Re: Anybody else having problems w/ DNSSEC and ftp.debian.org?
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 02:18:44PM +0100, Heiko Schlittermann h...@schlittermann.de wrote a message of 46 lines which said: Using a current lenny with bind9 I can't validate (www|ftp).debian.org anymore. Works for me (BIND on a lenny using dlv.isc.org). Note the ad bit: % dig +dnssec A www.debian.org ; DiG 9.6-ESV-R3 +dnssec A www.debian.org ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 12253 ;; flags: qr rd ra ad; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 13 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 4096 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;www.debian.org.IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.debian.org. 300 IN A 141.76.2.5 www.debian.org. 300 IN A 213.129.232.18 www.debian.org. 300 IN RRSIG A 5 3 300 20110111094829 20101214094829 38208 www.debian.org. AR+irfLzNRWYgbJwp4Nf6M1o3xpANStnSMNQ7iechFhX9YdDUgx7vHLl 4/mjM6RbyHJiCyz5supU4ubuWT5QxjvG6IE/HgoimiEjq4XsP7ANSEdF 1B3y270gBxn+tO2ZDfNwLdob9k3AXJnyOVUq9cPVaa8ZcNZ8rhJ04JLF 3i3E9AphlUywmQPTNTCEtOoV What is the output of 'dig +cd +dnssec www.debian.org' on your case? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Anybody else having problems w/ DNSSEC and ftp.debian.org?
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 02:43:38PM +0100, Heiko Schlittermann h...@schlittermann.de wrote a message of 134 lines which said: With checking disabled: # dig www.debian.org +cd +dnssec @192.168.0.1 ... www.debian.org. 132 IN RRSIG A 5 3 300 20110111094829 20101214094829 38208 www.debian.org. AR+irfLzNRWYgbJwp4Nf6M1o3xpANStnSMNQ7iechFhX9YdDUgx7vHLl 4/mjM6RbyHJiCyz5supU4ubuWT5QxjvG6IE/HgoimiEjq4XsP7ANSEdF 1B3y270gBxn+tO2ZDfNwLdob9k3AXJnyOVUq9cPVaa8ZcNZ8rhJ04JLF 3i3E9AphlUywmQPTNTCEtOoV Expired signature ket in the cache, may be? It ends at 2010-12-14T09:48Z, which was several hours ago. ;; WHEN: Tue Dec 14 14:38:22 2010 What time zone? If it is german time, UTC+1, yes, the problem was an expired signature. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Anybody else having problems w/ DNSSEC and ftp.debian.org?
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 04:11:01PM +0100, Heiko Schlittermann h...@schlittermann.de wrote a message of 65 lines which said: Expired signature ket in the cache, may be? It ends at 2010-12-14T09:48Z, which was several hours ago. Sure? I'd say the signature expires 20110111094829 and was created 20101214094829. Yes. You're right. Reply too fast and coffee too late. Sorry. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Default value of net.ipv6.bindv6only should revert to 0
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 08:20:37AM +0200, Vincent Danjean vdanjean...@free.fr wrote a message of 63 lines which said: I've no strong opinion about the default value for net.ipv6.bindv6only. However, I think that any application that breaks if the default value is 0 or 1 is broken and a bug must be filled.. You mean that applications should use the option IPV6_V6ONLY of RFC 3493, section 5.3, therefore not depending on the system-wide value? If so, I see your point but, in many languages, it is not possible. For instance, in Perl: http://bugs.debian.org/569981 In Python, I do not think there is a way. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100408090530.ga24...@nic.fr
Re: Default value of net.ipv6.bindv6only should revert to 0
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:04:18PM +0900, Kazuo Oishi oi...@giraffy.jp wrote a message of 48 lines which said: Anyone, could you teach me why net.ipv6.bindv6only need to be set to 1 globally, and why other good programs need to be changed? I think it should revert. I do not claim to have a final opinion on this matter except that, as a programmer, net.ipv6.bindv6only=0 is clearly simpler, a listening program has just to open one (IPv6) socket and it is version-agnostic. The question has recently been discussed in the Go language community: http://groups.google.com/group/golang-nuts/msg/861dbe3c7f1aae1d http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=679 Go libraries currently fail when net.ipv6.bindv6only=1: http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=685 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100406133140.ga10...@nic.fr
Re: Explications needed...
