Re: Bug#156852: ITP: ttf-dustismo -- general purpose gpl'ed truetype sans serif font
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 03:34:32PM -0700, Michael Cardenas wrote: You will need xfs-xtt to view this font properly. This is plain wrong. Since XFree86 4.0 we don't need xfs-xtt to use a True-Type font. Please don't put this sentence in your description. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann pgplO8gDu18MF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: libusb and testing?
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 10:16:32AM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Hi.. out of curiosity, does anyone know what's keeping the new libusb out of testing? I can't find anything useful in update_excuses.html and I can't make sense of the lines in update_output.txt. The (obvious) problems were : - sane-backends/sane-frontends RC bugs - gphoto2 not building on arm - kdegraphics not building on arm The hidden problems were : - pencam depending on libusb0 on m68k and sparc (bad build-deps) - libgpio depending on libusb0 on sparc (bad build-deps) I don't know if the new packages of pencam and libgpio have been uploaded but I would guess that it is not the case. And I would guess that the libusb story is not yet over. It is currently not possible to compile a working gphoto2 in unstable without previously recompiling libusb. Otherwise it segfault early because usb_busses (from libusb.so) is not understood by gphoto2. I believe it is a mismatch between libusb and gphoto2 libc or the gcc used. As I understand it ALL libusb-depend packages are concerned. If I am correct we need a recompiled libusb and to recompile all related packages. Sorry for the bad news, Christophe [...] Just wondering what remains to be done to let libusb 1:0.1.5-3 in. Nothing. Just wait. Binary NMUs for pencam and libgpio are in incoming, dinstall will pick them up in a couple of hours. After this, we should be done with this problem. JB. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E A qui sait comprendre, peu de mots suffisent. (Intelligenti pauca.) pgpttt3vsm9UL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: libusb and testing?
Chris, I (christophe) am the packager of gphoto2. The bug you mention is not related with the NEW problem. It is impossible to compile something working (gphoto2 or something else) with the current libusb packages. This is not your fault at all. I can't explain it but something goes wrong between what libusb.so provides and what a freshly compiled program expects. Everything in my machine is uptodated so I am pretty sure it is reproductible and not specific to gphoto2 (but perhaps x86 specific). With the same source and the same debian directory, the resulting package is broken (give you a nice segfault) if you use the standard libusb package and is perfectly working is you previously rebuild the libusb package (whitout any modification). I have traced the problem with gdb and it segfault when using the usb_busses structure (a linked list). I believe we need a recompiled libusb and to rebuild all depending packages against this new package. If the problem is not in woody (libc or gcc older, or ...) then we need to build all packages under woody. Christophe On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 08:37:45PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:20:35PM -0400, christophe barb? wrote: -snip- It is currently not possible to compile a working gphoto2 in unstable without previously recompiling libusb. Otherwise it segfault early because usb_busses (from libusb.so) is not understood by gphoto2. I believe it is a mismatch between libusb and gphoto2 libc or the gcc used. As I understand it ALL libusb-depend packages are concerned. It appears the gphoto2 bug is fixed in sid? fwiw libusb is linked to glibc 2.2.4-4 which is the same as gphoto2. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=140268repeatmerged=yes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Cats are rather delicate creatures and they are subject to a good many ailments, but I never heard of one who suffered from insomnia. --Joseph Wood Krutch pgpQqYZsJ7TJt.pgp Description: PGP signature
[WARNING] Broken libxml2 2.4.19-2 in unstable
libxml2 2.4.19-2 in unstable is broken. All programs using this library fail with : relocation error: /usr/lib/libxml2.so.2: undefined symbol: pthread_once This could be harmless but scrollkeeper use this library and then the upgrade of a few packages (gnome packages) fail. Downgrading to 2.4.19-1 fix the problem. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Ce que l'on conçoit bien s'énonce clairement, Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément. Nicolas Boileau, L'Art poétique pgp6shgCfDDNU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: David D.W. Downey - Old Key 42D8F306 Signed by New Key C5A76BF6
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 11:02:15AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: * Manoj Srivastava | David 4) Posted the NEW public key (C5A76BF6) to the following: | David 1) public keyservers | David 2) debian-devel@lists.debian.org | David 3) Main upstream source site for affected packages | | Have you done anything that I can't do as well right now? I | mean, I can download your old key, create a new one, and do all you | have outlined? I would believe you don't have access to put material on *.codecastle.com? Tollef, do you consider write access to *.codecastle.com as a kind of authentification ? Christophe -- Tollef Fog Heen Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Ce que l'on conçoit bien s'énonce clairement, Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément. Nicolas Boileau, L'Art poétique pgpss5h8ayXuA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: how-to push a package in testing ?
