Your Link Check and Top 10 Placement Offer
Hello, I found your website lists.debian.org on Google. Apologies for contacting you unannounced but we have already provided a no charge service for you (see below). You are not on any list so this is the only email you will receive from us. For no charge we have conducted a link check for your website. We searched on Google for link:http://lists.debian.org and found that you have 7070 websites linking to you that are indexed by Google (try it, you can find websites that link to any other website in this way). As you're probably aware the more websites that link to your website the higher up Google, Yahoo and MSN your website is likely to appear. Getting other websites to link to you is an essential but very time consuming aspect of any successful search engine optimisation process. This is where we can really help you. Using your preferred search terms (we can assist in choosing these if you want) we can achieve top 10 placements on Google, Yahoo, MSN for you. This is done through a combination of tried and tested "off-site" (arranging for websites to link to you) and "on-site" techniques. We are highly confident we will succeed. In fact once your account is set up we operate a "more than your money back guarantee" should we fail to obtain your chosen top 10 placements for you. We have achieved number 1 positions on Google, Yahoo and MSN for numerous clients and are happy to show you examples. We know we can do the same for you. For further details we can be contacted on 0845 0573371, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, or simply send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just so you know, we are a UK based limited company. Best regards John Power Leading UK Providers of: SEO, Rewritable Websites (Content Management), E-commerce, Shopping Carts, Hosting, Intranets, Extranets, IT Offshore Outsourcing, Microsoft Training and more. We are also approved by the government as accredited suppliers of interactive websites and secure intranets for schools. NOTE: This is not *spam, you have been contacted by a person sending this email manually, with the sole purpose of introducing ourselves to you with no cost or obligation on your part, also you are not on any list with us. We sincerely hope you appreciate this is the politest way of contacting you and we sincerely apologise if it has inconvenienced you in any way. *Officially defined as, unsolicited, sent in bulk and automated (must be all three to be spam).
Re: Please allow rpm 4.4.1-4 in testing
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 10:52:06AM +1100, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:34:48AM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > >So you're requesting to remove apt-rpm from testing? > > Yes, but that request should come from Peter Eisentraut. > > >I don't know exactly what you want us to do... > > Is there any other alternative? No, I just wasn't sure if your mail did want to say that ;) 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]
Re: Please allow rpm 4.4.1-4 in testing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 10:52:06AM +1100, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:34:48AM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > >On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 10:19:38AM +1100, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > >>At http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=rpm it reads: > >>* trying to update rpm from 4.0.4-31.1 to 4.4.1-4 (candidate is 14 days old) > >>* Updating rpm makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on alpha: > >>apt-rpm-repository, libapt-rpm-pkg-dev > >>* Updating rpm makes 1 non-depending packages uninstallable on alpha: > >>libapt-rpm-pkg-libc6.3-5-0 > >>However, apt-rpm 0.5.15cnc6-6 depends on rpm. > >>Please allow rpm 4.4.1-4 in testing. It will then allow apt-rpm > >>0.5.15cnc6-6 to hit testing later. > >So you're requesting to remove apt-rpm from testing? > Yes, but that request should come from Peter Eisentraut. > >I don't know exactly what you want us to do... > Is there any other alternative? Wait until gcc-4.0 is fixed, and then hint rpm and apt-rpm into testing together? I don't see any reason to remove apt-rpm from testing; AFAICT it's not RC buggy, and it's not holding up other transitions. - -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDaVMkKN6ufymYLloRAh7NAKCSABMG3TPUbwOhj287WgeYGmARSQCgvE4u BY2IYmvHBLi8/JZVaatfuUI= =+Fnd -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please allow rpm 4.4.1-4 in testing
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:34:48AM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: >On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 10:19:38AM +1100, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: >>At http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=rpm it reads: >> >>* trying to update rpm from 4.0.4-31.1 to 4.4.1-4 (candidate is 14 days old) >>* Updating rpm makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on alpha: >>apt-rpm-repository, libapt-rpm-pkg-dev >>* Updating rpm makes 1 non-depending packages uninstallable on alpha: >>libapt-rpm-pkg-libc6.3-5-0 >> >>However, apt-rpm 0.5.15cnc6-6 depends on rpm. >> >>Please allow rpm 4.4.1-4 in testing. It will then allow apt-rpm >>0.5.15cnc6-6 to hit testing later. > >So you're requesting to remove apt-rpm from testing? Yes, but that request should come from Peter Eisentraut. >I don't know exactly what you want us to do... Is there any other alternative? >Gruesse, >-- >Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >www: http://www.djpig.de/ Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux : :' : Free Operating System `. `' http://debian.org/ `- http://v7w.com/anibal signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please allow rpm 4.4.1-4 in testing
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 10:19:38AM +1100, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > At http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=rpm it reads: > > * trying to update rpm from 4.0.4-31.1 to 4.4.1-4 (candidate is 14 days old) > * Updating rpm makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on alpha: > apt-rpm-repository, libapt-rpm-pkg-dev > * Updating rpm makes 1 non-depending packages uninstallable on alpha: > libapt-rpm-pkg-libc6.3-5-0 > > However, apt-rpm 0.5.15cnc6-6 depends on rpm. > > Please allow rpm 4.4.1-4 in testing. It will then allow apt-rpm > 0.5.15cnc6-6 to hit testing later. So you're requesting to remove apt-rpm from testing? I don't know exactly what you want us to do... 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]
Please allow rpm 4.4.1-4 in testing
Hello, At http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=rpm it reads: * trying to update rpm from 4.0.4-31.1 to 4.4.1-4 (candidate is 14 days old) * Updating rpm makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on alpha: apt-rpm-repository, libapt-rpm-pkg-dev * Updating rpm makes 1 non-depending packages uninstallable on alpha: libapt-rpm-pkg-libc6.3-5-0 However, apt-rpm 0.5.15cnc6-6 depends on rpm. Please allow rpm 4.4.1-4 in testing. It will then allow apt-rpm 0.5.15cnc6-6 to hit testing later. Thanks, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux : :' : Free Operating System `. `' http://debian.org/ `- http://v7w.com/anibal signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: When's the mirror pulse?