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:36:45AM +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 43 lines which said: An arm buildd maintainer not reading [EMAIL PROTECTED] is simply not doing his job as buildd maintainer. Please show where reading everything on [EMAIL PROTECTED] is given as a requirement for buildd maintainership. It seems common sense! Debian has a serious problem if you have to write everything down. A buildd maintainer must be able to type Unix commands on a keyboard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[OT] Looking for a program which generates binary formats decoders from a high-level description
I know, it is off-topic, but this is Xmas so everyone loves everyone and helps them :-) And there are many programmers here and I do not see where to ask otherwise. I'm looking for a program which would allow to: * someone describes a binary format (MPEG, PNG, tcpdump's trace, an OSPF packet, whatever) in a DSL (domain-specific language). Unlike ASN/1, this DSL would describe not only the data model but also the actual layout of the fields. * the program translates this description into a decoder (for instance in C but other languages are under consideration). * the decoder, available as a library, reads the binary file, checks the values and fills in data structures of the program. On Sourceforge, I've found only very alpha tools like: http://file-spector.sourceforge.net/ (and it misses the DSL, you have to describe the binary format with a GUI) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Looking for a program which generates binary formats decoders from a high-level description
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 11:06:26AM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 0 lines which said: BitPim's protogen.py seems similar to what you're looking for; It seems so, thanks, but it is hard to say because the file in http://www.bitpim.org/pyxr/c/projects/bitpim/src/protogen.py.html seems quite underdocumented. Any other documents you know? Someone suggested also: http://padsproj.org/ which seems to fit well and is well-documented but which is non-free. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Conary is a distributed software management system for Linux distributions
Interesting. apt already provides some of the features of Conary but not all and Conary or a Conary-like system may help Debian-based distributions or local customizations. Conary is a package management system, based on concepts similar to those of the distributed Version Control Systems like darcs or mercurial. http://wiki.conary.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Removing non-free documentation from main
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:36:11AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 168 lines which said: Known non-free documentation licenses are: - GFDL (at least up the current version 1.2) - CC licenses (at least up to the current version 2.5) - OPL and OpenContent License - the current license for RFCs (see also #199810) Since it covers all the widely-used licences, it would be simpler to lists the free documentation licences. And it would have been more honest to decide that all documentation is to be removed from etch (except comments in the source code). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted dnsdoctor 1.0.0-2 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:57:01 +0100 Source: dnsdoctor Binary: dnsdoctor-cgi dnsdoctor Architecture: source all Version: 1.0.0-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: dnsdoctor - DNS (Domain Name System) checking tool dnsdoctor-cgi - DNS (Domain Name System) checking tool, Web interface Closes: 276890 Changes: dnsdoctor (1.0.0-2) unstable; urgency=low . * Now recommends libxml-ruby1.8 (see #282759). Closes: #276890: can't fulfill the Recommends Files: 208a8758f00dc06c7c6236792a26a23d 611 net optional dnsdoctor_1.0.0-2.dsc 1e0a2b352f7d2bc395952ffa9bed456d 3002 net optional dnsdoctor_1.0.0-2.diff.gz 93c18b94eaaf642cbcf82868af9e4b71 141112 net optional dnsdoctor_1.0.0-2_all.deb 48fd99bb6f5deaebc84168d8001535c1 35132 net optional dnsdoctor-cgi_1.0.0-2_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBpF8SQTZHl5fW0kYRAmz4AKDC1d6LPdfZcjrcYONN9xTrs+/KJACfXUL4 77eWRli4idxWcuqmjuu0qjc= =LduB -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: dnsdoctor-cgi_1.0.0-2_all.deb to pool/main/d/dnsdoctor/dnsdoctor-cgi_1.0.0-2_all.deb dnsdoctor_1.0.0-2.diff.gz to pool/main/d/dnsdoctor/dnsdoctor_1.0.0-2.diff.gz dnsdoctor_1.0.0-2.dsc to pool/main/d/dnsdoctor/dnsdoctor_1.0.0-2.dsc dnsdoctor_1.0.0-2_all.deb to pool/main/d/dnsdoctor/dnsdoctor_1.0.0-2_all.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian.org e-mail address and SPF/SRS
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 12:15:19AM +0100, Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 47 lines which said: If you know easy way to avoid this problem exists, please let me know. I remail my email from debian.org machines, I do not forward it. So, I do not have the problem (I have others, but it is a different story). master:~ % cat .procmailrc :0 ! [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted dnsdoctor 1.0.0-1 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:49:59 +0200 Source: dnsdoctor Binary: dnsdoctor-cgi dnsdoctor Architecture: source all Version: 1.0.0-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: dnsdoctor - DNS (Domain Name System) checking tool dnsdoctor-cgi - DNS (Domain Name System) checking tool, Web interface Closes: 270213 Changes: dnsdoctor (1.0.0-1) unstable; urgency=low . * First release. Closes: #270213 Files: 97bbeb57fa8e7e627105d68a75e308f3 611 net optional dnsdoctor_1.0.0-1.dsc a61de508b05e1f8da579348890269b29 328119 net optional dnsdoctor_1.0.0.orig.tar.gz 931178be121bfb0de750150655679196 2766 net optional dnsdoctor_1.0.0-1.diff.gz 0e2c40e13d2efc2b44fce42aaa945896 141446 net optional dnsdoctor_1.0.0-1_all.deb bbaa5fa9ea9f8603841e4fa0e4b9caa4 34912 net optional dnsdoctor-cgi_1.0.0-1_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBSvmHQTZHl5fW0kYRAvUCAJ4qlbc5xAT/1en2Q7Z5orvOxu3/WgCfdoTK AtXTkaHOuHipy3AZe19FtaI= =k8Rh -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: dnsdoctor-cgi_1.0.0-1_all.deb to pool/main/d/dnsdoctor/dnsdoctor-cgi_1.0.0-1_all.deb dnsdoctor_1.0.0-1.diff.gz to pool/main/d/dnsdoctor/dnsdoctor_1.0.0-1.diff.gz dnsdoctor_1.0.0-1.dsc to pool/main/d/dnsdoctor/dnsdoctor_1.0.0-1.dsc dnsdoctor_1.0.0-1_all.deb to pool/main/d/dnsdoctor/dnsdoctor_1.0.0-1_all.deb dnsdoctor_1.0.0.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/d/dnsdoctor/dnsdoctor_1.0.0.