the creamy center out of oreads before ingesting
the crunchy carapace.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Organized religion is a sham and a
Debian GNU/Linux   | crutch for weak-minded people who
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | need strength in numbers.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Jesse Ventura


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Jimmy Kaplowitz]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:13:29AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Cf. Jesux.
> 
> ...which has gone for some years without attracting anyone who is both
> pious enough and clueful enough to develop it.
> 
> I find this inverse correlation suggestive.  :)

Or, it could be that Jesux wasn't really meant seriously. Go to the
Jesux home page and click on the word Jesux in the section title "What
is Jesux?". You'll see a real explanation. Given that, it's damn cool.
:-)

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian Mini CD bootable?

[Ian Eure]

On Tuesday 16 December 2003 07:06 am, ROBERT JACOBSEN wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I have downloaded the Debian minimal install iso image and
> written it to CD. The file on the CD is still in iso format (@185MB)
>
This is your problem. An ISO is a filesystem image, meant to be burnt directly 
to the CD. You've put the file inside a /new/ CD image, and burnt /that/.

The correct option varies from app to app, but you generally want to find a 
"burn image" or something similar in your menus.

Good luck,
Ian

Re: udev and /sys mounting [was: mounting tmpfs (and sysfs) defaultly in sarge?]

[Marco d'Itri]

On Dec 18, GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 >OK, I would like to rename from /etc/init.d/devpts.sh to
 >/etc/init.d/mountfs, because (1) for example there is mountnfs which
 >mounts nfs (2) umountfs in initscripts un-mounts filesystems, so
 >"mountfs" makes a name pair.  Any comments?
Looks good. OTOH, maybe it's not a good idea to pair mountfs with
umountfs, as they operate on different kinds of file systems, so
mountkernfs could be a possible alternative.

-- 
ciao, |
Marco | [3677 piPU8DBQdshFo]

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Nunya]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:53:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:07:44PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:03:00PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote:
> > 
> > Oh, its our good friend Tom Ballard. Maybe you could get back to working
> > on Debian and stop trolling now?
> 
> Oh, is *that* who Tom Ballard is?  I'd heard about this guy.
> 
> Stuff is starting to fall into place now.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

You guys usually argue circles around me.  The fact that you're arguing 
so weakly out to tell you something.

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 08:43:29AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:43:27PM -0800, Nunya wrote:
> > The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state.
> 
> Which is why the phrase "In God We Trust" is engraved or printed on all
> the US currency.  That's why the Pledge of Allegiance has the phrase,
> "Under God.."  Yeah, adamant.

The "under God" bit was added to the Pledge during the Eisenhower
administration as a token gesture against "godless communists".

Not sure about the currency, but we (the U.S.) didn't even *have*
federal currency until the 20th century.

Historical revisionism has never been more successfully practiced than
by Christians and capitalists in the United States during the 20th
century.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Eternal vigilance is the price of
Debian GNU/Linux   | liberty.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Wendell Phillips
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:02:29PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:43, Nunya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state.
> > Point to something specific, and we'll kick the fuckers out.
> 
> I along with many others are looking forward to seeing John Ashcroft being 
> kicked out.

/me rises from the pew and says "Amen!"

See?  I can be religious.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| What influenced me to atheism was
Debian GNU/Linux   | reading the Bible cover to cover.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Twice.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- J. Michael Straczynski


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:07:44PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:03:00PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote:
> 
> Oh, its our good friend Tom Ballard. Maybe you could get back to working
> on Debian and stop trolling now?

Oh, is *that* who Tom Ballard is?  I'd heard about this guy.

Stuff is starting to fall into place now.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|If you wish to strive for peace of
Debian GNU/Linux   |soul, then believe; if you wish to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |be a devotee of truth, then
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [custom] Debian Enterprise - packages

[Michael Meskes]

[Late answer, but I just lacked the time to read all mails.]

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:52:13PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 14:45, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > As per the recommendations from Bruce Perens' User Linux paper
> > http://userlinux.com/white_paper.html, this thread is to discuss the
> ...
> * Desktop Suite - GNOME (as more-Windows-like as KDE is, GNOME
> definitely has greater momentum, with SUN and HP, and now Novell's
> acquisition of Ximian and SUSE and corresponding statements - really,
> there's no point fighting the tide on this one).

I'm not sure I'd subscribe to this point of view, nor am I sure I even
like it.

We, as in Debian, do NOT go for a desktop suite just because it has
momentum in the enterprise world. We never did. And as long as you call
it enterprise DEBIAN there's still a large part of the debian spirit in this.

Besides I won't even buy the situation as you paint it. I'm not sure
what's the situation in your country but Germany certainly has been KDE
territory ever since and I cannot see all those companies switching
desktop suites. I for one have never been actively asked for Gnome, just
for KDE so far.

One final word, I strongly believe that the best thing free software has
to offer is its freedom and that it is driven by the community. KDE
still is mostly driven by a community not by companies, so why does this
sponsoring momentum change anything?

Note that I do not want to get into a technical discussion as I've used
both over the years. Why can't we just let the customers decide?

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Nunya]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:44:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:19:28PM -0800, Nunya wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:19:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > 
> > > I believe that if you cared to do the research on Usenet and mailing list
> > > debates of this kind, my statement above is defensible as fact on rigorous
> > > statistical grounds.  But I don't care enough to do the work to prove that
> > > to you.  :)
> > 
> > That is not much of a proof, it's just a reassertion of your statement, 
> > simply asserting it to be true.  Until you research it, you don't know 
> > it.  You only believe it.
> 
> You've rejected both inductive and deductive arguments, so I think it's
> clear that you will accept no path to the stated conclusion.
> 
> You're welcome to your dogmatism, but don't be surprised if no one else
> cares to share it.

Please prove to me the statement: 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg01536.html:
">> Because Christians are the people who primarily take offense at this
>> sort of thing in the context that we were discussing in this portion 
of>> the thread."

Just show me real research that backs up the claim.  All I see so far is 
an assertion that its true, without a single effort being made to prove 
it.  (Hint: ask a muslim.)

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:32:41AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:16, Nunya wrote:
> 
> > Face it.  You're practicing hate speech.  You're not better than what 
> > you hate.
> > 
> Ya know, I've always wondered something when people say things like
> this...
> 
> If I say "I hate Adolf Hitler and his cabinet", is that practising hate
> speech?

    ___  ___ _   _ 
 / ___|/ _ \|  _ \ \  / /_ _| \ | |
| |  _| | | | | | \ \ /\ / / | ||  \| |
| |_| | |_| | |_| |\ V  V /  | || |\  |
 \|\___/|/  \_/\_/  |___|_| \_|


Bah, but you probably did that on purpose, invoking the Deliberate
Invocation Corollary.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Good judgement comes from
Debian GNU/Linux   | experience; experience comes from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | bad judgement.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Nunya]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:40:06PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 
> > I guess someone from a culture with a caste system would believe that:
> > It is justified to sneer and think inferior certain people.
> > We don't buy that shit here.
> 
> 

I've noticed that and the "Godwin" (with no mention of nazisim anywhere 
*near* being invoked, unless the phrase "hate speech" implies nazism, in 
which case I have quite a few people I'd like to plonk) have been 
invoked then the other side is making absolutely unjustifiable 
statements.

Real good arguing there.

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Branden Robinson]

[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:33:48PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:24:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 
> | > Demons are evil,
> | 
> | Demons don't exist.  Consequently, their moral value is undefinable.
> 
> I claim that their moral value /is/ definable in the context of a
> particular mythology even if they don't exist.  In the case of the
> Christian religion, demons are generally believed to be evil.

Well, sure.  It is an essential characteristic of mythological belief
systems to ascribe "existence" to the unmeasurable, unprovable, and
unfalsifiable.

Since the Debian Project is a large and diverse organization, and since
mythological belief systems have a tendency to be mutually
contradictory, I assert that we cannot be guided by the proscriptions of
any particular mythological belief system.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Those who fail to remember the laws
Debian GNU/Linux   |of science are condemned to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |rediscover some of the worst ones.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Harold Gordon


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [debian-devel] Re: security enhanced debian branch?

