Re: Debian vs RedHat init script
On Thursday 29 July 2004 02.30, Joey Hess wrote: To use lsb init scripts in Debian, you need to have the lsb package installed. I don't think that we want to have debian packages depending on lsb, for one thing it pulls in lots of other stuff. I've also discovered that supposedly lsb compliant distributions violate its init script policy in various ways which can be quite hard to work around in an lsb init script, but YMMV there. As I've said, it's on my TODO list but I've not looked at it yet. So this information is appreciated - summary: it's probably not worth it for Debian packages. (So, I guess, it *was* on my TODO list... ) Thanks greetings -- vbi -- Beware of the FUD - know your enemies. This week * Patent Law, and how it is currently abused. * http://fortytwo.ch/ pgpCzG9l8vdfT.pgp Description: signature
Re: RFS: gbuffy (adopted)
Hello Adeodato, * Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-29 11:43]: I'm looking for a sponsor to upload a new gbuffy version for me. I've decided to adopt the gbuffy package since it is in bad shape, I use it every day and I wouldn't like it to be removed from Debian. The wnpp bug is #242096. i havent checked you complete package, only the changes file in the attachment. why is the upstream source not listet in the changes file? regards nico -- Nico Golde - [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.ngolde.de GPG: FF46 E565 5CC1 E2E5 3F69 C739 1D87 E549 7364 7CFF Is there life after /sbin/halt -p? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: gbuffy (adopted)
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 12:11:25PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote: * Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-29 11:43]: I'm looking for a sponsor to upload a new gbuffy version for me. I've decided to adopt the gbuffy package since it is in bad shape, I use it every day and I wouldn't like it to be removed from Debian. The wnpp bug is #242096. i havent checked you complete package, only the changes file in the attachment. why is the upstream source not listet in the changes file? It's not a new upstream version, so there's no reason for the upstream source to be listed in the .changes file. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: package with more than one license: logwatch
Willi Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone tell me please if attached copyright file is OK? What I'm unsure about is if it's enough to list all the mentioned names in the package or do I have to do the painful act of working out who owns a copyright on which of the many scripts? According to the discussions I had with respect to teTeX's copyright file(s), I think it's okay. Except perhaps that Public Domain is probably defined nowhere and should be explained with the wording from the respective script. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
RFS: phpbb2 (security RC bug, one-time sponsorship of existing package)
Due to holiday of usualy sponsor, could somebody sponsor http://wolffelaar.nl/~jeroen/phpbb.tar for me? Fixes grave security bug, tested okay, no real changes to package except the new upstream sources of course. Thanks, --Jeroen -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:30:39 +0200 Source: phpbb2 Binary: phpbb2-languages phpbb2-conf-mysql phpbb2 Architecture: source all Version: 2.0.10-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: high Maintainer: Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: phpbb2 - A fully featured and skinneable flat (non-threaded) webforum phpbb2-conf-mysql - Automatic configurator for phpbb2 on MySQL database phpbb2-languages - phpBB2 additional languages Closes: 258705 259298 260015 Changes: phpbb2 (2.0.10-1) unstable; urgency=high . * New upstream security release (Closes: #259298, #260015) * Fixed debconf typo, and added Japanese debconf translation, thanks to Hideki Yamane (Closes: #258705) Files: bc07e790346584aeade16748dbd1e03b 639 web optional phpbb2_2.0.10-1.dsc 491304f74504a23293eb1f3bb74c9905 3291318 web optional phpbb2_2.0.10.orig.tar.gz d3e259b75562873d2792e6b50b1c140b 26521 web optional phpbb2_2.0.10-1.diff.gz 396de494f64bbe407a4c5dca0b1da44f 488932 web optional phpbb2_2.0.10-1_all.deb 34b2254ef56b47c26cb56e895781d4cb 32360 web optional phpbb2-conf-mysql_2.0.10-1_all.deb 05d025395a00c398462d2e84dbb2ef5a 2788512 web optional phpbb2-languages_2.0.10-1_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBCC63l2uISwgTVp8RAjM9AJ9Y6Ft6JLle1oRS6ufh3P1vY3L/0QCggzWr vHgp9CAbUrJwR+Y+fCkHoc0= =alAW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Re: RFS: phpbb2 (security RC bug, one-time sponsorship of existing package)
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 07:31:45PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: Due to holiday of usualy sponsor, could somebody sponsor http://wolffelaar.nl/~jeroen/phpbb.tar for me? Fixes grave security bug, tested okay, no real changes to package except the new upstream sources of course. Will look into it. Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.djpig.de/
girl scout mirrors from 7641
