Re: Way to check installed daemon
Quoting John H. Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > how about replacing dpkg -s lprng with > grep -A1 '^Package: lpr$' /var/lib/dpkg/status > > and grep -e "^Status: install ok installed" with > grep -q -e "^Status: install ok installed" > (helps in suppressing unnecessary output) > > comparison times: > dpkg -s lpr 5.71s user 0.37s system 35% cpu 17.182 total > grep -A1 '^Package: lpr$' /var/lib/dpkg/status 0.00s user 0.04s system 155% > cpu 0.026 total That depends on an implementation detail in dpkg -- surely that's not a good idea. -- Andrew Stribblehill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Systems programmer, IT Service, University of Durham, England
Re: Mistake in maintainer field
Hi Hamish. Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 11:44:50PM +0200, Carlos Prados wrote: > > My question is, can I just modify the maintainer field with "Carlos Prados > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" or even "Carlos Prados <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" in the > > next update of my packages? Or will this appear like an NMU? > > No, just go ahead and change it. An upload is considered an NMU > if the name in the changelog entry does not match the Maintainer > field in the control file. As long as you change both, it will be OK. What is the reason for checking both name and email? Wouldn't email be satisfactory since we may safely suppose that one person uses one email address? My (sponsored) uploads look like NMU's because my name was changed but email was the same. Could you please shed any light on this? Thanks, -- Eray Ozkural (exa) Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
Re: Mistake in maintainer field
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 01:03:09PM +0300, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > No, just go ahead and change it. An upload is considered an NMU > > if the name in the changelog entry does not match the Maintainer > > field in the control file. As long as you change both, it will be OK. > > What is the reason for checking both name and email? Wouldn't email > be satisfactory since we may safely suppose that one person uses one > email address? My (sponsored) uploads look like NMU's because my name > was changed but email was the same. > > Could you please shed any light on this? I think the exact string (eg Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) is used for comparison. Then that should match your GPG/PGP key usually. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lintian errors and warnings
I am preparing a new release of dictd. Lintian gives the following warnings: W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .note W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .comment W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .note W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .comment W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .note W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .comment Is this a known bug in lintian? I have run strings(1) on these binaries, and have searched the source code for each, and neither .note or .comment appears in any of them. I have added symlinks from /usr/bin/dictunzip and /usr/bin/dictzcat to /usr/bin/dictzip. The manpage for dictzip includes the following: NAME dictzip, dictunzip, dictzcat - compress (or expand) files, allowing random access SYNOPSIS dictzip [options] name dictunzip [options] name dictzcat name The commands man dictunzip and man dictzcat properly display this manpage, but lintian gives the following errors: E: dictd: binary-without-manpage dictunzip E: dictd: binary-without-manpage dictzcat The gzip package has a similar situation with gunzip and zcat, but it has created gunzip.1 and zcat.1 as hardlinks to gzip.1. Since man can deal with a manpage with multiple names, this seems like an unnecessary complication. Should I ask the lintian maintainer for an override, or what should I do with this? Bob -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Palm City, FL USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559 PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 05:00:31PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote: > I am preparing a new release of dictd. Lintian gives the > following warnings: > > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .note > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .comment > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .note > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .comment > W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .note > W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .comment > > Is this a known bug in lintian? I have run strings(1) on these > binaries, and have searched the source code for each, and neither > .note or .comment appears in any of them. Hmm, did you run strip --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note on the binaries? -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
this is a test
this is a test _ Get Your Free Email from http://www.888.nu/
RE: Lintian errors and warnings
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Apr-2001 Bob Hilliard wrote: > I am preparing a new release of dictd. Lintian gives the > following warnings: > > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .note > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .comment > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .note > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .comment > W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .note > W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .comment > > Is this a known bug in lintian? I have run strings(1) on these > binaries, and have searched the source code for each, and neither > .note or .comment appears in any of them. Call strip with '--strip-unneeded' in your debian/rules to strip these sections out of the binaries when building the package. (btw, consider running lintian in verbose mode (with -v), it would have explained you that.) - -- carlos laviola - icq #55799523 $ chown us:us /your_base -R chown: what you say!! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE64OlnZAYCJzUW03IRAgBOAJ9Li7RnP/wi5kWYtwuJL9eyT4/1tACeJyWT oqJeVihyamTK6mI9QqNnbzc= =9R7L -END PGP SIGNATURE-
advocate and sponsor needed: tcpspy package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello ALL! I've made a package out of tcpspy. This is a tcp connections logger (to syslog) which doesn't use libpcap. It has been very useful for that machines you don't need to monitor everything (such that ones inside a DMZ network, or that ones behind lots of layers of firewalling and so), which, btw, is the way I've been using it. Since I am not a debian maintainer due to a lack of advocate, I am asking for someone to be my advocate. If there is someone interested, mail me and I will provide a copy of that package for analisys. TIA []s Pablo P.S.: Sorry my bad english. I am from Brazil. - -- Pablo Lorenzzoni (Spectra) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You can get my public GnuPG key at search.keyserver.net Albert Einstein (1879-1955): "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE64QmGGERS+iaKCE0RAvvuAJoDZCHyPtmxj/HvvkFrPLG3ISm54wCcCgT/ 3L3/0Y8Lff13y1MQZEDzV+k= =3m2o -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Way to check installed daemon
Quoting John H. Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > how about replacing dpkg -s lprng with > grep -A1 '^Package: lpr$' /var/lib/dpkg/status > > and grep -e "^Status: install ok installed" with > grep -q -e "^Status: install ok installed" > (helps in suppressing unnecessary output) > > comparison times: > dpkg -s lpr 5.71s user 0.37s system 35% cpu 17.182 total > grep -A1 '^Package: lpr$' /var/lib/dpkg/status 0.00s user 0.04s system 155% cpu >0.026 total That depends on an implementation detail in dpkg -- surely that's not a good idea. -- Andrew Stribblehill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Systems programmer, IT Service, University of Durham, England -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mistake in maintainer field