[Magosányi Árpád]

A levelezőm azt hiszi, hogy Matt Zimmerman a következőeket írta:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 09:07:02AM -0400, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> 
> > Second, any such effort shouldn't be a branch, but should be mainstreamed 
> > in 
> > Debian proper.  Please see http://wiki.debian.net/CustomDebian for a 
> > possible approach for this sort of project.
> 
> For cases where the added functionality is provided by additional packages,
> this is easy.  However, some of the things which are being experimented with
> include compiler patches to produce binaries which make certain types of
> exploits more difficult, and that kind of thing is not easy to merge into
> Debian proper.

I think this kind of stuff could be handled in new architectures. For
example the Adamantix project could be merged back by creating
an architecture i386-adamantix for the stack protected stuff, and 
the other parts being a "CDD" by the terminology of the above link.

(I do not know enough about the history of the project to tell if its
developers would consider merging back a good idea or an organisational
impossibility. But the main point is not about that, or even that project
in particular.)

-- 
GNU GPL: csak tiszta forrásból

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:19:28PM -0800, Nunya wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:19:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > 
> > I believe that if you cared to do the research on Usenet and mailing list
> > debates of this kind, my statement above is defensible as fact on rigorous
> > statistical grounds.  But I don't care enough to do the work to prove that
> > to you.  :)
> 
> That is not much of a proof, it's just a reassertion of your statement, 
> simply asserting it to be true.  Until you research it, you don't know 
> it.  You only believe it.

You've rejected both inductive and deductive arguments, so I think it's
clear that you will accept no path to the stated conclusion.

You're welcome to your dogmatism, but don't be surprised if no one else
cares to share it.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Men use thought only to justify
Debian GNU/Linux   |their wrong doings, and speech only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |to conceal their thoughts.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Voltaire


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:41:12AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> The thought goes something like this:
> 
> "Well, the mascot of ALL the BSD derivatives is a daemon, in various forms"
> (and, I will note, they are quite adament about it *not* being a demon,
> which is why the form is *always* a cartoony/stylized form)

Pah, "demon" is just a corruption of "daemon" (should "daemon" be
spelled with an "ae" ligature?  if so, I think typography explains this
orthographic shift).  The only people I know of who make a distinction
are the BSD people and the authors of the Dungeons & Dragons game
system, who decided to have some neutral evil beasties to put in between
the lawful evil devils and chaotic evil demons.

Actually, I think daemons first showed up in the _Fiend Folio_, which
means we have the British to thank for this confusion.  ;-)

Or maybe they showed up in a Gygax-authored dungeon module before being
anthologized in the _Field Folio_, shifting the blame back to the U.S.
:-)

/me dons the mailing list charter cop uniform again and tasers himself

Hey, if I keep up this self-flagellation, I'll end up a better Christian
than those who object to my proposed naming scheme!  Tee-hee.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Fair use is irrelevant and
Debian GNU/Linux   |improper.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Asst. U.S. Attorney Scott
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |Frewing, explaining the DMCA


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:18:41AM -0800, Nunya wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:39:51AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:49:06 -0800, Nunya  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> > 
> > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:38:45AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:53:18AM -0800, Nunya wrote:
> > >>
> > >> | I don't believe in magical beings.  I *do* believe some humans |
> > >> intentionally set out to hurt other humans.  Branden's beliefs and
> > >> | sneering disdain for some of his fellow humans is quite clear.
> > >>
> > >> ... and in some cases justified.
> > 
> > > Who are you to pass judgement on others?
> > 
> > judgment? I see an expression of an opinion.  And he is a
> >  living, thinking being, and thus has opinions. Are you saying you
> >  have none?

> I guess someone from a culture with a caste system would believe that:
> It is justified to sneer and think inferior certain people.
> We don't buy that shit here.



-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpvHNnwDnYau.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:31:17AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> Somehow, I don't think Branden will mind being told his dislike of
> "parochial religious fundamentalists" is showing. I suspect he'd be proud
> of it. But you'll see for yourself, soon enough.

I've known some quite nice people who had parochial fundamentalist
beliefs, and who didn't let their conviction that I was going to Hell
prevent them from cultivating a friendship with me.

I try to fight meme wars on designated meme battlefiends, like public
discussion forums on the Internet.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|People with power understand
Debian GNU/Linux   |exactly one thing: violence.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Noam Chomsky
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:17:03AM -0800, Nunya wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:31:53AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:23:39PM -0800, Nunya wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:12:56PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > > Because Christians are the people who primarily take offense at this 
> > > > sort
> > > > of thing in the context that we were discussing in this portion of the
> > > > thread.
> > > 
> > > That's another opinion expressed as a generalization.  I think you 
> > > better quit while you're ahead.
> > 
> > It seemed inductively valid, but easy enough to disprove.  Anyone care
> > to provide a counter-example?  Do any non-Christians wish to express
> > personal discomfort or offense with the names I proposed?
> 
> Muslims and Jews also believe in demons.
> Witches believe in demons.
> African nature-religionists also believe in demons.

Do they all mean the same thing by "demon"?  From my amateurish
dabblings in comparative religion, I seriously doubt it, especially in
the case of the non-Abrahamic religions listed, which have seen less of
a dualistic, Zoroastrian influence (not surprising given that Wicca
claims to be grounded on Celtic traditions, and both the Celts and
Africans are far from the Middle East, whereas the Abrahamic religions
all originate there).

> Face it dude, you're hatred and unfairness towards one specific group of 
> people is shining through.

I try very hard not to hate *people*.  I do, on the other hand, think
some belief systems are highly inimical to critical and rational thought.

How am I being "unfair"?  I have asked people why the Debian Project
should make product naming decisions within constraints imposed
particularly by the Christian religion, and I have yet to receive an
answer.

It would be unfair indeed if the Debian Project were to place the biases
of the Christian religion (or, more likely, the biases of the proponents
of some particular sect of it, who happen to be making noise on this
mailing list).

I propose we disregard the biases of all religions equally.

> I don't think this project is so enlightened after all.

If your notion of enlightment is one which is derived from divine
revelation, then I suspect you're right.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Somebody once asked me if I thought
Debian GNU/Linux   |sex was dirty.  I said, "It is if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |you're doing it right."
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Woody Allen


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Nunya]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:25:31PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >Adamant about the seperation of state and non-christian churches[0].
> >But, of course us weirdos[1] in california decided the pledge was
> >unconstitutional... of course I'm sure that was overturned[2].
> No, not overturned.  Waiting on appeal to the Supreme Court, which takes 
> its Own Sweet Time to do anything.

Well, I was the one who said it first but in fairness I'll admit you're 
right: there's about 5 more things like that: congress starts each day 
with a prayer, god is named during the president's swearing in, &c.
The atheists win that point.

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Nunya]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:39:51AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:49:06 -0800, Nunya  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:38:45AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:53:18AM -0800, Nunya wrote:
> >>
> >> | I don't believe in magical beings.  I *do* believe some humans |
> >> intentionally set out to hurt other humans.  Branden's beliefs and
> >> | sneering disdain for some of his fellow humans is quite clear.
> >>
> >> ... and in some cases justified.
> 
> > Who are you to pass judgement on others?
> 
>   judgment? I see an expression of an opinion.  And he is a
>  living, thinking being, and thus has opinions. Are you saying you
>  have none?

I guess someone from a culture with a caste system would believe that:
It is justified to sneer and think inferior certain people.
We don't buy that shit here.

Re: Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Nathanael Nerode]

Adamant about the seperation of state and non-christian churches[0].
But, of course us weirdos[1] in california decided the pledge was
unconstitutional... of course I'm sure that was overturned[2].
No, not overturned.  Waiting on appeal to the Supreme Court, which takes 
its Own Sweet Time to do anything.

Suggestions for NMU targets

[Nathanael Nerode]

Packages with these sorts of bugs:
* binaries accessing 'errno' or 'errno_h' directly.
This is easy to fix; just make them #include  in the 
appropriate file.  If it builds, you've fixed it.

* Build-Dependency breakage.
There's an awful lot of RC bugs due to this.  If you can just add or 
change a build dependency and get it to build, it's generally worth it. 
 (Do check with the maintainer that he isn't *deliberately* keeping the 
package out of testing with the RC bug, since this apparently happens 
sometimes.)

* configure generated from broken libtool.m4 (for mips).  This is a 
simple rebuild-type issue.

* 'latex2html moved to non-free' bugs -- where latex2html isn't even 
used.  This is just a dependency removal and a rebuild.

* Extra "conflicts" needed, such as in #190611.  Again, trivial.
For some reason a surprising number of maintainers don't seem to want to 
deal promptly with trivial-to-fix, but serious, bugs like these.  This 
is one reason why 'testing' is in such bad shape.