benelux --- H-G-H stimulates an increase in the production of H-G-H. http://secretly.topbol.com Clinical results based on trials show the following amazing results**: 88% muscle mass enhancement 84% higher energy levels 81-83% expanded exercise tolerance/endurance 81% increased muscle mass 78% improved overall sense of well-being 75% improved potency/libido 73% improved immune function 72% decreased body fat (without diet or exercise) read more ... http://secretly.topbol.com If you have recieved this in error please use http://www.rul.12products.com --- verbosity detractor occipital isotropic chowder elsinore swiss carlisle jeopard siva stalk colombo conjure creature greece aquila acclimate cationic suitcase annul perceptive electress pietism deductible hieroglyphic pray abeyance arbitrate crucifix spontaneity abramson stratum despite exercisable blueback
RFS: rhythmbox-applet
I made a package for rhythmbox-applet (look on mentors.debian.net) and now looking for a sponsor. Please, check it out and upload to Debian if you want. Any suggestions accepted :) -- Dan Korostelev [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Эта часть сообщения подписана цифровой подписью
security fix dependency
Dear Mentors, I have a seemingly stupid question. Say I am not a DD yet, and has a security bug in a package I help maintaining. Upstream fixed it, so the package is ready, but upstream requires new library version from a dependency than the current Debian version. Asked the library maintainer recently to upgrade his package, but no answer yet. As the lib is small, and it's new upstream version contains only bugfixes, I have packaged it, based on the original maintainer's package. My questions: - would it be wise to upload the lib to a delayed queue and note the maintainer or not? - how should I change the version numbering? If I use the new upstream version, then lintian correctly see that as I am not in the Uploaders field, the packaging is an NMU but with wrong version number... Thanks, Laszlo/GCS
Re: security fix dependency
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 11:41:37PM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: Dear Mentors, I have a seemingly stupid question. Say I am not a DD yet, and has a security bug in a package I help maintaining. Upstream fixed it, so the package is ready, but upstream requires new library version from a dependency than the current Debian version. Asked the library maintainer Backport *just* the security fix into a new Debian revision. Upload the new upstream version when the new version of the dependant library is ready. If the problem is in some way related to the version of the library, then that library possibly should have a security bug filed against it, which would leave it open for a quick NMU if that's what's required to get it fixed. - Matt
Re: security fix dependency
Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear Mentors, I have a seemingly stupid question. Say I am not a DD yet, and has a security bug in a package I help maintaining. Upstream fixed it, so the package is ready, but upstream requires new library version from a dependency than the current Debian version. Asked the library maintainer recently to upgrade his package, but no answer yet. As the lib is small, and it's new upstream version contains only bugfixes, I have packaged it, based on the original maintainer's package. My questions: - would it be wise to upload the lib to a delayed queue and note the maintainer or not? What other choice do you have? The security bug has to be fixed. But if the new library only contains bugfixes then the old binary should exhibit the same bugs and the new binary should compile with the old lib just as well (but still have those bugs). There must be more changes than just bug fixes. Api/Abi changes? That could require a new soname. - how should I change the version numbering? If I use the new upstream version, then lintian correctly see that as I am not in the Uploaders field, the packaging is an NMU but with wrong version number... Something like 1.2-3.1.realy.1.3 or 1.3-0.1 Thanks, Laszlo/GCS MfG Goswin
Re: Debian vs RedHat init script
On Thursday 29 July 2004 02.30, Joey Hess wrote: To use lsb init scripts in Debian, you need to have the lsb package installed. I don't think that we want to have debian packages depending on lsb, for one thing it pulls in lots of other stuff. I've also discovered that supposedly lsb compliant distributions violate its init script policy in various ways which can be quite hard to work around in an lsb init script, but YMMV there. As I've said, it's on my TODO list but I've not looked at it yet. So this information is appreciated - summary: it's probably not worth it for Debian packages. (So, I guess, it *was* on my TODO list... ) Thanks greetings -- vbi -- Beware of the FUD - know your enemies. This week * Patent Law, and how it is currently abused. * http://fortytwo.ch/ pgpuDhhp4s3Id.pgp Description: signature
Re: RFS: gbuffy (adopted)
Hello Adeodato, * Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-29 11:43]: I'm looking for a sponsor to upload a new gbuffy version for me. I've decided to adopt the gbuffy package since it is in bad shape, I use it every day and I wouldn't like it to be removed from Debian. The wnpp bug is #242096. i havent checked you complete package, only the changes file in the attachment. why is the upstream source not listet in the changes file? regards nico -- Nico Golde - [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.ngolde.de GPG: FF46 E565 5CC1 E2E5 3F69 C739 1D87 E549 7364 7CFF Is there life after /sbin/halt -p? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: gbuffy (adopted)