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted echoping 5.2.0-2 (i386 source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:24:56 +0200 Source: echoping Binary: echoping Architecture: source i386 Version: 5.2.0-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: echoping - A small test tool for TCP servers Closes: 264743 Changes: echoping (5.2.0-2) unstable; urgency=medium . * Now built with gnutls11. Closes: #264743 Files: 37df26ecf1a0535c5907f51c73299603 607 net optional echoping_5.2.0-2.dsc 09d02881e119a34a525cb364fbdb5aec 3682 net optional echoping_5.2.0-2.diff.gz 89963dbd8ca6388030171cf6e8ba2f50 28232 net optional echoping_5.2.0-2_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBRubWQTZHl5fW0kYRAn2DAJ4gVIZsUoViCQQgJGUwWrQqiEqSkwCfeotF REncJcni42UMlWMUhTNV+ps= =ubku -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: echoping_5.2.0-2.diff.gz to pool/main/e/echoping/echoping_5.2.0-2.diff.gz echoping_5.2.0-2.dsc to pool/main/e/echoping/echoping_5.2.0-2.dsc echoping_5.2.0-2_i386.deb to pool/main/e/echoping/echoping_5.2.0-2_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted zonecheck 2.0.3-2 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:45:23 +0200 Source: zonecheck Binary: zonecheck-cgi zonecheck Architecture: source all Version: 2.0.3-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian QA Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: zonecheck - A DNS configuration checker zonecheck-cgi - A DNS configuration checker, Web interface Closes: 238399 Changes: zonecheck (2.0.3-2) unstable; urgency=low . * Formally orphaned. Maintainer set to QA. See bug #270249 * Installs the documentation. Closes: #238399 Files: 4c1a3bf6712491db4e23b339dc74199e 606 net optional zonecheck_2.0.3-2.dsc e5a7f67571b1e7517369d001f720ed14 9869 net optional zonecheck_2.0.3-2.diff.gz 992f6db4634463f71d1be8e1418ec5cb 206378 net optional zonecheck_2.0.3-2_all.deb 83eb7737ce84378a442e202ac767edaf 40698 net optional zonecheck-cgi_2.0.3-2_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBRvg2QTZHl5fW0kYRAtKoAJ4xQDkw1cBuz5t3eYfXBzHPreNWuwCgpYE1 uh5/66mr8vbeqXE+Aj9arak= =vjoN -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: zonecheck-cgi_2.0.3-2_all.deb to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck-cgi_2.0.3-2_all.deb zonecheck_2.0.3-2.diff.gz to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.3-2.diff.gz zonecheck_2.0.3-2.dsc to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.3-2.dsc zonecheck_2.0.3-2_all.deb to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.3-2_all.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted zonecheck 2.0.3-1 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:08:05 +0100 Source: zonecheck Binary: zonecheck-cgi zonecheck Architecture: source all Version: 2.0.3-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: zonecheck - A DNS configuration checker zonecheck-cgi - A DNS configuration checker, Web interface Changes: zonecheck (2.0.3-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release Files: 8732445c0460a8760aebb4346c4f9ec1 609 net optional zonecheck_2.0.3-1.dsc c1e9e04f3339318605627dce9767a603 242834 net optional zonecheck_2.0.3.orig.tar.gz dcc4249b2a41200871da79ffc94ebde8 9778 net optional zonecheck_2.0.3-1.diff.gz fbc894da6db94415417d29f63318e818 141476 net optional zonecheck_2.0.3-1_all.deb 6c45b73be9b1f8e253b2257f54b9a8ab 40614 net optional zonecheck-cgi_2.0.3-1_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFATxWBQTZHl5fW0kYRAkdYAJ9IG3Ri/kfMSwwqEJZOGCekTANE2gCgga0M DChoxLjcTwhaUjdt4+rX1Fs= =JvP1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: zonecheck-cgi_2.0.3-1_all.deb to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck-cgi_2.0.3-1_all.deb zonecheck_2.0.3-1.diff.gz to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.3-1.diff.gz zonecheck_2.0.3-1.dsc to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.3-1.dsc zonecheck_2.0.3-1_all.deb to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.3-1_all.deb zonecheck_2.0.3.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.3.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted echoping 5.2.0-1 (i386 source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:45:27 +0100 Source: echoping Binary: echoping Architecture: source i386 Version: 5.2.0-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: echoping - A small test tool for TCP servers Changes: echoping (5.2.0-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release * Now depends on libidn Files: 7c5a2b58ea876489f81350008fed844f 606 net optional echoping_5.2.0-1.dsc aef46a1d09a1083e99eb5e18e9184af2 120911 net optional echoping_5.2.0.orig.tar.gz b24ce257b20d392632873a23234fc5ec 3644 net optional echoping_5.2.0-1.diff.gz 55ea93a5253c7738e25a7ac63d333e7e 26608 net optional echoping_5.2.0-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFARK+dQTZHl5fW0kYRAqKaAJ9yQjl+eeYi4hGziXJ1HoPSIU+38wCZAUKR J4xJ9BW8ZUZkqf7tsVPJ8c8= =1bQK -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: echoping_5.2.0-1.diff.gz to pool/main/e/echoping/echoping_5.2.0-1.diff.gz echoping_5.2.0-1.dsc to pool/main/e/echoping/echoping_5.2.0-1.dsc echoping_5.2.0-1_i386.deb to pool/main/e/echoping/echoping_5.2.0-1_i386.deb echoping_5.2.0.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/e/echoping/echoping_5.2.0.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted zonecheck 2.0.2-2 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 21:52:41 +0100 Source: zonecheck Binary: zonecheck-cgi zonecheck Architecture: source all Version: 2.0.2-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: zonecheck - A DNS configuration checker zonecheck-cgi - A DNS configuration checker, Web interface Closes: 231605 Changes: zonecheck (2.0.2-2) unstable; urgency=low . * Now depends on iputils-ping. (Closes: #231605) Files: ec232146e00913bff9db1a737c8306d1 609 net optional zonecheck_2.0.2-2.dsc e06528266ec7ee7b7718b145113c6a51 3748 net optional zonecheck_2.0.2-2.diff.gz fdfeb6a4c098dcf4e1b00486500b20c2 140302 net optional zonecheck_2.0.2-2_all.deb 3deddc10ed1e860d4a2671fe7d03ad46 40234 net optional zonecheck-cgi_2.0.2-2_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAJVcNQTZHl5fW0kYRApMhAKCfj/3OkuFbjk1OeD1yBxNvJftGagCfZUuG Hn3pAOERz+t7IftQJofG8iY= =J+Ip -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: zonecheck-cgi_2.0.2-2_all.deb to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck-cgi_2.0.2-2_all.deb zonecheck_2.0.2-2.diff.gz to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.2-2.diff.gz zonecheck_2.0.2-2.dsc to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.2-2.dsc zonecheck_2.0.2-2_all.deb to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.2-2_all.