Re: Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Nathanael Nerode]

What are the UUs?
Unitarian Universalists.
Possibly the most liberal church in existence.  I think they're great. 
;-)  They don't require adherence to any doctrine (you can even be a UU 
atheist; although it started out as a Christian group, that's now 
optional).  They're very big on social justice and equality. 
Right-wingers would probably call them the "politically correct" chuch.

Processed: Re: Bug#224047: general: The upgrade starts the postgresql even if runlevel settings say NO to postgresql

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> reassign 224047 postgresql
Bug#224047: general: The upgrade starts the postgresql even if runlevel 
settings say NO to postgresql
Bug reassigned from package `general' to `postgresql'.

> severity 224047 normal
Bug#224047: general: The upgrade starts the postgresql even if runlevel 
settings say NO to postgresql
Severity set to `normal'.

> retitle 224047 postgresql: restarts postmaster after upgrade even when 
> disabled
Bug#224047: general: The upgrade starts the postgresql even if runlevel 
settings say NO to postgresql
Changed Bug title.

> thanks, control, and have a nice day
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Re: security enhanced debian branch?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 09:07:02AM -0400, Ben Armstrong wrote:

> Second, any such effort shouldn't be a branch, but should be mainstreamed in 
> Debian proper.  Please see http://wiki.debian.net/CustomDebian for a 
> possible approach for this sort of project.

For cases where the added functionality is provided by additional packages,
this is easy.  However, some of the things which are being experimented with
include compiler patches to produce binaries which make certain types of
exploits more difficult, and that kind of thing is not easy to merge into
Debian proper.

-- 
 - mdz

特大喜讯

[大海]

特大喜讯 
12月16日由本站指标选出并给会员推荐的《华能国际》大涨! 
12月14日由本站指标选出并给会员推荐的《轻工机械》3天最高暴涨25%! 
12月2日由本站指标选出并给会员推荐的《穗恒运A》连续上涨! 
11月28日由本站指标选出并给会员推荐的《上海金陵》3天暴涨20%! 
11月19日由本站指标选出并给会员推荐的《中视传媒》6天暴涨55%! 
11月11日由本站指标选出的《上海梅林》 16天暴涨92%! 
欢迎到http://thgfl.363.net/网站探讨并查看我们选出个股。（http://thgfl.363.net/粘帖到浏览器地址）;
《投资大师》帮你解套，帮你赚钱。准确的判断大势,让你成功抄底和逃顶；
如果目前还在深套，我们将免费为你提供一套详尽的“解套计划”。

Bug#224047: general: The upgrade starts the postgresql even if runlevel settings say NO to postgresql

[Brian M. Carlson]

reassign 224047 postgresql
severity 224047 normal
retitle 224047 postgresql: restarts postmaster after upgrade even when disabled
thanks, control, and have a nice day

On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 09:23:59PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Package: general
> Version: 20031213
> Severity: critical

This is not a critical bug, nor is it general. Reassigning and lowering
the severity. Keeping info inline for the postgresql maintainer.

> 
> After running apt-get upgrade, here is what happens:
> 
> 
> Setting up postgresql (7.2.1-2woody4) ...
> Restarting PostgreSQL database: postmaster
> No /usr/lib/postgresql/bin/postmaster found running; none killed.
> Starting PostgreSQL postmaster.
> pg_ctl: Another postmaster may be running.  Trying to start postmaster anyway.
> postmaster successfully started
> -END OF REPORT--
> 
> We have an additional runlevel /etc/rc7.d and there is postgresql script
> marked as NO START, like: /etc/rc7.d/K20postgresql -> ../init.d/postgresql
> 
> Thus such daemons should not start. But the upgrade scripts of a daemon
> forces it to start, which we consider not OK for our systems. I can immagine
> that the same happens with other daemons as well.
> 
> We have additional runlevel, which is OK to have as far we know and runlevel 
> says it is N 7.
> 
> 
> -- System Information
> Debian Release: 3.0
> Kernel Version: Linux perlbroker.kosmos 2.2.19-udma100-ext3 #1 SMP Sat Oct 20 
> 18:53:37 CEST 2001 i486 unknown

-- 
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Stephen Gran]

This one time, at band camp, Tom said:
> Y'all are going to bust a vein on this one.
> 
> So far, on *.debian.org, I've found a great many people who actively
> hate Jesus, this german who apparently has familiar views on Jews (as
> does frighteningly much of Europe), and a whole bunch of college
> professors who actively hate America.

So far all i have observed you to find is your inability to either read
or write.  I guess you just like to hear yourself talk, which is fine,
but would you mind doing it in a local bar, instead of where I expect to
get some work done?

> And everybody has communistic views on the business world.

I would suggest rereading.

> And, for third parties reading this in future, just look at what
> they're getting ready to do to *me*.

??? - this is a mailing list - what can they possibly do to you?
(Besides individually kill-filing you, which I am doing now).

> Just for those keeping a scorecard.  (I just want to be able to link
> to this post in future to completely destroy your credibility).

Or yours.

-- 
 -
|   ,''`.Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|  `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer |
|`- http://www.debian.org |
 -


pgpFDAHEyjA5A.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Josh Lauricha]

On Thu 12/18/03 08:43, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:43:27PM -0800, Nunya wrote:
> > The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state.
> 
> Which is why the phrase "In God We Trust" is engraved or printed on all
> the US currency.  That's why the Pledge of Allegiance has the phrase,
> "Under God.."  Yeah, adamant.

Adamant about the seperation of state and non-christian churches[0].
But, of course us weirdos[1] in california decided the pledge was
unconstitutional... of course I'm sure that was overturned[2].

And there is no _seperation_ of church and state. There is simply the
freedom to choose your own religion, and the federal congress has no
authority to make laws regaurding religion. However, this is the federal
government, states (depending on their constitutions) can make laws as
they see fit [3].

[0] Due to the definition of a religion. Satanism is generally described
by the masses as a cult, rather than a religion.
[1] Ok, it was really the 9th circuit of the US superior court (me
thinks, but close enough.
[2] I'm too lazy to check.
[3] Well, almost, we did have a civil war over this.

-- 


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

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Joel Baker]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 09:48:31AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Russell Coker wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:15, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except
> > > the UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons
> > > that they have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and
> > > formal recognition of committment ceremonies (they won't call it
> > > marriage, or treat it as
> >
> > What are the UUs?
> >
> > One Anglican minister I knew told me of a couple who had been living
> > together ("living in sin" as some people will say) for several years.
> > They approached him about arranging a wedding ceremony, and he
> > suggested that they need not bother as having established commitment
> > through living together for so long was good enough.
> >
> 
> What would Henry VIII do?

Ck | N > K,S

And, from my upbringing, "Wherever you find three or four Episcopalians,
you'll find a fifth." (To those under the dominion of the Metric system, I
apologize; this probably won't seem very funny...)
-- 
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter   : :' :
 `. `'
   `-


pgpUt26d9tWQn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Which machine is best to build documentation package?

[Paul Slootman]

On Wed 17 Dec 2003, Osamu Aoki wrote:

> Since SSH upload has been disabled, it looks very slow and unreliable to
> upload.   (Does dupload uses -C ?  Somehow, I felt faster.)

Using -C will not make it faster, as all the files to be uploaded are
compressed already (except .changes and .dsc, which are tiny).


Paul Slootman

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Joel Baker]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:21:23AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:05:46PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > > > Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the
> > > > stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and
> > > > Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect
> 
> > > So which civil rights are you referring to?
> 
> > Details in a private reply
> 
> So you're spewing slander across the broad spectrum of all or almost
> all Christians and refusing to back up your allegations in public?
> Yes, that will work well, methinks.

Anyone who wishes to:

1) Email me privately and ask

2) Read my livejournal (hint: it's obviously named, and should show up
trivally with Google)

3) Recall comments made on #debian-devel in IRC

4) Read comments made in other posts to Debian lists in the past

or

5) Do other basic Googling

will be able to figure out exactly what topic I'm talking about. It isn't
that I refuse to discuss it in public; it's that I'm tired of discussing it
in this thread, on this mailing list.

The 'slander', if such it is (and I, obviously, don't consider it such) is
against the named set of churches, and those that follow their doctrinal
decrees (which may be, but almost certainly isn't, the same set as "their
followers"; most people disagree with at least one doctrine of their chosen
church, in my unscientific, empirical observation).