I don't understand why all theses packages are not entering woody. As Julien explained, everything seems to be clean. I believe we need some manual help. Thanks, Christophe On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 07:11:32PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: Hi *, [libusb-dependent packages not making it into Woody] sane-backends has two RC bugs, one of which has been open for more than a week. 139509 appears like it should get sane-backends to build on mips; it's not clear what'll fix it on alpha, but that needs to happen too. Fixed. sane-frontends has a versioned build-dependency on libc6-dev, which makes it fail on alpha and ia64, since those architectures use libc6.1-dev (which provides: libc6-dev). Fixed. gphoto2 doesn't build correctly on arm, see: http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=armpkg=gphoto2ver=2.0final-3 kdegraphics seems to need a newer version of gphoto2 to be built on arm before it will work. The two packages are now built on arm. There may be other packages which need to be upgraded at the same time as libusb. All of them need to be built on all architectures and free of release critical bugs for this to happen. As of now, all packages are clear of RC bugs, and marked as valid candidates. However, they still do not make it into Woody. I believe we (maintainers depending on libusb) all have the same problem : we all need these packages in the release, for some reason or another. Aj, could you please have a look at this issue ? Thanks. JB. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this. --Anonymous pgp4yWhzYksvy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: David D.W. Downey - Old Key 42D8F306 Signed by New Key C5A76BF6
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 03:39:33AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 07:10:28PM -0700, David D. W. Downey wrote: Not much more I can do since the old secret key and public keyrings were lost. It's going to have to suffice as I have taken every step possible to ensure that the chain of events was totally and completely documented both accurately and publicly to ensure a proper traceback can be made. You haven't. If you no longer have access to the old secret key then you need to find someone with a key in the Debian keyring and get them to sign the new key. Nothing you have done thus far (and nothing you can do without either the secret key for your old key or having someone validate the new key) demonstrates that the two keys are owned by the same person. All you've shown is that the person owning your new key claims to be the owner of the old key. Thanks I was wondering if I was the only one to see a problem here (which IMHO is quite obvious). Christophe You've also not notified (or at least mentioned that you've notified) [EMAIL PROTECTED] which is the address you need to mail for things like this. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann pgpSOuCjM5FEI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: David D.W. Downey - Old Key 42D8F306 Signed by New Key C5A76BF6
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 11:47:33AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Have you done anything that I can't do as well right now? I mean, I can download your old key, create a new one, and do all you have outlined? manoj Because I am not yet an official dd (I am waiting for the DAM Approval as a lot of people), I don't have practical info about this particular issue : Would it be possible for the new 'David D.W. Downey' to hijack the identity of the old 'David D.W. Downey' and then upload packages without getting his new key signed by a dd ? David : I understand that you are certainly the old and the new David but we can not be sure and I am wondering if we have a security flaw here. There is nothing personal, I hope your new key will be signed soon. And this give me a good reason to check that my key is safe in this regard. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert Einstein, On Science pgpLHYMqPHszk.pgp Description: PGP signature
mail bypass spamassassin
I got a mail with sample.exe (2.4MB) attachment. This mail has not been
scanned by spamassassin. I don't understand why. I use a procmail rule
as below :
# SPAMASSASSIN
:0fw
| spamc -f
:0e
{
EXITCODE=$?
}
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Flag: YES
junk
# End of SPAMASSASSIN section
And the mail header does not contain the hit normally added by
spamassassin. All other mails have this hit like below :
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= version=2.11
Below is the header section of the mail :
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Apr 11 18:40:47 2002
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:40:47 -0400
Received: from turing ([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost)
by turing with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 16vnEm-0001ZG-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:40:16 -0400
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from imap.free.fr
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.11)
for [EMAIL PROTECTED] (single-drop); Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:40:16 -0400
(EDT)
Received: (qmail 18191 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2002 22:15:43 -
Received: from unknown (HELO MONTE-XDXLXM7E7) (200.50.16.105)
by mrelay2-2.free.fr with SMTP; 11 Apr 2002 22:15:43 -
From:
Subject:óF^BØsamplesamplebhgrh540samplebhgrh540samplebhgrh540desktopdesktopbhgrh540bhgrh54+0samplesampledesktopbhgrh540sampledesktopdesktopsampledesktopdesktopbhgrh540bhgrh540deskt+opbhgrh540desktopsamplebhgrh540samplesampledesktopdesktopdesktopsamplebhgrh540desktmx.fre+e.fr.bhgrh540
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
type=multipart/alternative;
boundary=_ABC123456j7890DEF_
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Unsent: 1
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bcc:
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:40:16 -0400
I don't even know how a mail like this can be accepted by a MTA.
Any Idea ?
Christophe
--
Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E
In a cat's eye, all things belong to cats.
