Bug#295060: wwwoffle: patch for part of this bug

2005-04-06 Thread Paolo
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 11:18:27AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote: Paul Slootman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You list sites that are not be be accessed; the default action (for images, e.g. banners from doubleclick.net) is to replace the image that should have been fetched with the transparent

Bug#295060: wwwoffle: patch for part of this bug

2005-04-05 Thread Paul Slootman
On Tue 05 Apr 2005, Frank Küster wrote: In the elif line, this must be $USE_PPP, of course. Good one. This looks like it may be _the_ bug... Paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#295060: wwwoffle: patch for part of this bug

2005-04-05 Thread Paul Slootman
On Tue 05 Apr 2005, Frank Küster wrote: David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking into this, trying to provide a patch - and NMU if Paul doesn't show up, I really think wwwoffle should go back into sarge. I'm a bit busy with all sorts of things (e.g. new upstream rsync this

Bug#295060: wwwoffle: patch for part of this bug

2005-04-05 Thread David Schmitt
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 18:34, Frank Küster wrote: David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking into this, trying to provide a patch - and NMU if Paul doesn't show up, I really think wwwoffle should go back into sarge. Indeed. Great. Thanks! The overwwrites local config part is way

Bug#295060: wwwoffle: patch for part of this bug

2005-04-05 Thread Frank Küster
(Please note that I didn't read mail while I wrote some to this bug, and now I'm starting to answer from the first mail I got. No offense intended, but I might not yet know some things you said in later mails). Paul Slootman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue 05 Apr 2005, Frank Küster wrote:

Bug#295060: wwwoffle: patch for part of this bug

2005-04-05 Thread David Schmitt
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 19:21, Paul Slootman wrote: On Tue 05 Apr 2005, Frank Küster wrote: David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following code is AFAICS not conditional upon first installation, thus overriding a local admin who has intentionally removed the link. Line 257:

Bug#295060: wwwoffle: patch for part of this bug

2005-03-04 Thread Paolo
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:20:32PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: Hi *! The easier part of this problem is addressed by the attached patch: wwwoffle.config tries to preseed the debconf db with yes/no for boolean values which expect true/false. The overwwrites local config part is way harder.

Bug#295060: wwwoffle: patch for part of this bug

2005-02-27 Thread David Schmitt
Hi *! The easier part of this problem is addressed by the attached patch: wwwoffle.config tries to preseed the debconf db with yes/no for boolean values which expect true/false. The overwwrites local config part is way harder. Looking at the postinst gives me the creeps. Just a few quotes which

Bug#295060: wwwoffle: patch for part of this bug (part II)

2005-02-27 Thread David Schmitt
Hi *! [Pressed send to early :( there was a final thing] Line 523++: | chmod 0640 ${CONFIG}*; chown proxy:proxy ${CONFIG}* [...] | chown proxy /etc/wwwoffle | chmod u+w /etc/wwwoffle I don't know how this should be handled, but it smells too. Upon fixing those things, one probably should