But, like I said. I'm willing to back it up, in private. I just don't
particularly care to keep debating it on this list, at the moment,
particularly given how far off-topic we've come.
-- 
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter   : :' :
 `. `'
   `-


pgprMcf3j43X9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Joel Baker]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:52:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joel Baker)  wrote on 17.12.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your
> > claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it
> > stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing.
> 
> If I were a betting man, I'd bet I can guess what exactly it is - what the  
> Anglicans are currently in not-quite-civil-war about.

Not quite, but it is a related issue somewhat further along the spectrum.
One which, by it's nature, probably can't be addressed at all until the
current fracas is settled (in a manner I'd consider favorable).

It may be that, at some point in the future, the doctrinal statements
change, especially that of the Anglicans; they seem one of the more likely.
But, to date, it hasn't.

> Of course, don't expect Nunya to ever get it.

No comment.
-- 
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter   : :' :
 `. `'
   `-


pgpBHiOYpRFkx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:49:06 -0800, Nunya  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:38:45AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:53:18AM -0800, Nunya wrote:
>>
>> | I don't believe in magical beings.  I *do* believe some humans |
>> intentionally set out to hurt other humans.  Branden's beliefs and
>> | sneering disdain for some of his fellow humans is quite clear.
>>
>> ... and in some cases justified.

> Who are you to pass judgement on others?

judgment? I see an expression of an opinion.  And he is a
 living, thinking being, and thus has opinions. Are you saying you
 have none?

manoj
-- 
And the crowd was stilled.  One elderly man, wondering at the sudden
silence, turned to the Child and asked him to repeat what he had said.
Wide-eyed, the Child raised his voice and said once again, "Why, the
Emperor has no clothes!  He is naked!" "The Emperor's New Clothes"
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: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:13:52 -0500, Branden Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:  

> I think the fundies should crawl back into their spider holes to
> await the Apocalypse, while us heathens and sinners who don't TRULY
> know the saving grace of Jesus Christ can get back to making the
> world a better place.

  If you accept the definition of pagan as:
--
  Pagan \Pa"gan\, a. [L. paganus of or pertaining to the country,
 pagan. See {Pagan}, n.]
 Of or pertaining to pagans; relating to the worship or the
 worshipers of false gods
--
 that makes the various sects of the judeo-christian belief system
 pagans as far as my parent's belief system is concerned (personally,
 I find most these belief systems indistinguishable from village ojhas
 in India; [witch doctors who believe in gods of thunder, lightning,
 electricity, etc, and who believe in exorcism as the proper
 treatment for snake bites], but who am I to come between people and
 their superstitions).

manoj
-- 
Honorable, adj.: Afflicted with an impediment in one's reach.  In
legislative bodies, it is customary to mention all members as
honorable; as, "the honorable gentleman is a scurvy cur." Ambrose
Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
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

Bug#223772: general: no md5sums for many packages (e.g. bc)

[Steve Greenland]

On 18-Dec-03, 02:43 (CST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
> Do you want to tell us that the absence of the md5sums-files (those which 
> contain md5sums for every file in the package, and they _are_ absent for a 
> number of packages) should not be considered a bug, even if debsums 
> complains about this?

Amazingly enough, debsums is not policy. Lack of the md5sums file might
be a wishlist bug. If you file such a bug, and the maintainer closes it,
then the decision has been made for that particular package.

If you've been paying attention, many of us don't believe that including
per-file md5sums in packages provides any real value. Others disagree,
as sometimes happens. As the arguments have already been made in this
thread, over and over and over and over, I won't repeat them.

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

Re: GNU within the name (Was: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s))

[Joel Baker]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:06:56PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:56:15PM +0100, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > If we ever get a replacement libc that would really work as
> > > replacement... on such system GNU claims would become much weaker.
> > > Not that there was a serious chance of that happening - drop-in
> > > replacement of glibc on Linux would be a lot of work and so far none
> > > of the alternative libc projects had tried to pull that off.
> >
> > Why would anyone want to replace GLIBC in the first place? To get rid
> > of "GNU" in "GNU/Linux"?
>
> glibc has its problems and alternative libc implementations do exist
> (mostly for embedded use), but AFAIK none of them tries to become a
> full-blown thing.
>
> As for the reasons why somebody would do such replacement... Beats me
> - ask the guy who'd brought that up. IMO it's very unlikely, to put it
> mildly.

The impression (and, frankly, not an entirely clear one) I have gotton
from RMS's various comments on the naming, especially in regards to
NetBSD, boil down to the following (modulo probably screwing up the
capitalization, which I can never remember the rules for, and I do
apologize ahead of time):

"GNU represents the Gnu system, running with a native (Hurd) kernel"

"GNU/Linux is the Gnu system, using Linux as a kernel"

What isn't entirely clear to me, here, is just how much composes "the Gnu
system". It seems fairly clear to me that Robert Millan's work (which is
Debian's normal core userland, GNU-based, plus GNU libc) is more or less
identical to Debian's normal situation, but with a NetBSD kernel instead
of Linux. Therefore, I'm fairly certain it could be called "GNU/NetBSD"
(or, to make the NetBSD folks happier, "GNU/KNetBSD") and be precisely as
accurate as "GNU/Linux".

My porting work, however, uses the native NetBSD libc (and libm, and more
or less everything coming from that particular part of the source tree). It
still uses a primarily GNU-based userland (GNU coreutils instead of NetBSD
cat, ls, etc; GNU compiler; GNU tar instead of NetBSD tar or pax; etc). To
date, we had used "GNU/NetBSD" simply because it wasn't considered to be
worth having the argument over, and we were still using quite a lot of GNU
stuff, so figured it wasn't unreasonable to give them due credit (and that
if RMS objected, saying it wasn't "the Gnu system", well, we'd be quite
happy to drop the "GNU/" bit, of course...)

None of this really applies to changing the Linux ports away from glibc,
of course. But such a topic doesn't really belong on debian-bsd, anyway.
-- 
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter   : :' :
 `. `'
   `-


pgp2thz5cJyxF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Chad Walstrom]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:43:27PM -0800, Nunya wrote:
> The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state.

Which is why the phrase "In God We Trust" is engraved or printed on all
the US currency.  That's why the Pledge of Allegiance has the phrase,
"Under God.."  Yeah, adamant.

-- 
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.wookimus.net/
   assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */


pgpBTIrBp9QEP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU within the name (Was: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s))

[Raul Miller]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:41:46AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> You are currently saying that the GNU in GNU/Linux is justified by the
> glibc and not by any other GNU software, because these GNU software
> are common on other unixes.

Maybe what he was saying, but that's obviously not the real issue.

The original reason for the change from "Linux" to "GNU/Linux"
was that:

the kernel was developed and built with gcc AND
libc was gnu AND
most of the system tools in userland were gnu AND
the developers involved were not rabidly anti-gnu

(though the switch did flush a bit of rabid anti-gnu sentiment out of
the community).

The bsd port is still mostly vapor, so it's kinda hard to figure out how
much of the above is relevant.  Thus, knowing whether "GNU" is appropriate
(or whether a de-emphasized lower case "gnu" is appropriate) is more a
matter of speculation than a matter of hard fact.

Moreover, this speculation touches on a lot of issues (aesthetics, us
vs. them group dynamics, incompatibilities, bugs, and the hard technical
work of a very few) which mean we'll probably be seeing echos of this
supposed trademark discussion for years.

I've even contributed to it a bit myself -- it's an easy discussion to
jump into, even though it's not really a well defined problem.

> If we follow your theory, it means that if someday another system use
> the glibc, we should remove the GNU from the GNU/Linux name. 

We don't, as a general rule, follow theories very far.  Theories are a
good starting point, but they have to stand up to testing.

That said, I could wish for the gnu glibc crew to have a more up-to-date
website [forinstance].

-- 
Raul

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Joel Baker]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:30:57PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:15, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the
> > UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they
> > have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition
> > of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as
> 
> What are the UUs?

Universal Unitarians. Sort of a cross between Christianity Lite and Pagan
Lite; a very "feel good" religion, for the most part.

> One Anglican minister I knew told me of a couple who had been living together 
> ("living in sin" as some people will say) for several years.  They approached 
> him about arranging a wedding ceremony, and he suggested that they need not 
> bother as having established commitment through living together for so long 
> was good enough.
>
> Of course lots of vicars won't share that opinion.  But in urban areas it's 
> pretty common to shop around for a vicar who's opinions agree with yours 
> anyway.

