E-mail account disabling warning.
Dear user, the management of Debian.org mailing system wants to let you know that, Our antivirus software has detected a large ammount of viruses outgoing from your email account, you may use our free anti-virus tool to clean up your computer software. Advanced details can be found in attached file. Attached file is protected with the password for security reasons. Password is 22482. Sincerely, The Debian.org teamhttp://www.debian.org Norton AntiVirus Deleted1.txt Description: plain/text
VIC AntiVirus Mail Scanner Results
RAV AntiVirus for Linux i686 version: 8.3.0 (snapshot-20010925) Hello, This is the VIC AntiVirus Mail Scanner. I have found that [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent a virus infected e-mail: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Subject: here is my advice. Filename: (part0002:regards.com) Virus:Win32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] If the e-mail came from MAILER-DAEMON the real sender is unknown. If you have any questions or if you do not want to receive these warning messages please send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have done the following: - I have not been able to clean this file. - I have successfully deleted the file. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Treat your illness
This is the best there is Surprise your lady and yourself The best there is C"ial'is You don't believe me?. check: http://fvejkf.gfd-online.com/cia/?biggest Get out of the list: http://drk.gfd-online.com/zz.html
Re: RFS: patmv -- a bulk renaming tool
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:13:32PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote: >> > So: I suggest you submit it for addition to renameutils. >> > As a side effect, renameutils and your package get a comaintainer. >> >> Hmmm. Maybe you should see if the renameutils maintainer is >> willing/interested in including it first; if not I will look at it. >> >> I agree that it makes sense for it to be separate from perl; but perhaps >> not separate from renameutils. > > I have to assert, respectfully, that I don't think patmv belongs with > renameutils or any other existing package. I guess I'm confused as to > why the suggestion of including it in another package has come up at > all. patmv is its own package with a life outside of these other > packages. That should, in my opinion, be sufficient reason to have it > be a separate package. I think most upstream authors would be > reluctant to have their software added to Debian by being combined > with some other package that they don't have anything to do with. If > you disagree, please let me know; I'm definitely open to hearing > compelling arguments to the contrary. Tiny packages are generally frowned upon in Debian since they unnecessarily bloat the Packages file. So, small scripts like yours tend to be collected into a single package with other related scripts. If everyone packaged their pet scripts into separate packages, the already very large number of packages in Debian would grow enormously. -- You win again, gravity! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: gtklp -- Frontend for CUPS written in GTK+
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:43:32AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > Hello, > Thanks, nice. :-) Just some minor tidbits: > > You seem to have repackaged it almost from scratch dumping the > dependency on debmake in the process (afaict on a very short glance), > but it is still listed in Build-Dependends. > Okies, removed debmake :) > Build-Depends: libcupsys2-dev, libglib1.2-dev, libgtk1.2-dev,libgnutls-dev | > libgnutls5-dev, debmake, debhelper (>= 4.0.0) > > You also should not build-depend on "libgnutls-dev | libgnutls5-dev" > *If* you build-depend on gnutls you should have an exact > build-dependency on libgnutls7-dev because cups is using this version > and you do not want gtklp to link against two versions of gnutls. > (Crashes might be the result.) > > Imho the build-depency on gnutls should simply be droppep, gtklp does > not use gnutls, it is just a libtool artefact caused by > libcupsys2-dev, which already depends on libgnutls7-dev. > Also dropped gnutls ;) > Did you repack the source? - The md5sum does not match: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ grep orig gtklp_0.9p-1.dsc > 6e287468e9e01bae464c78a197f94160 533124 gtklp_0.9p.orig.tar.gz > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ wget \ > http://switch.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/gtklp/gtklp-0.9n.src.tar.gz > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ md5sum gtklp-0.9n.src.tar.gz > aaae46694b96290113033420c1958ed7 gtklp-0.9n.src.tar.gz > Of course the md5sums won't match, they're _not_ the same sources! (Hint: it's a `p', not an `n' ;) Thanks for your input, it really helps! Cheers, Zakame -- |*-ZAK B. ELEP (Registered Linux User #327585)-*| |* Web:http://zakame.spunge.orgGPG ID: 0xFA53851D *| |* Phone: (+63)916-2458830ICQ UIN: 33236644 *| |*--1486 7957 454D E529 E4F1 F75E 5787 B1FD FA53 851D--*| -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GU>AT d-(+) s-:- a--->-- C+(++) UL P+ L++>+++ E@ W+++ N+ o K w(--) O+ !M !V PS(+) PE(+) Y+ PGP+++(++) t+ 5 X- R++ tv(+) b++(+++) !DI D+ G>+++ e>++ h! !r !y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: gtklp -- Frontend for CUPS written in GTK+
