Hi Dirk,
On Monday 25 August 2008 13:57, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Upstream covers more than just Linux distros: Aix, Solaris, OS X, HP-UX,
... and even Windoze (though the javareconf script may not matter there).
But I just emailed the point person for javareconf. Maybe we can move
creation
Hi Thijs,
On 27 August 2008 at 13:57, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
| Hi Dirk,
|
| On Monday 25 August 2008 13:57, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| Upstream covers more than just Linux distros: Aix, Solaris, OS X, HP-UX,
| ... and even Windoze (though the javareconf script may not matter there).
|
| But
Trouble is that we then accumulate yet another Debian-only patch... Oh well.
Why wouldn't it be acceptable to upstream?
So something like
# test functionality of the compiler
javac_works='not present'
if test -n $JAVAC; then
javac_works='not functional'
#rm -rf /tmp/A.java
Hi Dirk,
* Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-25 13:06]:
On 25 August 2008 at 04:11, Nico Golde wrote:
| * Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-25 03:07]:
[...]
| Right before /tmp/A.* are being used, they are being wiped. No symlink
| attack.
|
| Unless I hear
On 25 August 2008 at 13:19, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
| Trouble is that we then accumulate yet another Debian-only patch... Oh well.
|
| Why wouldn't it be acceptable to upstream?
I'll talk to them but mktemp is not universal, is it?
| So something like
|
| # test functionality of the
On Monday 25 August 2008 13:36, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
On 25 August 2008 at 13:19, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
| Trouble is that we then accumulate yet another Debian-only patch... Oh
| well.
|
| Why wouldn't it be acceptable to upstream?
I'll talk to them but mktemp is not universal, is it?
On 25 August 2008 at 13:44, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
| On Monday 25 August 2008 13:36, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| On 25 August 2008 at 13:19, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
| | Trouble is that we then accumulate yet another Debian-only patch... Oh
| | well.
| |
| | Why wouldn't it be acceptable to
I think it is a false positive:
# test functionality of the compiler
javac_works='not present'
if test -n $JAVAC; then
javac_works='not functional'
rm -rf /tmp/A.java /tmp/A.class ## - note the rm -rf
echo public class A { } /tmp/A.java
if test -e /tmp/A.java; then
Hi Dirk,
* Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-25 03:07]:
I think it is a false positive:
# test functionality of the compiler
javac_works='not present'
if test -n $JAVAC; then
javac_works='not functional'
rm -rf /tmp/A.java /tmp/A.class ## - note the rm -rf
On 25 August 2008 at 04:11, Nico Golde wrote:
| Hi Dirk,
| * Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-25 03:07]:
| I think it is a false positive:
|
| # test functionality of the compiler
| javac_works='not present'
| if test -n $JAVAC; then
| javac_works='not functional'
| rm
Package: r-base-core-ra
Severity: grave
Hi, maintainer!
This message about the error concerns a few packages at once. I've
tested all the packages (for Lenny) on my Debian mirror. All scripts
of packages (marked as executable) were tested.
In some packages I've discovered scripts with
11 matches
Mail list logo
