Quoting Tomas Hoger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi!
>
> > I think it is an FTBFS bug. The following should generally work:
> >
> > apt-get source qmail
> > cd qmail-*
> > dpkg-buildpackage
> >
> > For qmail, this does not work because of the missing Build-Depends on
> > groff-base and because of the mi
I am including a fix for the missing build-depends line in the control file.
However, I am not changing how the package presently handles creating the users.
qmail-src is not in the main package repository. It's in the non-free
repository, which, in reality, means it's not officially part of Deb
Do you have another location for that patch, or perhaps more information? I've
been unable to get to that URL, or find a different patch than the one
included.
Cheers!
Jon
---
This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail
Quoting Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Package: qmail-src
> Severity: important
> Tags: security
>
> Apparently qmail has some security bugs on 64 bit systems with large
> amounts (> 4 gb) of memory:
>
> http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-1515
> http://www.cve.mitre.org/c
Quoting Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Package: qmail-src
> Severity: important
> Tags: security
>
> Apparently qmail has some security bugs on 64 bit systems with large
> amounts (> 4 gb) of memory:
>
> http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-1515
> http://www.cve.mitre.org/c
Quoting Elliott Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sendmail definitely supports IPv6, and I strongly suspect Postfix does as
> well. This makes Qmail the unusual one in /not/ supportting IPv6. Given
> the increasing prevalence of support, I'd suggest either documenting the
> lack of support or includ
Quoting G A Craig Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Package: ucspi-tcp-src
> Version: 0.88-9
> Followup-For: Bug #57102
>
> After years of having "." at the start of the PATH, it
> eventually one problem can be discovered: the install of
> just this package fails.
I really don't understand how having
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
I currently maintain the qmail-src package. I would like to fork qmail-src into
qmail-ldap-src as a separate package to handle Debian users who wish to use the
qmail-ldap patch from André Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have had several users ask for a version of
Package: wnppp
Severity: wishlist
I currently maintain the qmail-src package. I would like to fork qmail-src into
qmail-ldap-src as a separate package to handle Debian users who wish to use the
qmail-ldap patch from André Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have had several users ask for a version o
I received the following wishlist bug today, and really like the idea.
My thoughts are to change the dependancies to allow ipsvd to be used in place of
ucspi-tcp and ucspi-tcp-src.
I'll need to do some "magic" to get the init.d file to work properly, but I can
just make that a build-time debconf
Quoting Alex Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As others have said there is no need to compile the source when
> building a "source as binary" package. Hence there is no need to have
> depandancies on specific users when building the qmail-src deb from
> the qmail source deb.
>
> There are two ways of s
Quoting Thomas Huriaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jon Marler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (21/12/2006):
> > Quoting Thomas Huriaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Note also that once this is fixed, you should update the description of
> > > the qmail-src package.
&
Quoting Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Package: qmail
> Tags: patch
>
> Hi,
>
> qmail still creates a /usr/doc symlink. Since 2002, policy
> has not required these symlinks, and we're waiting for all packages
> to be updated to remove them before the /usr/share/doc transition can
> be comp
Quoting Thomas Huriaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I don't see any reason to close this bug. If you don't want to fix this
> issue, please tag it as wontfix.
>
> In order to have this bug fixed, I wrote a full patch. Here are my
> comments on the debconf templates, as the rest just depends on these
> f
Quoting Nick Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Package: ucspi-tcp
Version: 0.88-9
Severity: important
Tags: patch
I rate this bug as Important, but if Paul does set a wildcard on
maps.vix.com as discussed then it could quickly escalate.
--
If we don't, some Debian users could lose email when
Quoting Thomas Huriaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Package: ucspi-tcp-src
> Version: 0.88-10
> Severity: normal
>
> While installing ucspi-tcp-src, my installation stopped with:
>
> To build ucspi-tcp binary package, you have to run
>
>build-ucspi-tcp
>
> Press ENTER to continue...
>
>
Quoting Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think you are letting your crankiness interfere with your logic. The
> people arguing that qmail is non-free are a different group than those
> that have anything to do with funding anything. If you can't adequately
> maintain the package, say so ins
Quoting Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> user debian-i18n@lists.debian.org
> usertag 388952 + no-cooperation
> thanks
>
>
> > I could argue my case with you, but I see no point in it. If you have gone
> > through all the trouble to do a massive bug posting against most likely
> > countles
Quoting Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:02:29 -0500, Jon Marler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > This bug is being closed as it is not a bug. It was a request from
> > a translator to make a change that I disagree with. As the packag
Quoting Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> First of all, thank you, Jon, for giving me more input on the
> background of your reaction to this bug report.
>
> I was actually not asking for more and I regret that we went in this
> long argument.
>
> Please also note that this mail has been in
Quoting Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Well .. if notes are going away, that's something entirely different.
> >
> > I looked at the .config file in question, and I have three notes.
> >
> > I have a warning message that is marked as high, a message that tells the
> user
> > how to a
Quoting Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Oh no, not him again", says Jon...:-)
>
> Actually, this contribution is less invasive and controversial than
> the former we had to deal with, I think.
>
> With the removal of debconf stuff, I think that #351394 can be closed
> as it becomes obvio
22 matches
Mail list logo