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted zonecheck 2.0.2-1 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:25:53 +0100 Source: zonecheck Binary: zonecheck-cgi zonecheck Architecture: source all Version: 2.0.2-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: zonecheck - A DNS configuration checker zonecheck-cgi - A DNS configuration checker, Web interface Changes: zonecheck (2.0.2-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release Files: 49feee67fe3bc4e1862ba777b6761f02 609 net optional zonecheck_2.0.2-1.dsc 60270e94506751083a6f65afb596f6f4 245413 net optional zonecheck_2.0.2.orig.tar.gz 9550eb559c75ddcb20c9a63d6e5ca333 3921 net optional zonecheck_2.0.2-1.diff.gz 0660b770d8aef7ebcfa4ee470947b7ff 140508 net optional zonecheck_2.0.2-1_all.deb 216403a2d040c8abba692584eefa8604 40162 net optional zonecheck-cgi_2.0.2-1_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAC/daQTZHl5fW0kYRAo+hAJ91YM5enNX30L/Ae1GW3o/WXPDV4gCfVckC Fh+J/myhNoRP4tv0jM7XHtg= =fmm0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: zonecheck-cgi_2.0.2-1_all.deb to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck-cgi_2.0.2-1_all.deb zonecheck_2.0.2-1.diff.gz to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.2-1.diff.gz zonecheck_2.0.2-1.dsc to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.2-1.dsc zonecheck_2.0.2-1_all.deb to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.2-1_all.deb zonecheck_2.0.2.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.2.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted zonecheck 2.0.1-1 (all source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:16:27 +0100 Source: zonecheck Binary: zonecheck-cgi zonecheck Architecture: source all Version: 2.0.1-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: zonecheck - A DNS configuration checker zonecheck-cgi - A DNS configuration checker, Web interface Closes: 222388 Changes: zonecheck (2.0.1-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release. * First Debian official upload (Closes: #222388) Files: 69faf329fc39cd26236fdd3e41cc9353 609 net optional zonecheck_2.0.1-1.dsc 6b4573b4d33f98328a2be3115899232a 244160 net optional zonecheck_2.0.1.orig.tar.gz 37e47bd47d3286ba3815d70b90c4f5e9 3900 net optional zonecheck_2.0.1-1.diff.gz 5b2b46f1f953986981b264e08ede051e 139372 net optional zonecheck_2.0.1-1_all.deb 41fc5b6c30e55d7f60acff75ef4ec96b 40020 net optional zonecheck-cgi_2.0.1-1_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAC+SRQTZHl5fW0kYRAv/GAKCXbVT6pbwhQRMSCA/K8FBcYsYz/ACgmVvF nDwcGuxeCPFnwwxXqPgdvMw= =Ns2r -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: zonecheck-cgi_2.0.1-1_all.deb to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck-cgi_2.0.1-1_all.deb zonecheck_2.0.1-1.diff.gz to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.1-1.diff.gz zonecheck_2.0.1-1.dsc to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.1-1.dsc zonecheck_2.0.1-1_all.deb to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.1-1_all.deb zonecheck_2.0.1.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/z/zonecheck/zonecheck_2.0.1.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:54:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 126 lines which said: Debian either needs a trademark license from the NetBSD Foundation for use of the NetBSD mark, or it does not. Legally speaking, you're right. Now, on more practical grounds, I do not think that the NetBSD Foundation threatened to sue us. I believe that they feared confusion and asked politely, as an humble request from fellow free software developers, to consider a change in the name. I do not think debian-legal is concerned: it is not an issue of being right with trademark law, it's an issue of not pissing off NetBSD people for no good reason.
Accepted echoping 5.1.0-1 (i386 source)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:22:25 +0100 Source: echoping Binary: echoping Architecture: source i386 Version: 5.1.0-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: echoping - A small test tool for TCP servers Changes: echoping (5.1.0-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release * Now built with crypto support (crypto-in-main) * Licence change (warning, ftpmaster!): now GPL + exemption for OpenSSL Files: b851ef2cb3b4259b574c111011be5a00 594 net optional echoping_5.1.0-1.dsc f7212d84361208feadcfca80eda83d7e 99661 net optional echoping_5.1.0.orig.tar.gz a849d823a1408fd85a2c8317a60e9a60 12113 net optional echoping_5.1.0-1.diff.gz a5a42ef67241ca46a4c393e9045cb504 25898 net optional echoping_5.1.0-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/s6cDQTZHl5fW0kYRAotlAJ4127AbHQuZW9Kx0ojwK724CYFiiACfUKq9 5enX+SpAuXdJ8B4+UiQdevM= =dPLW -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: echoping_5.1.0-1.diff.gz to pool/main/e/echoping/echoping_5.1.0-1.diff.gz echoping_5.1.0-1.dsc to pool/main/e/echoping/echoping_5.1.0-1.dsc echoping_5.1.0-1_i386.deb to pool/main/e/echoping/echoping_5.1.0-1_i386.deb echoping_5.1.0.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/e/echoping/echoping_5.1.0.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:40:47AM +0100, Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 24 lines which said: I am happy to take it. Several people already stepped in (which, IMHO, replies to the Do we need dupload? question). See the bug report. Josip Rodin was the first one, even before I formally orphaned it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2002-04-08 Severity: normal Sorry, folks, but it is clear I have not enough time to work seriously on a package like dupload, which is important and should be handled with care. I leave it to someone more active. There are many bugs reported but most are minor and a lot of patches arealready in the BTS. -- System Information Debian Release: 3.0 Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux ludwigV 2.2.17 #9 Fri Feb 2 21:55:59 CET 2001 i686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
The last version of the LSB http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/swinstall. html says: Currently the LSB does not officially specify a package format; however, the recommended package format is RPM (Version 3) with some restrictions listed below. RPM is the defacto standard on Linux [sic] and supported either directly, or indirectly by the widest number of distributions. The intent is to in the future replace this format with a new format currently being developed. (End of quote) So, LSB is not a specification for Linux-based operating systems but for the subset of them which uses the RPM format. Moreover, the FAQ http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/faq.htm#pckg2.1l says: This arrangement was agreed up on by the major distributions including deb based ones (eg Debian, Storm, Corel) as well as RPM based ones (Red Hat, SuSE, TurboLinux, Caldera, Mandrake). (End of quote) Is it true that Debian approved this standard?
Re: Debian LDAP Schema
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 01:23:35PM +0200, Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 81 lines which said: How about the following as a start: Thanks! Is this the right list for such things? Is there a more appropriate list? There is apparently no debian-ldap (it might be useful) so I would suggest debian-isp.