Well, yes. Like I said, many individual persons don't have any problem with
what I do, particularly not once they see the relationship for any length
of time. It's the collective that has issued policy statements condemning
it, and *that* tends to influence a lot of people's assumptions.

In other words, it's very much like someone saying "Black people are all
stupid and evil. Present company excepted, of course". (Note that I'm not
trying to claim the breadth or depth of bias that was, and often still is,
directed against that particular group; it's just an example that most
people will be able to put into context.)
-- 
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter   : :' :
 `. `'
   `-


pgphcwJHC8GoO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: run-parts concurrently?

[A Mennucc]

Thomas Hood wrote:
Is there a version of run-parts out there that runs all the
scripts in a directory in parallel?  I have been writing 
such a thing but I want to make sure that I am not reinventing
the wheel.
--
Thomas Hood

 

yes there is but I dont remember where
look for "ways to speed the boot of linux"

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Russell Coker wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:15, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the
> > UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they
> > have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition
> > of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as
>
> What are the UUs?
>
> One Anglican minister I knew told me of a couple who had been living together
> ("living in sin" as some people will say) for several years.  They approached
> him about arranging a wedding ceremony, and he suggested that they need not
> bother as having established commitment through living together for so long
> was good enough.
>

What would Henry VIII do?

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/

Re: udev and /sys mounting [was: mounting tmpfs (and sysfs) defaultly in sarge?]

[Martin Pitt]

Hi!

On 2003-12-18 22:06 +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > What about /etc/init.d/kernfs or mountkernfs?
> 
> OK, I would like to rename from /etc/init.d/devpts.sh to
> /etc/init.d/mountfs, because (1) for example there is mountnfs which
> mounts nfs (2) umountfs in initscripts un-mounts filesystems, so
> "mountfs" makes a name pair.  Any comments?

Personally I find it a bit misleading since it is a very general name.
A script named "mountfs" should do what mountall.sh currently does,
this would make a sensible name pair to mountnfs IMHO. And "your"
mountfs should somehow make clear that it is responsible only for the
virtual file systems provided by the kernel; that's why I proposed
mountkernfs. The name vfs (for "virtual" is already taken for a
different concept in the kernel; what about "mountkfs", this is even
shorter?

Some consistency might be nice here, but OTOH, most users certainly
won't notice or care. So do whatever you like best :-)

Have a nice day!

Martin,
just compiling kernel 2.6.0 :-)

-- 
Martin Pitt Debian GNU/Linux Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.piware.de http://www.debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Nunya]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> 
> ... neither of the two above, who are pretty obviously losers (even though  
> they're certainly on very different sides; surprise, sometimes there's  
> more than two of 'em).
> 
> There's more than one actual difference between the two statements,  
> though, and I claim those are much more relevant. For example, the one is  
> a short list of specific persons, whereas the other is an enormous and ill- 
> defined list (the number of people where it's not obviously clear if they  
> count as Jews or non-Jews is pretty large).
> 
> Also, I'm pretty sure that one of these groups consists only of deceased  
> persons. Nobody can make them suffer. The actual point of "hate speech",  
> at least as I understand it (our terms for these things are not quite the  
> same), is that it is (designed|likely) to cause such suffering.
> 
> If pressed, I'd be likely to count stuff like "admit it, you're just  
> practising hate speech" als hate speech, though, even though it is  
> actually only targeted at a specific person (each time). Though it is  
> probably entirely sufficient to characterize it as a blatant ad-hominem.
> 

Y'all are going to bust a vein on this one.

So far, on *.debian.org, I've found a great many people who actively 
hate Jesus, this german who apparently has familiar views on Jews (as 
does frighteningly much of Europe), and a whole bunch of college 
professors who actively hate America.

And everybody has communistic views on the business world.

And, for third parties reading this in future, just look at what they're 
getting ready to do to *me*.

Just for those keeping a scorecard.  (I just want to be able to link to 
this post in future to completely destroy your credibility).

Re: GNU within the name (Was: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s))

[viro]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 02:26:27PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> > "Mathieu" == Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> Mathieu> If we follow your theory, it means that if someday another
> Mathieu> system use the glibc, we should remove the GNU from the
> Mathieu> GNU/Linux name.



Arrgh...

My apologies - I've managed to misparse the quote above.  Sorry.

OK...  That way it does make sense, but...  the rest of the arguments still
stands - libc has at least the same influence as the kernel and far more
than which implementation of cp(1), etc. is used on the system.

Anyway, that's far off-topic, so let's keep the followups off-list.
Apologies for misparsing.

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Dalibor Topic]

Momchil Velikov wrote:
"Sven" == Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Sven> That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then
Sven> differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be
Sven> named and so one ?
Indeed !
GNU/First one that shall not be named
GNU/Next one that shall not be named
GNU/Other one that shall not be named
Loosely abbreviated:
GNU/Fotsnoben
GNU/Notsnoben
GNU/Ootsnoben
yeah, sounds very mystic. Probably means elk spit in some nordic 
language, too. I vote for that.

cheers,
dalibor topic

Re: glib-devel and libgtk-devel

[Ganesan R]

> "shridevi" == shridevi anagawadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Hi,
> I am trying to install Sylpheed on PC with debian ( Kernel version 2.4).I
> am not able to compile sylpheed. I am not able to download :

Why? Debian unstable already has sylpheed and sylpheed-claws packages?

> libglib version 1.2,
> libglib-devel version 1.2,
> libgtk-devel version1.2
> libgtk version1.2.

apt-get install libgtk1.2-dev should get you all the packages required to
build sylpheed in case you want to do it manually.

> Can anyone one help me to find these sources? Or can anyone help me to
> compile sylpheed?

If you have set your source.list correctly, you can simply do
"apt-get source libgtk1.2 libglib1.2" to get the sources. However, I see no
reason for manually compiling them yourself.

Ganesan

--
Ganesan R

Re: GNU within the name (Was: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s))

[Gunnar Wolf]

Julian Mehnle dijo [Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:56:15PM +0100]:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If we ever get a replacement libc that would really work as
> > replacement... on such system GNU claims would become much weaker.  Not
> > that there was a serious chance of that happening - drop-in replacement
> > of glibc on Linux would be a lot of work and so far none of the
> > alternative libc projects had tried to pull that off.
> 
> Why would anyone want to replace GLIBC in the first place?  To get rid of 
> "GNU" in "GNU/Linux"?

Maintainability? Many people (not me, I would lack that level of
technical skills) have pointed out that glibc's code is a mess.

Ability to distribute under another license? Yes, it might not be a
priority in Debian (we are, after all, pro-GPL), but many people would
like having a BSD-style libc for Linux...

...Or the good ol' 'Because it's there' stuff? :)

Greetings,

-- 
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

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Kai Henningsen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron Patrick)  wrote on 18.12.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:32:41AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> | On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:16, Nunya wrote:
> |
> | > Face it.  You're practicing hate speech.  You're not better than what
> | > you hate.
> | >
> | Ya know, I've always wondered something when people say things like
> | this...
> |
> | If I say "I hate Adolf Hitler and his cabinet", is that practising hate
> | speech?
>
> No, but if you say you hate Jews, then many would claim you are.  If you
> wanted to be cynical, you could point out which side won the second
> world war...

... neither of the two above, who are pretty obviously losers (even though  
they're certainly on very different sides; surprise, sometimes there's  
more than two of 'em).

There's more than one actual difference between the two statements,  
though, and I claim those are much more relevant. For example, the one is  
a short list of specific persons, whereas the other is an enormous and ill- 
defined list (the number of people where it's not obviously clear if they  
count as Jews or non-Jews is pretty large).

Also, I'm pretty sure that one of these groups consists only of deceased  
persons. Nobody can make them suffer. The actual point of "hate speech",  
at least as I understand it (our terms for these things are not quite the  
same), is that it is (designed|likely) to cause such suffering.

If pressed, I'd be likely to count stuff like "admit it, you're just  
practising hate speech" als hate speech, though, even though it is  
actually only targeted at a specific person (each time). Though it is  
probably entirely sufficient to characterize it as a blatant ad-hominem.

MfG Kai

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Kai Henningsen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Henning Makholm)  wrote on 18.12.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:05:46PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the
> > > > stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and
> > > > Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect
>
> > > So which civil rights are you referring to?
>
> > Details in a private reply
>
> So you're spewing slander across the broad spectrum of all or almost
> all Christians and refusing to back up your allegations in public?