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > $ wget http://zakame.spunge.org/pub/debian/gtklp/gtklp_0.9p.orig.tar.gz > - --11:03:25-- http://zakame.spunge.org/pub/debian/gtklp/gtklp_0.9p.orig.tar.gz >=> `gtklp_0.9p.orig.tar.gz' > Resolving zakame.spunge.org... 65.42.154.225 > Connecting to zakame.spunge.org[65.42.154.225]:80... connected. > HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 403 Forbidden > 11:03:27 ERROR 403: Forbidden. > > Can you drop me a mail when this will be solved, I'll test the package > and upload it if it's ok. > Just dropped you an email that this is solved (perms were 600, should be 644). Feel free to test it ;) Thanks for your input, Zakame -- |*-ZAK B. ELEP (Registered Linux User #327585)-*| |* Web:http://zakame.spunge.orgGPG ID: 0xFA53851D *| |* Phone: (+63)916-2458830ICQ UIN: 33236644 *| |*--1486 7957 454D E529 E4F1 F75E 5787 B1FD FA53 851D--*| -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GU>AT d-(+) s-:- a--->-- C+(++) UL P+ L++>+++ E@ W+++ N+ o K w(--) O+ !M !V PS(+) PE(+) Y+ PGP+++(++) t+ 5 X- R++ tv(+) b++(+++) !DI D+ G>+++ e>++ h! !r !y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
withdrawing RFS for patmv (was RFS: patmv -- a bulk renaming tool)
> Tiny packages are generally frowned upon in Debian since they > unnecessarily bloat the Packages file. So, small scripts like yours > tend to be collected into a single package with other related scripts. > > If everyone packaged their pet scripts into separate packages, the > already very large number of packages in Debian would grow enormously. Your arguments and those of others have persuaded me to withdraw my RFS for patmv. For now, I'll just put the Debian package for patmv on my personal site along with a handful of other small tools that are useful enough to share with a wider audience than their current user base. If someone else decides that it's worth including in renameutils, I have no objection. I'll likel contact the remameutils maintainers and let them know about it, at least as a more advanced alternative to the rename program that is packaged with Perl. Please understand that I'm not withdrawing this because I feel bitter or disappointed, but because I genuinely agree with the arguments. My thinking prior to submitting my RFS was that, if a reasonable package had been debianized, it made sense to submit it for inclusion in the distribution where it would be easy to find and install. I now feel that it's better to wait until the package has a wider user base or serves some important purpose not served by other packages. (This seems obvious in retrospect.) I'm sure I'm not alone, especially among relative newcomers to Debian, in not even having read the names of all the available packages, let alone knowing what they all do. Although it's great to be able to install just about anything I know about with apt-get install (rather than search all over the place for, say, an rpm that may or may not coexist peacefully with other packages), I completely acknowledge that patmv is not something anyone will come looking for. Thanks again for the responses and interest! -- Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ql.org/q/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
E-mail account disabling warning.
Dear user, the management of Debian.org mailing system wants to let you know that, Our antivirus software has detected a large ammount of viruses outgoing from your email account, you may use our free anti-virus tool to clean up your computer software. Advanced details can be found in attached file. Attached file is protected with the password for security reasons. Password is 22482. Sincerely, The Debian.org teamhttp://www.debian.org Norton AntiVirus Deleted1.txt Description: plain/text
VIC AntiVirus Mail Scanner Results
RAV AntiVirus for Linux i686 version: 8.3.0 (snapshot-20010925) Hello, This is the VIC AntiVirus Mail Scanner. I have found that debian-mentors@lists.debian.org sent a virus infected e-mail: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Subject: here is my advice. Filename: (part0002:regards.com) Virus:Win32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] If the e-mail came from MAILER-DAEMON the real sender is unknown. If you have any questions or if you do not want to receive these warning messages please send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have done the following: - I have not been able to clean this file. - I have successfully deleted the file.
Treat your illness
This is the best there is Surprise your lady and yourself The best there is C"ial'is You don't believe me?. check: http://fvejkf.gfd-online.com/cia/?biggest Get out of the list: http://drk.gfd-online.com/zz.html
Re: RFS: patmv -- a bulk renaming tool
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:13:32PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote: >> > So: I suggest you submit it for addition to renameutils. >> > As a side effect, renameutils and your package get a comaintainer. >> >> Hmmm. Maybe you should see if the renameutils maintainer is >> willing/interested in including it first; if not I will look at it. >> >> I agree that it makes sense for it to be separate from perl; but perhaps >> not separate from renameutils. > > I have to assert, respectfully, that I don't think patmv belongs with > renameutils or any other existing package. I guess I'm confused as to > why the suggestion of including it in another package has come up at > all. patmv is its own package with a life outside of these other > packages. That should, in my opinion, be sufficient reason to have it > be a separate package. I think most upstream authors would be > reluctant to have their software added to Debian by being combined > with some other package that they don't have anything to do with. If > you disagree, please let me know; I'm definitely open to hearing > compelling arguments to the contrary. Tiny packages are generally frowned upon in Debian since they unnecessarily bloat the Packages file. So, small scripts like yours tend to be collected into a single package with other related scripts. If everyone packaged their pet scripts into separate packages, the already very large number of packages in Debian would grow enormously. -- You win again, gravity!