Re: ITP: mboxgrep -- Grep through mailboxes
On Monday 8 January 2001, at 9 h 5, the keyboard of Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend to package mboxgrep, a utility which greps mailboxes. BTW, we already have sgrep, which is fine for that purpose.
Re: Potato packages
On Friday 5 January 2001, at 11 h 21, the keyboard of Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do we have a repository of packages to support such people? http://www.internatif.org/bortzmeyer/debian/apt-sources/
Re: RSA Released Into The Public Domain
On Wednesday 6 September 2000, at 9 h 38, the keyboard of Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So some stuff can get moved from non-US/main into main proper? It's now free in the USA (it already was in the rest of the world) but it is still not-exportable (which was because of US official export regulations, not because of RSA patents). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Paradise
On Tuesday 28 March 2000, at 15 h 53, the keyboard of Jeffrey Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Paradise Netrek developers would like to work with Debian to get Paradise included in Debian GNU/Linux. Thanks for your interest in Debian and welcome here. First, you should tell what your licence is (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines if you want food for thought). Since Debian is about free software http://www.debian.org/social_contract, this is the first thing we usually consider. Second, the inclusion of a package into Debian depends only on one maintainer packaging the software and uploading it. There is no central decision or vote to include or reject a package. Therefore, you have to find a volunteer (any Debian maintainer, they are several hundreds). Asking on debian-devel is a good idea, just be sure you include the licence and the address to download your software.
Re: Entering in the Official Debian's distribution
On Wednesday 29 March 2000, at 13 h 59, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can a programmer have the right of putting his own program on the Official Debian's Distribution ? #ifdef I_WANT_TO_BE_A_DEBIAN_MAINTAINER_MYSELF Debian lesson #1 http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/developers-refere nce/ Debian lesson #2 http://www.internatif.org/bortzmeyer/debian/sponsor/ #else The inclusion of a package into Debian depends only on one maintainer packaging the software and uploading it. There is no central decision or vote to include or reject a package. Therefore, you have to find a volunteer (any Debian maintainer, they are several hundreds). Asking on debian-devel is a good idea, just be sure you include the licence and the address to download your software. #endif
Re: Do we have a package of W3C's www-lib library?
On Friday 10 March 2000, at 15 h 4, the keyboard of Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do my eyes deceive me or are we really without a package of Libwww - the W3C Protocol Library, http://www.w3.org/Library/. One Debian developer made an unofficial package but which I find too rapidly made, so I made mine: ftp://ftp.internatif.org/pub/debian/UNOFFICIAL/ (aptable source) The packages are libw3c-libwww5 and libw3c-libwww-dev. I do *not* intend to upload them or to maintain them. I need this package for my work, but I have no time to take care of it (it is a huge and complicated package, 100 % free but long to compile). Candidates welcome.
Re: ITP: transformiix
[Please Cc: debian-sgml for SGML/XML-related stuff.] On Tuesday 21 March 2000, at 22 h 42, the keyboard of =?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Transformiix is a XSLT processor written in C++. License: MPL. Good, there is not one entirely free XSLT processor in potato :-( Which section would this go? web or text? I would say text, XML is not Web-specific.
Re: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
On Tuesday 14 March 2000, at 12 h 38, the keyboard of Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Depends on the functions one needs. But i'd like to generalize a bit: the included *apps* are far too old. Stuff like teTeX, Since the teTeX in slink works fine and the one is potato is broken (a bug in babel which prevents compilation of *every* document in French), I prefer the old stuff. majority of Linux users are using it for their desktop needs (like i mainly do) and for those running current versions definitely makes sense. It all depends on the particular users perspective though which might largely differ from a Debian *developer* mindset. Blah. When I'm working on my desktop, I want as much stability than on my servers. I do not prefer a crash in Emacs which will loose texts than one in Apache which will stop the Web server. Debian. Pure Linux users are therefore probably better off with one of those .rpm based distributions, which seem to pay pay more attention to average user's needs. Yes, the users do not need stability, reliability, etc. They love RedHat 5.0 or 6.0.
Re: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
On Sunday 12 March 2000, at 20 h 59, the keyboard of =?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are all using potato, but we are shipping slink, keep that in mind. This is *wrong* as is wrong the claim that slink is useless. The vast majority of the machines I manage are slinks.
Do we have a package of W3C's www-lib library?
Do my eyes deceive me or are we really without a package of Libwww - the W3C Protocol Library, http://www.w3.org/Library/. Its licence seem 100 % free and it compiles fine on Debian/potato. Any package which I missed? Under what name? www-lib? libwww?
Re: Package giveaway, will sponsor if necessary.
On Wednesday 6 October 1999, at 11 h 29, the keyboard of Drake Diedrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: gtkglarea - I'm still using this, but if someone wants to lighten my load it could go with gtkglareamm. I maintain xt, which uses it. And another GtkGl library, which is no longer developed upstream and not used by anything in Debian. So, I can take this one and orphan libgtkgl.
Re: Unstable release
On Monday 4 October 1999, at 20 h 44, the keyboard of =?iso-8859-1?Q?Staffan_H=E4m=E4l=E4?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just curious about how other people succeed in installing the potato release. As explained, almost nobody installed potato. They installed slink (may be only the base system) and upgraded. trying that. First, I installed it at home, and dselect freaked out and started complaining over files that didn't exist. The unstable (it is called unstable for a reason) archive is not always consistent (rsh/netbase, lyx/libforms, etc). was due to the fact that ftp downloads the softlinks that point to slink packages instead of the actual files. I always use apt, so I will no longer comment on dselect. Of course, I know that it's an unstable release, but is it really this hard to install, Install slink, the upgrade with apt. Simple as that. If I could just get it installed properly (I run it at home, but had to do a lot of manual tuning, and adding all packages I wanted using dpkg --force* NO, NO, NO, this is not redhat.com! Do this on a Debian only if you really know what you are doing or you may destroy your system.
Re: when one have a package to test...