Given that the one he replied to already *has* backed them up, I don't see  
your point.

> Yes, that will work well, methinks.

It does. It tells me which one of you two to killfile. Hint; it's not  
Joel.


MfG Kai

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Momchil Velikov]

> "Sven" == Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Sven> That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then
Sven> differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be
Sven> named and so one ?

Indeed !

GNU/First one that shall not be named
GNU/Next one that shall not be named
GNU/Other one that shall not be named

~velco

Re: GNU within the name (Was: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s))

[Momchil Velikov]

> "Mathieu" == Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Mathieu> If we follow your theory, it means that if someday another
Mathieu> system use the glibc, we should remove the GNU from the
Mathieu> GNU/Linux name.

FWIW, BeOS uses glibc.  

~velco

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Kai Henningsen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joel Baker)  wrote on 17.12.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:25:11PM -0800, Nunya wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:56:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > For the record, however, if you consider saying that the lifestyle or
> > > beliefs of someone you don't agree with are sufficient to condemn them
> > > to an eternity of suffering as hate speech (and I generally do), I'm on
> > > the catching end of such a statement from every person who supports,
> > > directly or indirectly, any sect of Christianity which I am aware of,
> > > all of whom advocate divine justice, and most of which also advocate the
> > > continued denial of civil rights as well.
> > > ^^^
> > 
> >
> > "Straw man" means imagining a problem and then attacking it, which is
> > preciesly what you are doing here.
>
> Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the
> stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and
> Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect
> of Christianity under most circumstances, but drawing from the same
> traditions). Somehow, though, I find this unlikely. I haven't bothered to
> look closely at the smaller and more fundamentalist sects. The Unitarians
> might have a different position; they seem the most likely. But they don't
> have enough voting members to succeed against the above.
>
> Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your
> claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it
> stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet I can guess what exactly it is - what the  
Anglicans are currently in not-quite-civil-war about.

Of course, don't expect Nunya to ever get it.

MfG Kai

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Kai Henningsen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nunya)  wrote on 17.12.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:35:54AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> > | You are totally rationalizing.
> >
> > *sigh*  From Branden's original post where he mentioned the names:
> >
> > > We might use names from Christian demonology (since the BSD mascot
> > > is the cute and devilish "daemon"), with the first letter shared by the
> > > demon's name and the corresponding BSD flavor.
> >
> > Once again, the stated intent /was/ a punning reference to the BSD
> > daemon.
> >
>
> Like I said, go right ahead.  I really want to see how this plays out.

You really are trying to be as offensive as you could possibly be.

In another part of this thread you claim you're not a fundamentalist. Yet  
you object to the same things a Christian fundamentalist would, you use  
the same twisting of what others wrote that I see from fundamentalists in  
Usenet debates all the time ...

It it walks like a duck ...

Anyway, *plonk*.


MfG Kai

Re: udev and /sys mounting [was: mounting tmpfs (and sysfs) defaultly in sarge?]

[GOTO Masanori]

At Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:11:18 +0100,
Martin Pitt wrote:
> On 2003-12-15 10:04 +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > >From the view point of libc6 maintainer, it's no problem to merge /sys
> > mount for /etc/init.d/devpts.sh.  The name of devpts.sh should be
> > renamed to something, though.  And it can be also applied for /dev/shm
> > tmpfs.
> 
> That sounds reasonable. I just don't wanted it in devpts.sh.
> 
> What about /etc/init.d/kernfs or mountkernfs?

OK, I would like to rename from /etc/init.d/devpts.sh to
/etc/init.d/mountfs, because (1) for example there is mountnfs which
mounts nfs (2) umountfs in initscripts un-mounts filesystems, so
"mountfs" makes a name pair.  Any comments?


I take care of Marco's suggestion about initramfs.

Regards,
-- gotom

autoconf - make-kpkg problem

[Andreas Tille]

Hi,

I try to build a kernel module (legousbtower to get Lego Mindstorm with
USB working).  I builded a module-source package and tried

 fakeroot make-kpkg modules_image

This process stops by

  config.status: creating Makefile
  sed: file ./confstatnlBJkF/subs-1.sed line 47: Unterminated `s' command
  sed: file ./confstatnlBJkF/subs-2.sed line 11: Unterminated `s' command

The reason is the following:  If I call ./configure in the build
directory all works fine.  But make-kpkg calls configure from out
of a makefile.  Make has the behaviour to print

 make: Entering directory `/u/gnu/make'

which might be switched of by the --no-print-directory option but I
have no idea how to birng this in into make-kpkg.  This behaviour of make
results in the following difference:

( "<" called from make-kpkg, ">" called from /bin/sh )

< checking for kernel compile parameters... make[3]: Entering directory 
`/usr/src/l
inux-2.4.23'
< gcc
< make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.4.23' make[3]: Entering 
directory `/
usr/src/linux-2.4.23'
< -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.23/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes 
-Wno-trigr
aphs -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe 
-mpreferred-st
ack-boundary=2 -march=athlon -DMODULE -DMODVERSIONS -include 
/usr/src/linux-2.4.23/
include/linux/modversions.h
< make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.4.23'
---
> checking for kernel compile parameters... gcc -D__KERNEL__ 
> -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.2
3/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing 
-fno-co
mmon -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=athlon 
-DMODULE
 -DMODVERSIONS -include /usr/src/linux-2.4.23/include/linux/modversions.h

The result is a broken sed line which looks like this:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]@%make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.4.23'
-D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.23/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes 
-Wno-trigrap
make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.4.23'%g

Here obviousely the "make[3]..." lines have to be removed.

While I would consider this as a bug of autoconf which should circumvent
this kind of behaviour I would like to know how to work around this problem
sanely.

Kind regards

 Andreas.

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Russell Coker]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:10, "David Palmer." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Supply all of the relevant, and none of the extraneous:-
>
> Debian GNU/Free
> Debian GNU/Net
> Debian GNU/Open

I disagree.  Debian GNU/Linux is free, it works well on the net, and it is 
open.

I think that your naming suggestion will create confusion.

-- 
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

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[David Palmer.]

On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 20:08, Michael Piefel wrote:
> Am 18.12.03 um 11:05:36 schrieb Sven Luther:
> > That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then
> > differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be
> > named and so one ?
> Exactly:
>Debian GNU/First one that shall not be named
>Debian GNU/Next one that shall not be named
>Debian GNU/Other one that shall not be named
> 
> Even the right letters.

Supply all of the relevant, and none of the extraneous:-

Debian GNU/Free
Debian GNU/Net
Debian GNU/Open

No one need be upset at that. Just leave the BSD part off.
It is understandable that the people at the various BSDs have some level
of proprietary 'pride' in their creation. I don't think that this
minimal association would upset them, the market knows what it is
getting, and Theo De Raadt won't kill anybody because his distro is
being associated with some kind of glorified fairy.
Regards,

David.

glib-devel and libgtk-devel

[shridevi anagawadi]

Hi,
I am trying to install Sylpheed on PC with 
debian ( Kernel version 2.4).I am not able to compile sylpheed.I am not 
able to download :
libglib version 1.2,
libglib-devel version 1.2,
libgtk-devel version1.2
libgtk version1.2.
Can anyone one help me to find these sources?Or can 
anyone help me to compile sylpheed?
thank you,
shridevi
Confidentiality Notice 

The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended
for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender at Wipro or [EMAIL PROTECTED] immediately
and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Russell Coker]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:15, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the
> UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they
> have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition
> of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as

What are the UUs?

One Anglican minister I knew told me of a couple who had been living together 
("living in sin" as some people will say) for several years.  They approached 
him about arranging a wedding ceremony, and he suggested that they need not 
bother as having established commitment through living together for so long 
was good enough.

Of course lots of vicars won't share that opinion.  But in urban areas it's 
pretty common to shop around for a vicar who's opinions agree with yours 
anyway.

-- 
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

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Michael Piefel]

Am 18.12.03 um 11:05:36 schrieb Sven Luther:
> That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then
> differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be
> named and so one ?
Exactly:
   Debian GNU/First one that shall not be named
   Debian GNU/Next one that shall not be named
   Debian GNU/Other one that shall not be named

Even the right letters.