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 12:11:25PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote: * Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-29 11:43]: I'm looking for a sponsor to upload a new gbuffy version for me. I've decided to adopt the gbuffy package since it is in bad shape, I use it every day and I wouldn't like it to be removed from Debian. The wnpp bug is #242096. i havent checked you complete package, only the changes file in the attachment. why is the upstream source not listet in the changes file? It's not a new upstream version, so there's no reason for the upstream source to be listed in the .changes file. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: package with more than one license: logwatch
Willi Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone tell me please if attached copyright file is OK? What I'm unsure about is if it's enough to list all the mentioned names in the package or do I have to do the painful act of working out who owns a copyright on which of the many scripts? According to the discussions I had with respect to teTeX's copyright file(s), I think it's okay. Except perhaps that Public Domain is probably defined nowhere and should be explained with the wording from the respective script. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
RFS: phpbb2 (security RC bug, one-time sponsorship of existing package)
Due to holiday of usualy sponsor, could somebody sponsor http://wolffelaar.nl/~jeroen/phpbb.tar for me? Fixes grave security bug, tested okay, no real changes to package except the new upstream sources of course. Thanks, --Jeroen -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:30:39 +0200 Source: phpbb2 Binary: phpbb2-languages phpbb2-conf-mysql phpbb2 Architecture: source all Version: 2.0.10-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: high Maintainer: Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: phpbb2 - A fully featured and skinneable flat (non-threaded) webforum phpbb2-conf-mysql - Automatic configurator for phpbb2 on MySQL database phpbb2-languages - phpBB2 additional languages Closes: 258705 259298 260015 Changes: phpbb2 (2.0.10-1) unstable; urgency=high . * New upstream security release (Closes: #259298, #260015) * Fixed debconf typo, and added Japanese debconf translation, thanks to Hideki Yamane (Closes: #258705) Files: bc07e790346584aeade16748dbd1e03b 639 web optional phpbb2_2.0.10-1.dsc 491304f74504a23293eb1f3bb74c9905 3291318 web optional phpbb2_2.0.10.orig.tar.gz d3e259b75562873d2792e6b50b1c140b 26521 web optional phpbb2_2.0.10-1.diff.gz 396de494f64bbe407a4c5dca0b1da44f 488932 web optional phpbb2_2.0.10-1_all.deb 34b2254ef56b47c26cb56e895781d4cb 32360 web optional phpbb2-conf-mysql_2.0.10-1_all.deb 05d025395a00c398462d2e84dbb2ef5a 2788512 web optional phpbb2-languages_2.0.10-1_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBCC63l2uISwgTVp8RAjM9AJ9Y6Ft6JLle1oRS6ufh3P1vY3L/0QCggzWr vHgp9CAbUrJwR+Y+fCkHoc0= =alAW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: phpbb2 (security RC bug, one-time sponsorship of existing package)
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 07:31:45PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: Due to holiday of usualy sponsor, could somebody sponsor http://wolffelaar.nl/~jeroen/phpbb.tar for me? Fixes grave security bug, tested okay, no real changes to package except the new upstream sources of course. Will look into it. Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
girl scout mirrors from 7641
benelux --- H-G-H stimulates an increase in the production of H-G-H. http://secretly.topbol.com Clinical results based on trials show the following amazing results**: 88% muscle mass enhancement 84% higher energy levels 81-83% expanded exercise tolerance/endurance 81% increased muscle mass 78% improved overall sense of well-being 75% improved potency/libido 73% improved immune function 72% decreased body fat (without diet or exercise) read more ... http://secretly.topbol.com If you have recieved this in error please use http://www.rul.12products.com --- verbosity detractor occipital isotropic chowder elsinore swiss carlisle jeopard siva stalk colombo conjure creature greece aquila acclimate cationic suitcase annul perceptive electress pietism deductible hieroglyphic pray abeyance arbitrate crucifix spontaneity abramson stratum despite exercisable blueback
RFS: rhythmbox-applet
I made a package for rhythmbox-applet (look on mentors.debian.net) and now looking for a sponsor. Please, check it out and upload to Debian if you want. Any suggestions accepted :) -- Dan Korostelev [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: =?koi8-r?Q?=FC=D4=C1?= =?koi8-r?Q?_=DE=C1=D3=D4=D8?= =?koi8-r?Q?_=D3=CF=CF=C2=DD=C5=CE=C9=D1?= =?koi8-r?Q?_=D0=CF=C4=D0=C9=D3=C1=CE=C1?= =?koi8-r?Q?_=C3=C9=C6=D2=CF=D7=CF=CA?= =?koi8-r?Q?_=D0=CF=C4=D0=C9=D3=D8=C0?=
RFS: gif2png