Hi Hamish. Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 11:44:50PM +0200, Carlos Prados wrote: > > My question is, can I just modify the maintainer field with "Carlos Prados > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" or even "Carlos Prados <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" in the > > next update of my packages? Or will this appear like an NMU? > > No, just go ahead and change it. An upload is considered an NMU > if the name in the changelog entry does not match the Maintainer > field in the control file. As long as you change both, it will be OK. What is the reason for checking both name and email? Wouldn't email be satisfactory since we may safely suppose that one person uses one email address? My (sponsored) uploads look like NMU's because my name was changed but email was the same. Could you please shed any light on this? Thanks, -- Eray Ozkural (exa) Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mistake in maintainer field
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 01:03:09PM +0300, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > No, just go ahead and change it. An upload is considered an NMU > > if the name in the changelog entry does not match the Maintainer > > field in the control file. As long as you change both, it will be OK. > > What is the reason for checking both name and email? Wouldn't email > be satisfactory since we may safely suppose that one person uses one > email address? My (sponsored) uploads look like NMU's because my name > was changed but email was the same. > > Could you please shed any light on this? I think the exact string (eg Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) is used for comparison. Then that should match your GPG/PGP key usually. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lintian errors and warnings
I am preparing a new release of dictd. Lintian gives the following warnings: W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .note W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .comment W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .note W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .comment W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .note W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .comment Is this a known bug in lintian? I have run strings(1) on these binaries, and have searched the source code for each, and neither .note or .comment appears in any of them. I have added symlinks from /usr/bin/dictunzip and /usr/bin/dictzcat to /usr/bin/dictzip. The manpage for dictzip includes the following: NAME dictzip, dictunzip, dictzcat - compress (or expand) files, allowing random access SYNOPSIS dictzip [options] name dictunzip [options] name dictzcat name The commands man dictunzip and man dictzcat properly display this manpage, but lintian gives the following errors: E: dictd: binary-without-manpage dictunzip E: dictd: binary-without-manpage dictzcat The gzip package has a similar situation with gunzip and zcat, but it has created gunzip.1 and zcat.1 as hardlinks to gzip.1. Since man can deal with a manpage with multiple names, this seems like an unnecessary complication. Should I ask the lintian maintainer for an override, or what should I do with this? Bob -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Palm City, FL USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559 PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 05:00:31PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote: > I am preparing a new release of dictd. Lintian gives the > following warnings: > > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .note > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .comment > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .note > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .comment > W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .note > W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .comment > > Is this a known bug in lintian? I have run strings(1) on these > binaries, and have searched the source code for each, and neither > .note or .comment appears in any of them. Hmm, did you run strip --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note on the binaries? -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this is a test
this is a test _ Get Your Free Email from http://www.888.nu/
RE: Lintian errors and warnings
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Apr-2001 Bob Hilliard wrote: > I am preparing a new release of dictd. Lintian gives the > following warnings: > > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .note > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .comment > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .note > W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .comment > W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .note > W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .comment > > Is this a known bug in lintian? I have run strings(1) on these > binaries, and have searched the source code for each, and neither > .note or .comment appears in any of them. Call strip with '--strip-unneeded' in your debian/rules to strip these sections out of the binaries when building the package. (btw, consider running lintian in verbose mode (with -v), it would have explained you that.) - -- carlos laviola - icq #55799523 $ chown us:us /your_base -R chown: what you say!! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE64OlnZAYCJzUW03IRAgBOAJ9Li7RnP/wi5kWYtwuJL9eyT4/1tACeJyWT oqJeVihyamTK6mI9QqNnbzc= =9R7L -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
advocate and sponsor needed: tcpspy package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello ALL! I've made a package out of tcpspy. This is a tcp connections logger (to syslog) which doesn't use libpcap. It has been very useful for that machines you don't need to monitor everything (such that ones inside a DMZ network, or that ones behind lots of layers of firewalling and so), which, btw, is the way I've been using it. Since I am not a debian maintainer due to a lack of advocate, I am asking for someone to be my advocate. If there is someone interested, mail me and I will provide a copy of that package for analisys. TIA []s Pablo P.S.: Sorry my bad english. I am from Brazil. - -- Pablo Lorenzzoni (Spectra) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You can get my public GnuPG key at search.keyserver.net Albert Einstein (1879-1955): "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE64QmGGERS+iaKCE0RAvvuAJoDZCHyPtmxj/HvvkFrPLG3ISm54wCcCgT/ 3L3/0Y8Lff13y1MQZEDzV+k= =3m2o -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
modversion.h ?
G'dau All, I'm using debian testing with kernel 2.2.18pre21 and am trying to compile modules for my NVIDIA TNT2 card, I've installed debs and got the source files, the NVIDIA-glx compiles OK. but when I do a make-kpkg modules_image to make the kernel modules it starts ok then dies with a the following message In file included from os-registry.c:67: /usr/src/kernel-source-2.2.18pre21/include/linux/module.h:19: linux/modversions.h: No such file or directory make[2]: *** [os-registry.o] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/modules/nvidia-kernel-0.9.769' make[1]: *** [build] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/modules/nvidia-kernel-0.9.769' Module /usr/src/modules/nvidia-kernel-0.9.769 failed. Hit return to Continue Can some one plese tell me what is wrong ? Thanks Joel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