-- 
|=| Michael Piefel
|=| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
|=| Tel. (+49 30) 2093 3831

Re: GNU within the name (Was: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s))

[viro]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:56:15PM +0100, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If we ever get a replacement libc that would really work as
> > replacement... on such system GNU claims would become much weaker.  Not
> > that there was a serious chance of that happening - drop-in replacement
> > of glibc on Linux would be a lot of work and so far none of the
> > alternative libc projects had tried to pull that off.
> 
> Why would anyone want to replace GLIBC in the first place?  To get rid of 
> "GNU" in "GNU/Linux"?

glibc has its problems and alternative libc implementations do exist (mostly
for embedded use), but AFAIK none of them tries to become a full-blown thing.

As for the reasons why somebody would do such replacement...  Beats me - ask
the guy who'd brought that up.  IMO it's very unlikely, to put it mildly.

Re: GNU within the name

[viro]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:15:37PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Why not?
> 
> You said what I expected from you: you revealed that you disbelieve
> that the system should be called GNU/Linux. Good to know in this kind
> of discussion.



I'm not a True Believer, if that's what you mean.

> Why not? 
> 
> I will not reply to that question, I think there is enough information
> on the web about that, for instance
>  
 
You do realize that you are emulating a garden-variety bible-thumper here?

> When I'm told that a system is running GNU/whatever, I expect first to
> find there GNU coreutils, GNU bash, GNU Emacs, GNU Compiler
> Collection, gzip, GNU awk,GNU make, the GNU Debugger, GNU sysutils,
> GNU tar, GNUpg, GNU grep, GNU mailutils, GNU ncurses, GNU readline,
> GNU shellutils, GNU wget... 
> 
> These are required components of a system. The daemons you install on

Oh, really?

emacs:  priority: optional
gawk:   priority: optional (BTW, mawk is required)
make:   priority: standard
gcc et.al.  ditto (at most)
gdb:ditto
sysutils:   optional
gnupg:  standard
mailutils:  optional
readline:   standard
shellutils: eaten by coreutils, what the hell are you talking about?
wget:   optional

> that system are not basis components, as you may well not be using
> them at all.

Like, say it, init?  Or cron/anacron/combination thereof?  Or syslogd, or...?

> Anyway, your proposal is unrelated to the current subject: the NetBSD
> port of Debian GNU. Unless you are about to propose that Debian
> completely change it's naming policy, I think we can stop this
> dicussion now.

As I've said, until the hell freezes and we get a drop-in replacement of
glibc, it's moot - Linux-based ports will be glibc-based anyway.  I'm not
particulary interested in discussing the appropriate names for inexistent
objects, so I'm only glad to drop that.

RE: GNU within the name (Was: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s))

[Julian Mehnle]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If we ever get a replacement libc that would really work as
> replacement... on such system GNU claims would become much weaker.  Not
> that there was a serious chance of that happening - drop-in replacement
> of glibc on Linux would be a lot of work and so far none of the
> alternative libc projects had tried to pull that off.

Why would anyone want to replace GLIBC in the first place?  To get rid of "GNU" 
in "GNU/Linux"?

经销电子测量仪器、仪表

[abc]

尊敬的客户：
您好！
深圳市新天马电子有限公司创立于一九九年。公司创办以来致力于电子测试、维护领域代理、经销国内外电子测量仪器、仪表。
主要经营有：电子工具、工业测量仪器、光学仪器电子通用类仪器仪表、环境实验设备、防静产品等。
公司承诺：本着诚信、公道、务实、创新、以市场为龙头、质量为生命、服务为根本之理念开拓创新。真诚的期待与您的合作。
 
公司主力产品：专业配套生产激光头厂家专门量测设备。维修激光头、回收激光头等业务。
 公司分销产品：电子除湿防潮机、精密电子天平、
 中国总经销代理：
  
日本MEIZHI系列产品：电焊台、吸烟仪、螺丝排列成型机、点胶机、电子显微镜、电批。
 联系方式：
  ADD：深圳市振中路时代都会
  电话：0755-33340399  33340398  
  联系人：刘生  马生 
  Http:www.cnxtm.com

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:37:56PM -0600, Kevin Kreamer wrote:
> [I am not subscribed to debian-bsd.]
> 
> On Dec 17, 2003, at 10:20, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >Given that we're going to be saddled with with a comprehension problem
> >anyway, I say we abandon the effort to be descriptive in the product
> >name.  I proposed having a correlation between the first letter of the
> >product name and the underlying BSD variant simply as a mnemonic
> >convenience for people who already know what the products are supposed
> >to be.
> 
> We don't have to *completely* give up the effort to be descriptive.  
> How about just calling it:
> 
> Debian GNU/NBSD
> Debian GNU/FBSD
> Debian GNU/OBSD (if there's ever an OpenBSD port)
> 
> It would have the advantage of being recognizable to most people, 
> without actually using 'NetBSD' or so anywhere in the name.
> 
> [ The following suggestion is possibly flameworthy.  Please consider 
> the above separate from the below. ]
> 
> In the case of a NetBSD libc, you could use
> 
> Debian NBSD/NBSD
> 
> basically having the first half signify which libc is used.  However, 
> if Debian is always going to use the GNU/ prefix, then perhaps make it 
> something like
> 
> Debian GNU/NBSD/NBSD
> 
> with the third part signifying the libc used.

I would better say that the second part be the libc, and that it can be
omitted if it is the same as most userland.

That said, we don't have only GNU stuff as userland.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:26:10AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use
> > demon name for keyword if possible.
> 
> Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but "fear of a
> name increases fear for the thing itself." ;-p

It is not about fear, just some uneasiness inside. 

> IOW, lighten up, people.  Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian
> GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named...

That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then
differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be
named and so one ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: GNU within the name

[Mathieu Roy]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:41:46AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>> You are currently saying that the GNU in GNU/Linux is justified by the
>> glibc and not by any other GNU software, because these GNU software
>> are common on other unixes.
>> 
>> Why? If you are right that others unixes uses widely GNU software,
>> maybe they should consider recognize the GNU part of the their
>> system. But that's a different story.
>> 
>> If we follow your theory, it means that if someday another system use
>> the glibc, we should remove the GNU from the GNU/Linux name. 
>
> Why not?

You said what I expected from you: you revealed that you disbelieve
that the system should be called GNU/Linux. Good to know in this kind
of discussion.

Why not? 

I will not reply to that question, I think there is enough information
on the web about that, for instance
 


>> It does not make sense: the GNU part of the name shows that the system
>> used is the system designed/initiated by the GNU project running with
>> the kernel Linux, which is not part of GNU. It does not mean that
>> there are GNU software rarely used elsewhere in the system! 
>
> Debian had not been initiated by GNU project, IIRC.  "Designated" is
> closer to reality, but that wouldn't warrant _anything_ - after all,
> gcc had been designated as a primary C compiler on a lot of systems,
> but that doesn't make it {lots of organizations}/gcc.  It doesn't work
> in that direction - *contributor* may have a right to make demands, not
> the other way round.
>
> And yes, GNU *had* contributed stuff.  The main dependency being glibc.
>
> BTW, if you are talking about frequency of use, glibc beats everything
> else by far.  With X11 and assorted daemons (almost all of them coming
> not from GNU) contending for the second place - depends on the type of use.
>
> If we ever get a replacement libc that would really work as replacement...
> on such system GNU claims would become much weaker.  Not that there was
> a serious chance of that happening - drop-in replacement of glibc on Linux
> would be a lot of work and so far none of the alternative libc projects had
> tried to pull that off.

When I'm told that a system is running GNU/whatever, I expect first to
find there GNU coreutils, GNU bash, GNU Emacs, GNU Compiler
Collection, gzip, GNU awk,GNU make, the GNU Debugger, GNU sysutils,
GNU tar, GNUpg, GNU grep, GNU mailutils, GNU ncurses, GNU readline,
GNU shellutils, GNU wget... 

These are required components of a system. The daemons you install on
that system are not basis components, as you may well not be using
them at all.

Anyway, your proposal is unrelated to the current subject: the NetBSD
port of Debian GNU. Unless you are about to propose that Debian
completely change it's naming policy, I think we can stop this
dicussion now.



-- 
Mathieu Roy

  +-+
  | General Homepage:   http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ |
  | Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/   |
  | Not a native english speaker:   |
  | http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english  |
  +-+

Re: ÙUnicode problem

[Colin Watson]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:11:15PM +0330, Arash Bijanzadeh wrote:
> I faced a problem with unicode and gotto go inside of this technoligy. I 
> noticed that for example when I am inserting a Arabic_khah with the unicode 
> 0f 062E two bytes with values D8 AE would be inserted to the file. Can 
> anybody tell me what is the relationship between these two value, and how 
> does it work.