On 10461 March 1977, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > Also see http://ftp-master.debian.org/~joerg/dinstall.html (altough > this doesn't seem to work at the moment; BCCing Joerg). Its 11:52 at US/Pacific and s/ftp-master/people/ -- bye Joerg one imagines he'll be campaigning with a grass-roots "free auric" stance or possibly "kill DanielS" Hmm, both powerful platforms. pgpRLJo2fb1Ko.pgp Description: PGP signature
gnupg migration to testing
Hi, gnupg seems to be ready to migrate to testing, but is frozen because of the udeb. Can someone push this to testing if it's not causing any problems for d-i? Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: woo hoo! (ofx?)
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 01:32:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Woo hoo and kudos for all the hard work getting the big stuff through > transition. > Is it now all right for me to ask ftpmaster to consider the libofx > upload (1:0.8.0-4, in NEW queue pending so that the snake could > swallow the elephant). Yes, this is certainly all right now. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: beta status
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:08:07PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > m68k: > > I've become aware of another issue, which is that some m68k d-i udebs > were miscompiled by a broken compiler there and don't work. I understand > that smarenka has been working on this, but I don't know the currently > status of it (beyond what's documented at > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstallerM68kTodo) and whether m68k will be > included in the beta is uncertian. The m68k main-menu bug does not effect 20051026. I've gotten all the way to base-installer (currently running). Thanks, Stephen -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
woo hoo! (ofx?)
Woo hoo and kudos for all the hard work getting the big stuff through transition. Is it now all right for me to ask ftpmaster to consider the libofx upload (1:0.8.0-4, in NEW queue pending so that the snake could swallow the elephant). Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
On Wed, Nov 2, 2005 at 14:08:07 +, Joey Hess wrote: > alpha: > > > - debian-installer FTBFS on alpha, but apparently only on the buildd. > > > > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=debian-installer&ver=20051026&arch=alpha&stamp=1130532682&file=log&as=raw > > We need this build if alpha will be in the beta. > > The other builds of 20051026 should be final for the beta, but still > > need to be installed and tested out. > > This is still a problem and I've seen no progress on this issue. Even > someone doing a manual build and upload on alpha would probably be > acceptable this point, (as long as you file a FTBFS bug too or > something so we remember to investigate the buildd issue later..). > I just tried building debian-installer on alpha, but I got the same problem as the buildd. The __libc_global_ctors symbol is undefined in tmp/cdrom/tree/lib/libc.so.6.1-so and tmp/cdrom/tree/lib/libc.so.6.1-so-stripped. However, I'm not an alpha expert, so I don't know how to debug this problem :/ Cheers, Julien Cristau -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[1]: Буду благодарна, если pol'zujuscheesja
Привет! НАИБОЛЕЕ ПОЛНАЯ И ПРОСТАЯ МЕТОДИКА АНГЛИЙСКОГО РАЗГОВОРНОГО ЯЗЫКА УСОВЕРШЕНСТВУЙТЕ ВАШУ ГРАММАТИКУ,ПРЕДЛОГИ, ОБЩЕУПОТРЕБИМУЮ И ДЕЛОВУЮ ЛЕКСИКУ,СТИЛЬ РЕЧИ. Сегодня со скидками!!! Наши телефоны в Москве: 105-5186 238-33-86 pol'zujuschejsja pol'zujuschemsja pol'zujuschemusja pol'zujuschejusja pol'zujuschiesja pol'zujuschijsja pol'zujuschimisja pol'zujuschimsja pol'zujuschihsja -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:08:07PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > amd64 has also not built the most recent version of the debian-installer > package, and has been marked as "building" for over a day at > http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php?email=&packages=debian-installer&arches= > Additionally, it seems that the last debian-installer build to be built > and installed into the amd64 archive was rc3, in May. See > http://amd64.debian.net/debian/dists/sid/main/installer-amd64/ So I'm > not even sure if version 20051026 will get properly installed even if it > does get built for amd64. We had some problems (as noted above), and some others. The kernel udebs weren't in moved in testing until yesterday evening. This doesn't happen automaticly since it's a different source package for every arch, and we didn't notice they were out of date yet. Also, the buildd chroot also didn't have amd64 key in /etc/apt/trusted.gpg. Those issues should have been fixed, and 20051026 should get build soon. We also had a problem with a previous version, 20051009, that it ended up in reject with some strange error message (instead of in byhand). I hope we don't error anymore now. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beta status