On Monday 4 October 1999, at 21 h 8, the keyboard of Carlos Barros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a package to test for security, license, and debian rules. How to upload? Did you read the documentations http://www.debian.org/devel/ and specially Debian Developer's Reference? They explain the process in detail. What they don't explain is that new-maintainer is closed, you have to use the sponsoring system http://www.internatif.org/bortzmeyer/debian/sponsor/ in the mean time (or to create your own APT source with dpkg-scanpackage, if so register it in http://www.internatif.org/bortzmeyer/debian/apt-sources/).
Re: Debian membership (with a twist)
On Sunday 3 October 1999, at 4 h 46, the keyboard of Yves Arrouye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know this has been a topic recently, but I really wonder how long it takes to get a membership. Is it something that can be estimated at least? No. In the mean time, you can: - ask for a sponsor http://www.internatif.org/bortzmeyer/debian/sponsor/ - create your own apt source http://www.internatif.org/bortzmeyer/debian/apt-s ources/ I didn't receive any reply to the email I sent to the new maintainers alias, not even one automatic one giving an idea of the timeframe. Yes, it is a shame, but a known problem.
Re: First beta version of the Debian SGML/XML HOWTO
On Friday 1 October 1999, at 4 h 14, the keyboard of David Coe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: looks nice, thanks for doing this; one immediate question: nsgmls is not (any longer?) in potato. Should it be? It is: ishtar:~ cat /etc/debian_version potato ishtar:~ dpkg --search /usr/bin/nsgmls sp: /usr/bin/nsgmls ishtar:~ dpkg --status sp Package: sp Section: text Maintainer: Adam Di Carlo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Source: jade (1.2.1-11) Version: 1.3.3-1.2.1-11 Depends: libc6 (= 2.1), libstdc++2.10, libsp1 (= 1.3.2-1.2-1), sgml-base ... The bug is in the howto.db, which forgot to indicate that the package is sp. I just fixed it. Thanks. But the stylesheet/Debian search engine for packages is broken, anyway, I'll have to find something else.
Re: Is XEmacs nonfree?
There are two things: - copyright (who owns it?) - licence (what can I do with it?) Debian is only concerned with the second point. On Thursday 30 September 1999, at 0 h 54, the keyboard of David Coe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But in another sense it is not GNU software, because we can't use XEmacs in the GNU system: using it would mean paying a price in terms of our ability to enforce the GPL. It is very ancient rms' opinion: the FSF asks you to yield the copyright to them, because they fear the GPL is not a sufficient warranty, before a court. They think that, if someone keeps the copyright, he could switch a GPL software to proprietary. In essence, it means you should blindly trust the FSF instead of blindly trusting Linus Torvalds or any other copyright holder. For the man page of emacsclient (less than a page in print!), I had to send a signed paper document to the FSF giving up my copyright :-( (BTW, in France, and in most European countries, this will not be accepted.) Apart from rms, everybody thinks that a program can be GPL even if the copyright does not belong to the FSF. The Linux kernel, for instance, whose copyright is from its many contributors. worked on XEmacs have not provided, and have not asked other contributors to provide, the legal papers to help us enforce the GPL. Pure FUD.
First beta version of the Debian SGML/XML HOWTO
Since it seems a lot of people have trouble with SGML, since there is irony very few documentation/irony about a language which is supposed to ease the job of documenting, since FAQ are... frequent on this topic, I just wrote the Debian SGML/XML HOWTO. The emphasis is on practical information: how to type and how to process SGML files. It is Debian-specific and intended that way: for any other Unix, I would have to double its size, just for compilation and installation instructions. http://www.debian.org/~bortz/SGML-HOWTO/ You are welcome to send patches, speling fixes, request for improvments or additions.
Re: Metapackages (was Re: Debian Weekly News - September 14th, 1999)
On Thursday 16 September 1999, at 2 h 3, the keyboard of Laurent Martelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: very nice, but how will uninstallation be handled ? Will you be able to uninstall all the packages of a metapackage in one step ? Certainly not: - a package can be a member of several meta-packages, - a package could have been installed before (and independently of) a metapackage which includes it).
Open Science, free software in Science
An interesting, although very preliminary (very few links or texts, at this time), attempt to emphasize the need for free software in Science. Good news for those who manage sets of scientific packages for Debian. http://www.openscience.org/ -- http://www.debian.org/~bortz/
Intent to package: [Biology] BioPerl
BioPerl http://bio.perl.org/ is a nice set of Perl modules (not scripts, BioPerl is useful for developers only) to deal with various biological problems. Debian developers will be pleased to learn that BioPerl is a cooperative and anarchistic effort. I subscribed to the debian-perl mailing list (it is my first Perl-module package) and I hope we'll see a documentation on the packaging of such modules soon. The licence is Artistic, as Perl itself. -- http://www.debian.org/~bortz/
Intent to package: Puzzle ([Biology] Reconstruction of phylogenetic trees)
[Please Cc: my personal address, I'm far from my normal mail and have difficulties reading Debian lists.] [Cc: to debian-legal because there is a small legal problem. Advices about it should go to debian-legal, not debian-devel.] I intent to package the Puzzle program, which is a biology program to reconstruct phylogenetic trees by maximum likelihood. It is recent and seems quite often quoted. The Web page is http://members.tripod.de/korbi/puzzle/. No technical difficulties, no funny dependencies. Puzzle's licence is GPL (details in the distribution). BUT: The whole package is licenced under the GNU public licence, except for the parts indicated in the sources where the copyright of the authors does not apply. Grepping through the source code, I find no place where there is a copyright other than the authors (which agree with the Debian packaging, but did not give me the names of these phantom authors). I assume I can go on with GPL.
Two sets of packages for slink and potato. How to version?
[Please Cc: me when replying, I have difficulties reading debian-devel at this time - but I'll try.] I want to setup an apt-compatible directory of my Biology packages http://www.pasteur.fr/units/sis/debian/biology-en.html, so that users can use apt to install them, without waiting the release of potato (where they will appear officially, at least for those who are in main). The problem is that I want the packages to be installable on slink, without forcing the users to live with the glibc 2.1 mess. I planned to have two directories, something like: deb ftp://ftp.pasteur.fr/Debian/Biology stable deb ftp://ftp.pasteur.fr/Debian/Biology unstable with two sets of packages, for slink (glibc 2.0) and potato (glibc 2.1). The problem is the versioning. How to choose the version numbers in the two sets so that users will automatically get the potato package when they will choose to replace 'stable' by 'unstable' (or when potato will become stable). I've read http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/packaging.html/ch-versio ns.html. Should I choose an epoch of 1 for all the potato packages? -- http://www.debian.org/~bortz/
Re: Installation Profiles [was: Re: Reality check!]