D8 AE is the UTF-8 encoding of the Unicode character U+D8AE ("ARABIC
LETTER KHAH"). UTF-8 is the de facto standard encoding of Unicode on
Unix systems, partly due to its compatibility with US-ASCII. See RFC
2279 for the definition of UTF-8.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Super High Speed Movie Download--free, cool

[99Moviedownload]

高清晰电影超高速免费下载:
1.先安装软件, 下载和有关说明:
http://99movie.webspace4free.biz/default.htm
直接下载软件: 
http://easynews.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/ptc/PTCinstaller-v0.7.5.exe

2.上网后,将以下电影种子下载,即可下载电影.
电影: 出生入死.rmvb
种子:
http://bt.aodufilm.net/btfile/aodubt2003920193126.torrent
电影: 黑客帝国III.rmvb
种子:
http://bt.aodufilm.net/btfile/aodubt2003125102121.torrent
影片:萨达姆被捕
种子:
http://bt.aodufilm.net/btfile/aodubt20031214215038.torrent
更多..
有问题,请联系: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU within the name (Was: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s))

[viro]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:41:46AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> You are currently saying that the GNU in GNU/Linux is justified by the
> glibc and not by any other GNU software, because these GNU software
> are common on other unixes.
> 
> Why? If you are right that others unixes uses widely GNU software,
> maybe they should consider recognize the GNU part of the their
> system. But that's a different story.
> 
> If we follow your theory, it means that if someday another system use
> the glibc, we should remove the GNU from the GNU/Linux name. 

Why not?

> It does not make sense: the GNU part of the name shows that the system
> used is the system designed/initiated by the GNU project running with
> the kernel Linux, which is not part of GNU. It does not mean that
> there are GNU software rarely used elsewhere in the system! 

Debian had not been initiated by GNU project, IIRC.  "Designated" is
closer to reality, but that wouldn't warrant _anything_ - after all,
gcc had been designated as a primary C compiler on a lot of systems,
but that doesn't make it {lots of organizations}/gcc.  It doesn't work
in that direction - *contributor* may have a right to make demands, not
the other way round.

And yes, GNU *had* contributed stuff.  The main dependency being glibc.

BTW, if you are talking about frequency of use, glibc beats everything
else by far.  With X11 and assorted daemons (almost all of them coming
not from GNU) contending for the second place - depends on the type of use.

If we ever get a replacement libc that would really work as replacement...
on such system GNU claims would become much weaker.  Not that there was
a serious chance of that happening - drop-in replacement of glibc on Linux
would be a lot of work and so far none of the alternative libc projects had
tried to pull that off.

GNU within the name (Was: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s))

[Mathieu Roy]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:03:55AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Scripsit Kevin Kreamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 
>> > In the case of a NetBSD libc, you could use
>> 
>> > Debian NBSD/NBSD
>> 
>> > basically having the first half signify which libc is used.
>> 
>> Wouldn't that be a major retcon? AFAIU the "GNU/" in Debian GNU/Linux
>> says that we're using GNU userland tools such as cp, mv, diff, cc,
>> make, nroff, etc. That's prominently visible to users; the libc is a
>> technical detail that most users wouldn't care about unless it breaks.
>
> Hardly.  Guess which *roff, gcc, diff, tar, etc. is there in *BSD?  And
> considering the state of coreutils...  not much to boast there.
>
> About the only thing that gives any real weight to "GNU/" stuff is glibc -
> the rest is either common on all free Unices (and GNU doesn't see that
> as grounds for claim on renaming *BSD to GNU/*BSD) or... well, less than
> impressive, to put it mildly.
>
> IOW, about the only way GNU/Linux as a port name makes sense is "what libc
> do we have here"/"what kernel does it run on".

You are currently saying that the GNU in GNU/Linux is justified by the
glibc and not by any other GNU software, because these GNU software
are common on other unixes.

Why? If you are right that others unixes uses widely GNU software,
maybe they should consider recognize the GNU part of the their
system. But that's a different story.

If we follow your theory, it means that if someday another system use
the glibc, we should remove the GNU from the GNU/Linux name. 

It does not make sense: the GNU part of the name shows that the system
used is the system designed/initiated by the GNU project running with
the kernel Linux, which is not part of GNU. It does not mean that
there are GNU software rarely used elsewhere in the system! 



(Note: I'm not subscribed to debian-bsd, please keep debian-devel in
Cc) 

-- 
Mathieu Roy

  +-+
  | General Homepage:   http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ |
  | Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/   |
  | Not a native english speaker:   |
  | http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english  |
  +-+

Bug#223772: general: no md5sums for many packages (e.g. bc)

[matthias . hofer]

> > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am
> > 16.12.2003 19:15:43:
> > now it is getting clearer. we are talking about different things.
> > I'm talking about the md5sums files in the directory
> > /var/lib/dpkg/info. You talk about the md5 sum of the whole package
> > (MD5sum).  so what I like to say is, that for the debian package bc
> > (and many others) there is no file /var/lib/dpkg/info/bc.md5sums in
> > place. this file is checked and used by the tool debsums. that is
> > the thing I'm claiming about.
> 
> I know. I'm talking about both.

Do you want to tell us that the absence of the md5sums-files (those which 
contain md5sums for every file in the package, and they _are_ absent for a 
number of packages) should not be considered a bug, even if debsums 
complains about this?

Re: packages.debian.org is useless

[Toni Mueller]

Hi,

On Thu, 27.11.2003 at 12:53:57 -0800, Carl B. Constantine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> It seems p.d.o is one of the compromised machines?

is there an ETA for this already?

TIA!


Best,
--Toni++

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Momchil Velikov]

> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Branden> Remember, outside the Free Software community, copyright is
Branden> used only as a destructive weapon, not a tool for promoting
Branden> cooperation and harmony.

  It looks like not only outside Free Software community, considering
this very thread.

~velco

ÙUnicode problem

[Arash Bijanzadeh]

Hi all,
I faced a problem with unicode and gotto go inside of this technoligy. I 
noticed that for example when I am inserting a Arabic_khah with the unicode 
0f 062E two bytes with values D8 AE would be inserted to the file. Can 
anybody tell me what is the relationship between these two value, and how 
does it work.
Thanks
-- 
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living.  The world owes you
nothing.  It was here first.
-- Mark Twain

帮你找金子

[厦门成功]

金的选矿设备
金源于脉金矿、砂金矿及多金属矿。选金技术设备日新月异。
一、氰化-炭浆法选金设备
二、浮选法选金设备
三、重选法选金设备
四、磁选法选金设备
五、选金工艺设备
六、选金工艺辅助设备
以上设备亦适用其他金属矿、非金属矿。提供以上成套设备，提供上述全套生产技术图纸。详细目录请登陆网址或函电索取。
欢迎加盟，多元合作，互惠互利，共同发展。
单位名称：南方金矿设备设计研究所.厦门成功科技工贸有限公司
联系详址：厦门市禾祥东路25号之五502室
邮政编码：361004
联系人：陈工、康工、罗工
电话/传真：0592-5853256、13606934999
请电话联系。

Re: Lustre File System Support?

[Andres Salomon]

Packaging Lustre has been on my mind for some time (I packaged
intermezzo, but since that never really stabilized, I didn't upload it).
I plan to play w/ it in a bit; if it hasn't been packaged at that
point, I may do it.  At this point, it has a lot more resources being put
into its development than intermezzo ever did, so hopefully when I get
around to playing w/ it it'll be solid..


On
Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:28:57 -0800, Nick Pavlica wrote:

> All,
>   I'm trying to find a distribution that would be
> willing to add Lustre file system support (it requires
> a kernel patch).  If this group is interested, then I
> may be able to gather some resources to help add the
> support.  It has recently reached production
> status(1.0), and would be a valuable tool to many in
> the linux community.
> 
> http://www.lustre.org
> 
> Please let me know if there is any interest.
> 
> Thanks!
> Nick Pavlica
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[David Weinehall]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:54:14PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:13:03PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> > 
> > If we're really worried about this, we can always use the names of the
> > Dwarves in the Hobbit. Most (all?) of those names are from Icelandic
> > sags, IIRC. So is Gandalf.
> 
> All of them. I suppose they even have enough of the right letters to do
> the first-letter trick, at least once per.

Oin/Ori
Nori
Fili

For instance.


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   (/