An update on the d-i beta status. We're getting really close, AKA most things seem likely to work now. Ccing some other relevant lists. debian-boot: > - Thanks to fjp, base-installer 1.35.4 should get d-i working again with > secure apt and CDs, but we're currently mssing uploads of successful > builds for 3 architectures. This is the last udeb we plan to put into > testing for the beta, once it's built everywhere. Also, once this udeb > does reach testing, it should be possible to do some etch_d-i CD > installs and test things out. The fixed base-installer will reach testing with today's mirror sync. So within an hour or two (netboot etc) and after tonight's build (CDs) the etch d-i images can be used to test the beta and should actually work. Your testing and reports are appreciated, as we decide when to make the beta final. Some links for those images: floppy, netboot, etc: http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/installer-$ARCH/ CD: http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/etch_d-i/ This is just a beta so I am not going to be too picky about testing, but it would be nice to fill out as much of installer/doc/devel/release-checklist as we can. At a minimum we need to make sure that businesscard, netinst, and full CDs (once we get some) work for i386 and powerpc and that the desktop task installs ok and works. alpha: > - debian-installer FTBFS on alpha, but apparently only on the buildd. > > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=debian-installer&ver=20051026&arch=alpha&stamp=1130532682&file=log&as=raw > We need this build if alpha will be in the beta. > The other builds of 20051026 should be final for the beta, but still > need to be installed and tested out. This is still a problem and I've seen no progress on this issue. Even someone doing a manual build and upload on alpha would probably be acceptable this point, (as long as you file a FTBFS bug too or something so we remember to investigate the buildd issue later..). amd64/debian-release: > - amd64 CDs seem to be significantly broken, we've been getting many > failure reports all week. (#336353, #335556, #335653, #336173, #336451) > Unless this is resolved and we see some successful amd64 installs, it > won't be in the beta. This was resolved, only to hit the next problem with amd64: The amd64 archive signing key is not trusted by apt. So currently testing amd64 installs only work from the netinst CD, all the other install methods, which use apt authentication, are broken. This is fixed in apt 0.6.42.2, but it won't reach testing in a while due to annoying gcc-4.0 dependencies needing to reach testing first. amd64 has also not built the most recent version of the debian-installer package, and has been marked as "building" for over a day at http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php?email=&packages=debian-installer&arches= Additionally, it seems that the last debian-installer build to be built and installed into the amd64 archive was rc3, in May. See http://amd64.debian.net/debian/dists/sid/main/installer-amd64/ So I'm not even sure if version 20051026 will get properly installed even if it does get built for amd64. At this point I'm not sure what to do about amd64 and the beta. I would rather not wait for a possibly indefinite gcc-4.0 transition to get the new apt in. Only supporting the amd64 netinst could work, so could doing some magic to get an upated apt into testing. m68k: I've become aware of another issue, which is that some m68k d-i udebs were miscompiled by a broken compiler there and don't work. I understand that smarenka has been working on this, but I don't know the currently status of it (beyond what's documented at http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstallerM68kTodo) and whether m68k will be included in the beta is uncertian. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: When's the mirror pulse?
* Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-02 10:57]: > The katie run starts at: > katie_tz="US/Eastern" > katie_time="14:52" Also see http://ftp-master.debian.org/~joerg/dinstall.html (altough this doesn't seem to work at the moment; BCCing Joerg). -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: When's the mirror pulse?
Nathanael Nerode wrote: > I've been waiting for the latest updates to etch to hit the mirrors, > but I can't figure out when they'll get there. Is the time of the mirror > pulse documented anywhere for the benefit of the obsessive? > > Incidentally, mirror.debian.org/status.html is dead. The mirror pulse happens after the archive reorganisation which signals the mirrors at the end. The katie run starts at: katie_tz="US/Eastern" katie_time="14:52" Regards, Joey -- Have you ever noticed that "General Public Licence" contains the word "Pub"? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