On Saturday 30 January 1999, at 16 h 41, the keyboard of Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, let's be serious again: unfortunately this actually means that some of the most obvious installation profiles of slink stay to be unnecessarily bloated. Giving the size of the current profiles, I agree they are bloated. While they are small enough for a new PC with a 2 Gb drive, they don't fit on most hard disks if they are some years old. It's one of Debian's strengths IMHO to give freedom of choice but we [BTW, during a flame war with a RedHat fan, he said, as a reproach to Debian, that Debian was bad because we have *several* HTTP servers packaged. I wondered why he did not stay with Microsoft, where this dreadful choice was carefully avoided.] oversized default down my throat and i severely doubt that the targeted average user would be capable of deciding whether a given profile is *really* suitable for him or not. So why not better reduce the profiles? I mean less is often enough more! First, a bit of summary. This should probably go in the installation guide, but I just want to be sure that everybody understands that you can choose your packages, at the initial installation, in three ways, from the most difficult to the most we do it for you: 0) vi myPackages, then dpkg --set-selections myPackages :-) 1) The old dselect way. Even for experienced Unix administrators, with more than 2 000 packages, it is difficult. 2) The selection of tasks. Unlike profiles, you can choose several tasks, for instance Web server *and* HTML authoring. I welcome any other tasks, the more they are, the better, until we have as many tasks as packages :-) 3) The selection of profiles. Profiles should not be too many, because Joe User will not want to scan the whole list and should be very complete, because they are intended for users who will not want to install anything again soon. May be they have a work to do or may be they will not want to learn a new game just after the installation. The principle of least surprise say that everything which the user can use should be there. I think it is a very bad habit to first fill up the disk with redundant selections and then expect the installer to deinstalll what [s]he doesn't like/want in order to make room for other software. Remember that the PowerUser can do it the other way around by selecting every package by hand or even using tasks instead of profiles. Maybe we should rather decide whether we primarily target Joe User or not? Even with the most perfect profiles i doubt that Debian would be a good choice at all for the average newbie. I always thought that Debian was rather meant for competent thinking people who can be expected to choose by themselves? I personnally agree, but we never dared to put it in writing, by fear to ease the job of RedHat marketing. I think this is a problem of the right choice. One just can't make it right for everybody and it is no good idea to add things in order to please everybody (i vaguely remember an article by Alan Cox about the town council and whatnot in this context). I've read the paper. I agree, management is the ability to say no. There is also a story in German-speaking countries about the miller, his son and the donkey. (They try to reach the market in town but lose a lot of time because of contradictory advices on the road.) Be my guest. Would this still go into slink or into potato? It can still go to slink, since this is a change which will probably breaks nothing (but we had a lot of problems with non-i386 architectures, which lack some packages so if you really want a new task in slink, hurry up).
Re: Debian Security Issues
On Saturday 30 January 1999, at 23 h 31, the keyboard of Larry Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The professor asked me to find out : What is distinctive about Debian Linux development that affects its assurance? As a recent Debian developer (Sep. 1998), let me give my opinion: What is distinct with Debian is that: - there is no separation between contrib and not-contrib (like RedHat, but also *BSD, does). All packages have the same standards of quality, as described in the Debian policy http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/. This has some implications about security: in RedHat, non-contrib packages are checked by RedHat, for the rest, it is up to you. Since you cannot really work with just non-contrib packages, you easily install non-trusted binaries. - all developers are registered and there is at least some attempts to try to be sure of their identity (I had to sent a scan of my passport, PGP-signed of course). The names are public http://www.debian.org/devel/people. You know who made your package. - all packages are PGP-signed by a developer. (The public keys are... public.) - all bugs are public http://www.debian.org/Bugs, meaning that a lazy maintainer cannot conceal a security problem in one of its packages.
Re: List of bugs that *must* be fixed before releasing Slink
On Sunday 31 January 1999, at 0 h 48, the keyboard of Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: boot-floppies 32269 partion harddisk fails if WIN95_EXTENDED present [0] (Enrique Zanardi debian-boot@lists.debian.org) The report log is a little unclear. It looks like there is a version of cfdisk that works...are we just waiting for an upload? The bug is in util-linux, not in boot-floppies. jdk1.132548 Java doesn't work at all for me on slink [0] (Stephen Zander [EMAIL PROTECTED]) jdk1.1 works for me on a slink machine. It is true that Java on Debian seems poorly supported and the maintainers overloaded. nonus.debian.org 23780 nonus.debian.org: libssl-dev is obsolete [220] (H eiko Schlittermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ... Will non-us ever be fixed? It is but I'm afraid the bugs have not been closed. Heiko seems really overloaded (and does not reply a lot even on other subjects) so an help may be welcome.
jdk1.1 grave bug (Was: List of bugs that *must* be fixed before releasing Slink
On Monday 1 February 1999, at 10 h 54, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale E. Martin) wrote: java was not found in /usr/lib/jdk1.1/bin/../bin/i686/green_threads/java ... The binary is somehow actually missing, and I've not done anything weird as far as I know. The other folks who are saying is doesn't work have the Sam's message indicates that the i686 directory is used. Since the name includes a .. could it be a symbolic link problem? Sam, any symlink in /usr/lib/jdk1.1/bin? Any chance when deinstalling jdk and reinstalling? It works for me (tm): ezili:~ ls -l /usr/lib/jdk1.1/bin/../bin/i686/green_threads/java -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1204408 Sep 29 19:49 /usr/lib/jdk1.1/bin/../bin/i686/green_threads/java ezili:~ ls -l /usr/lib/jdk1.1/bin total 6 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Nov 26 10:27 appletviewer - .java_wrapper lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root4 Nov 26 10:28 i386 - i586 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root4 Nov 26 10:28 i486 - i586 drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 1024 Jul 15 1998 i586 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root4 Nov 26 10:28 i686 - i586 ...