Hi! I have adopted gif2png (Bug #261583). Since previous maintainer isn't able to do an upload for me, so I'd like to ask here for a sponsor, because I'm not a DD yet. - * Package name: gif2png Version : 2.4.7-3 Upstream Author : Eric S. Raymond * URL : http://catb.org/~esr/gif2png/ * License : GPL Description : GIF - PNG conversions This program can convert GIF images to PNG images. It comes from ESR's page at http://catb.org/~esr/gif2png/. It also contains the script web2png which converts entire websites from GIF to PNG and updates the HTML accordingly. - I have fixed a mistake in web2png man page (bug #258822), added autotools-dev-support and translated both man pages into German. It is lintian clean and builds fine with pbuilder. The package gif2png_2.4.7-3 is located on: http://www.erikschanze.de/debian/ or via APT: deb http://www.erikschanze.de/debian/ ./ deb-src http://www.erikschanze.de/debian/ ./ Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance, Erik -- www.ErikSchanze.de * Bitte keine HTML-Mails! No HTML mails, please! Maillimit: 1 MB * * Linux-Info-Tag in Dresden, am 30. Oktober 2004 * Info: http://www.linux-info-tag.de * pgpkNq6GnfdU8.pgp Description: signature
security fix dependency
Dear Mentors, I have a seemingly stupid question. Say I am not a DD yet, and has a security bug in a package I help maintaining. Upstream fixed it, so the package is ready, but upstream requires new library version from a dependency than the current Debian version. Asked the library maintainer recently to upgrade his package, but no answer yet. As the lib is small, and it's new upstream version contains only bugfixes, I have packaged it, based on the original maintainer's package. My questions: - would it be wise to upload the lib to a delayed queue and note the maintainer or not? - how should I change the version numbering? If I use the new upstream version, then lintian correctly see that as I am not in the Uploaders field, the packaging is an NMU but with wrong version number... Thanks, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: security fix dependency
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 11:41:37PM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: Dear Mentors, I have a seemingly stupid question. Say I am not a DD yet, and has a security bug in a package I help maintaining. Upstream fixed it, so the package is ready, but upstream requires new library version from a dependency than the current Debian version. Asked the library maintainer Backport *just* the security fix into a new Debian revision. Upload the new upstream version when the new version of the dependant library is ready. If the problem is in some way related to the version of the library, then that library possibly should have a security bug filed against it, which would leave it open for a quick NMU if that's what's required to get it fixed. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: security fix dependency
Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear Mentors, I have a seemingly stupid question. Say I am not a DD yet, and has a security bug in a package I help maintaining. Upstream fixed it, so the package is ready, but upstream requires new library version from a dependency than the current Debian version. Asked the library maintainer recently to upgrade his package, but no answer yet. As the lib is small, and it's new upstream version contains only bugfixes, I have packaged it, based on the original maintainer's package. My questions: - would it be wise to upload the lib to a delayed queue and note the maintainer or not? What other choice do you have? The security bug has to be fixed. But if the new library only contains bugfixes then the old binary should exhibit the same bugs and the new binary should compile with the old lib just as well (but still have those bugs). There must be more changes than just bug fixes. Api/Abi changes? That could require a new soname. - how should I change the version numbering? If I use the new upstream version, then lintian correctly see that as I am not in the Uploaders field, the packaging is an NMU but with wrong version number... Something like 1.2-3.1.realy.1.3 or 1.3-0.1 Thanks, Laszlo/GCS MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: libmqueue - POSIX message queues library for Linux
Hi all, I'm looking for a sponsor for libmqueue, POSIX message queues userspace library (see also [1] for a little discussion about the package). The package is ready at [2]. It is lintian/linda clean and builds correctly in a sid chroot (pbuilder). [1]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=260222 [2]: http://oioio.altervista.org/debian/ Here's the control file of the shared library package: Package: libmqueue4 Version: 4.41-1 Section: libs Priority: optional Architecture: i386 Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.2.ds1-4) Installed-Size: 32 Maintainer: Mattia Dongili (ma.d.) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Source: libmqueue Description: POSIX message queues library for Linux POSIX message queues are part of IPC used to exchange messages between processes. Since 2.6.6-rc1 it has been included into Linux kernel. Message queues are implemented as a filesystem called mqueue. Library adds appropriate interface to a mqueue filesystem which is compliant with POSIX standard (IEEE Std 1003.1-2001). thanks in advance -- mattia :wq! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