--English proverb
pgpzVkE527J5G.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: mail bypass spamassassin
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 08:07:10PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 06:52:10PM -0400, christophe barbé wrote: I got a mail with sample.exe (2.4MB) attachment. This mail has not been scanned by spamassassin. I don't understand why. I use a procmail rule as below : spamassassin, by default, does not check messages larger than 250k. Messages larger than 250k take way too long to scan because of the regexps used, and large messages are rarely spam. -- Duncan Findlay First my apologies because this message was intended for debian-users where it would have been less OT. Now Thanks for your replies (Colin too). I was aware of -f (I put it voluntarily) I hope it is not the reason and I will write a script to know how much mails have been ignored by spamassassin. I guess I noticed this one was not scanned by spamassassin because it obviously should have been tagged as spam, so perhaps this is something that happen regularly. I was not aware of this 250k limit. I would have expected spamassassin to check at least the header in this case. I looks enough to detect it as a spam. I am so used of the spamassasssin efficiency ... Christophe -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E A qui sait comprendre, peu de mots suffisent. (Intelligenti pauca.) pgpm5OR0slQSa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mail bypass spamassassin
Ok that is it. I have increased the limit size of spamc (with -s) and the message got a nice : X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=16.3 required=5.0 tests=FROM_MALFORMED,FROM_NO_USER,BADTRANS_WORM,MISSING_HEADERS version=2.11 Christophe -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert Einstein, On Science pgplgKHcBuc2u.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: David D.W. Downey - Old Key 42D8F306 Signed by New Key C5A76BF6
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 04:40:03PM -0700, David D. W. Downey wrote: For the purposes of consistency, I've signed the old lost key with the new key and posted both keys to the keyservers. ... I'm hereby using these emails, the signature on the old key as sent to the keyservers, and the websites with the old and new keys as my chain of establishment that the old keys was mine and that the new one is mine. ... Hopefully this will significantly establish the chain of owerships. I don't see how we can be sure that you (the new-key owner) are you (the old-key owner). As I understand it, this kind of chain of establishment can only work if you sign your new key with your old one. But IIUC you lost your old private key. I may be wrong, Christophe -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Dogs believe they are human. Cats believe they are God. pgpQPKzQokAmz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: David D.W. Downey - Old Key 42D8F306 Signed by New Key C5A76BF6
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 07:10:28PM -0700, David D. W. Downey wrote: Not much more I can do since the old secret key and public keyrings were lost. It's going to have to suffice as I have taken every step possible to ensure that the chain of events was totally and completely documented both accurately and publicly to ensure a proper traceback can be made. Is your new key signed by a dd after a face to face ID check ? If No, I believe you need that. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast. pgpKhIosUpwtx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: how-to push a package in testing ?
Hi Anthony Towns, Would it be possible to remove the current gphoto2 package (final-1) from woody ? It is clearly broken until the new libusb enter woody and when libusb arrive a new gphoto2 will follow. I am afraid that gphoto2 will be broken in the official woody release if the release happens before the updated libusb package. The sane problem is apparently solved and gphoto2 2.0final-3 is build on arm. Christophe On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 02:42:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 01:56:07PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote: I see two solutions : . upgrade of libusb and packages depending on it The packages (by source) appear to be: kdegraphics (arm) sane-backends (alpha, mips, buggy) sane-frontends (alpha, ia64) gphoto2 (arm) xsane gtktiemu - libticables3, libticalcs3, libti68k tilp libgpio pencam sane-backends has two RC bugs, one of which has been open for more than a week. 139509 appears like it should get sane-backends to build on mips; it's not clear what'll fix it on alpha, but that needs to happen too. sane-frontends has a versioned build-dependency on libc6-dev, which makes it fail on alpha and ia64, since those architectures use libc6.1-dev (which provides: libc6-dev). gphoto2 doesn't build correctly on arm, see: http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=armpkg=gphoto2ver=2.0final-3 kdegraphics seems to need a newer version of gphoto2 to be built on arm before it will work. There may be other packages which need to be upgraded at the same time as libusb. All of them need to be built on all architectures and free of release critical bugs for this to happen. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Debian: giving you the power to shoot yourself in each toe individually.'' -- with kudos to Greg Lehey -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Dogs come when they're called; cats take a message and get back to you later. --Mary Bly pgplzyWFWBX9S.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: how-to push a package in testing ?
Thank you for taking care of sane. Christophe On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:13:18PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi *, The sane problem is apparently solved and gphoto2 2.0final-3 is build on arm. Not exactly. I uploaded another NMU, now sane-backends should build on SPARC (and hopefully HPPA but it's not critical). It will be installed today, we can expect to have all arches in at most 2 days... I uploaded with urgency=high, so chances are the libusb-dependent packages will enter Woody next week (around wednesday, sane-frontends needs another 2 or 3 days from now on). Hopefully. Thanks to Julien LEMOINE for his help on SANE. JB. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Cats seem go on the principle that it never does any harm to ask for what you want. --Joseph Wood Krutch pgp5klSUxX2rk.pgp Description: PGP signature