Re: RFS: gtklp -- Frontend for CUPS written in GTK+
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:43:32AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > Hello, > Thanks, nice. :-) Just some minor tidbits: > > You seem to have repackaged it almost from scratch dumping the > dependency on debmake in the process (afaict on a very short glance), > but it is still listed in Build-Dependends. > Okies, removed debmake :) > Build-Depends: libcupsys2-dev, libglib1.2-dev, libgtk1.2-dev,libgnutls-dev | > libgnutls5-dev, debmake, debhelper (>= 4.0.0) > > You also should not build-depend on "libgnutls-dev | libgnutls5-dev" > *If* you build-depend on gnutls you should have an exact > build-dependency on libgnutls7-dev because cups is using this version > and you do not want gtklp to link against two versions of gnutls. > (Crashes might be the result.) > > Imho the build-depency on gnutls should simply be droppep, gtklp does > not use gnutls, it is just a libtool artefact caused by > libcupsys2-dev, which already depends on libgnutls7-dev. > Also dropped gnutls ;) > Did you repack the source? - The md5sum does not match: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ grep orig gtklp_0.9p-1.dsc > 6e287468e9e01bae464c78a197f94160 533124 gtklp_0.9p.orig.tar.gz > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ wget \ > http://switch.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/gtklp/gtklp-0.9n.src.tar.gz > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ md5sum gtklp-0.9n.src.tar.gz > aaae46694b96290113033420c1958ed7 gtklp-0.9n.src.tar.gz > Of course the md5sums won't match, they're _not_ the same sources! (Hint: it's a `p', not an `n' ;) Thanks for your input, it really helps! Cheers, Zakame -- |*-ZAK B. ELEP (Registered Linux User #327585)-*| |* Web:http://zakame.spunge.orgGPG ID: 0xFA53851D *| |* Phone: (+63)916-2458830ICQ UIN: 33236644 *| |*--1486 7957 454D E529 E4F1 F75E 5787 B1FD FA53 851D--*| -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GU>AT d-(+) s-:- a--->-- C+(++) UL P+ L++>+++ E@ W+++ N+ o K w(--) O+ !M !V PS(+) PE(+) Y+ PGP+++(++) t+ 5 X- R++ tv(+) b++(+++) !DI D+ G>+++ e>++ h! !r !y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: gtklp -- Frontend for CUPS written in GTK+
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > $ wget http://zakame.spunge.org/pub/debian/gtklp/gtklp_0.9p.orig.tar.gz > - --11:03:25-- > http://zakame.spunge.org/pub/debian/gtklp/gtklp_0.9p.orig.tar.gz >=> `gtklp_0.9p.orig.tar.gz' > Resolving zakame.spunge.org... 65.42.154.225 > Connecting to zakame.spunge.org[65.42.154.225]:80... connected. > HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 403 Forbidden > 11:03:27 ERROR 403: Forbidden. > > Can you drop me a mail when this will be solved, I'll test the package > and upload it if it's ok. > Just dropped you an email that this is solved (perms were 600, should be 644). Feel free to test it ;) Thanks for your input, Zakame -- |*-ZAK B. ELEP (Registered Linux User #327585)-*| |* Web:http://zakame.spunge.orgGPG ID: 0xFA53851D *| |* Phone: (+63)916-2458830ICQ UIN: 33236644 *| |*--1486 7957 454D E529 E4F1 F75E 5787 B1FD FA53 851D--*| -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GU>AT d-(+) s-:- a--->-- C+(++) UL P+ L++>+++ E@ W+++ N+ o K w(--) O+ !M !V PS(+) PE(+) Y+ PGP+++(++) t+ 5 X- R++ tv(+) b++(+++) !DI D+ G>+++ e>++ h! !r !y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
withdrawing RFS for patmv (was RFS: patmv -- a bulk renaming tool)
> Tiny packages are generally frowned upon in Debian since they > unnecessarily bloat the Packages file. So, small scripts like yours > tend to be collected into a single package with other related scripts. > > If everyone packaged their pet scripts into separate packages, the > already very large number of packages in Debian would grow enormously. Your arguments and those of others have persuaded me to withdraw my RFS for patmv. For now, I'll just put the Debian package for patmv on my personal site along with a handful of other small tools that are useful enough to share with a wider audience than their current user base. If someone else decides that it's worth including in renameutils, I have no objection. I'll likel contact the remameutils maintainers and let them know about it, at least as a more advanced alternative to the rename program that is packaged with Perl. Please understand that I'm not withdrawing this because I feel bitter or disappointed, but because I genuinely agree with the arguments. My thinking prior to submitting my RFS was that, if a reasonable package had been debianized, it made sense to submit it for inclusion in the distribution where it would be easy to find and install. I now feel that it's better to wait until the package has a wider user base or serves some important purpose not served by other packages. (This seems obvious in retrospect.) I'm sure I'm not alone, especially among relative newcomers to Debian, in not even having read the names of all the available packages, let alone knowing what they all do. Although it's great to be able to install just about anything I know about with apt-get install (rather than search all over the place for, say, an rpm that may or may not coexist peacefully with other packages), I completely acknowledge that patmv is not something anyone will come looking for. Thanks again for the responses and interest! -- Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ql.org/q/