Re: Reality check! [was: Re: Debian goes big business?]
On Wednesday 27 January 1999, at 14 h 40, the keyboard of Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, i currently don't have any access to the sources of the boot floppies and therefore don't know about the TODO list's contents. You can get the last version by CVS: :ext:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/debian/home/sr1/lib/cvs/boot-floppies i downloaded the boot and base floppies and did a base install with them. Strange enough the yes/no answering at the configuration stage right after the first booting from the freshly installed base system didn't work. This bug has been reported #32324 and fixed since. What i miss after the base install is: - a default entry with the correct block device as used for the installation for accessing the CD drive in /etc/fstab like: /dev/hdc /cdrom iso9660 ro,noauto,user 0 0 A small possible problem: it conflicts with the default access method for dselect, multi_cd, which does not expect the CD to be already mounted (even with noauto, this is a risk). So, it would require a reorganization. But the /dev/cdrom link is there and is more important, IMHO. It allows multi_cd to go on smoothly. The preselection profiles/Admin contains *three* Emacs variants (emacs19/20 and xemacs20). The same case in profiles/Devel_comp, profiles/Devel_std, profiles/Dialup, profiles/Work_sci, profiles/Work_std and profiles/Standard contains both emacs19/20. That's somewhat pretty insane IMHO because usually one single emacs (preferably the smallest and fastest) should definitely suffice Well, I'll suggest that for potato. It will start a nice flame-war on debian-devel emacs vs. xemacs. leaving all other variants as an option for later installation to the installer's discretion. Likewise for the vi variations. Which emacs or vi to use is a matter of personal choice of the installer. This contradicts the whole idea of profiles. A profile is a predefined set of choices that *we* think OK and the installer which chooses a profile trusts us blindly. I regard the Average User as unable to choose between emacs and xemacs at the beginning (or between exim and sendmail or between apache and roxen). So, we choose for him. I think it is a very bad habit to first fill up the disk with redundant selections and then expect the installer to deinstalll what [s]he doesn't like/want in order to make room for other software. This is a typical example of the main problem with the Let's make everything easier for Joe User approach: nobody agrees on what is easier. For me, I think that most users expect things to be already there (I've read in an Unix manual about tcpdump and Debian hasn't it. This distribution is broken.) without a new installation, which will certainly be painful for the typical user. machine, but possibly far less capable hardware. The wealth of software coming with Debian doesn't mean that everything and the kitchen sink should be installed. Most of the messages I received, as the maintainer of the list of pre-defined profiles are XXX is missing, why don't you add it?. What i'd like to see is something like profiles/Textprocessing for the writing people containing the TeX system and text/PostScript related utilities. In any case i'll try to make up such a selection and send it to you ASAP. Be my guest.
Re: Reality check! [was: Re: Debian goes big business?]
On Thursday 28 January 1999, at 11 h 23, the keyboard of Christian Meder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember I made a pretty complete TeX profile when I created the profiles for hamm. Isn't it there anymore ? There is a TeX *task* (not a profile) of 201 Mb (it includes all the dependencies, so it goes down to lprng, cpio, perl...). Very complete I hope, giving the size :-)
Re: Deleting uncompressed Info/Doc files at upgrades
On Saturday 17 October 1998, at 21 h 56, the keyboard of Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless you're logged in as root, you're not going to be able to build these example files inside /usr/doc (nor should you) anyway, so you'll have to copy them somewhere else. You can run gunzip on them then and there's no problem. It means that the sysadmin has to create /usr/local/doc, and, foreach package, create a subdirectory in it and uncompress the files in that subdirectory? Then, after each upgrade he has to do the same? After each removal, she has to remember to delete the subdirectory? To me, this completely defeats the purpose of having packages. I believe I'm reading the messages of Slackware fans explaining that building/installing everything by hand is not a such fuss.
Re: Deleting uncompressed Info/Doc files at upgrades
On Thursday 15 October 1998, at 17 h 31, the keyboard of Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm. We have zless to less gz'd files. Magicfilter will print them, as will a2ps (maybe some others will too, haven't tried it.) Netscape reads ... will grep them. vim reads them just fine. I'm drawing a blank on things I can't do with .gz'd files... emacs glimpse (don't tell me about .glimpse_filters, it's awfully slow) mutt -a (if the recipient does not have gzip, for instance a regular MacOS or MS-Windows user. The problem is probably the same for all MUA.) agrep (an approximative grep) And this is just what I use often. Do you mean that *every* application in Debian should be patched to read *.gz files?
Re: Removing Packages in Slink for Debian 2.1
On Wednesday 14 October 1998, at 12 h 19, the keyboard of Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following are packages I feel we can remove: ... netatalk 25598 netalk: several problems (and the solution) [64] (Joel Klecker [EMAIL PROTECTED]) As a new developer, I just want to be sure. Does it mean we can ship 2.1 with *less* packages than 2.0 and important packages like this one? If so, why would people upgrade to slink?
Re: Deleting uncompressed Info/Doc files at upgrades
On Friday 2 October 1998, at 11 h 55, the keyboard of Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To me, a uncompressed version of a file is still the same file. To me, copying an uncompressed info file to /usr/local/info *is* leaving crud all over the disk. Yes, the current Debian system is really inconvenient. Each time you want to do something useful with a documentation (print it, grep it, glimpse it, vi it, remember that not every program is able to read compressed files and zcat file.gz | program is not always the simplest thing to do), you have to copy it to an /usr/local. If the purpose of compressing documenattion was to save disk space, this failed! We have now the compressed and the uncompressed version on the disk. And it does not follow the principle of least surprise, judging by the number of beginners (including myself) who had the surprise reported by Peter. In the mean time, as a packager, I prefer to leave documentation uncompressed. Sure, it's a special case. Sure dpkg should have to be changed, or maybe /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list file could have regular expressions, like: /usr/info/emacs-e20-2(.gz)? It seems a good idea and it will work with bzip2 as well.
