Re: spamblocking the lists

2000-03-08 Thread Alexander Koch
On Wed, 8 March 2000 15:28:37 -0500, Joe Block wrote: > So sign on with multiple addresses and set all but one nomail. It's > ludicrous to subject everyone to spam just to make things convenient for > a minority of users, especially if a fix exists that only those people > affected by the spambloc

Secret Holy Code revealed to Seekers of Truth!

2000-03-08 Thread www.webruler.com/torah
- This ad is being sent in compliance with Senate bill 1618, Title3, section 301. http://www.senate.gov~murkowski/commercialemail/S771index.html Further transmitions to you by the sender of this email may be stopped at no cost to yo

ITP: gnofract

2000-03-08 Thread Bas Zoetekouw
Hi! I've packed gnofract, a small gnome fractal generating program. I am not a debian developer yet, so I'll need a sponsor to upload this package. Futhermore, this is my first Debian package, so I'd appriciate it if somebody would check whether the package is all right and whether I did everythin

dpkg: start-stop-daemon should check that the daemon has stopped

2000-03-08 Thread hilliard
Package: dpkg Version: 1.6.9 Severity: wishlist There have been two bug reports submitted this week (Bug#59321 against dictd and Bug#59321 against pipsecd) that were caused by calling start-stop-daemon with -start immediately following a start-stop-daemon call using -stop. Occasionally the d

Re: Ghostscript 6.0

2000-03-08 Thread Torsten Landschoff
On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 08:19:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > As I understand it, pdftotext is a new tool available in 5.5 but not 5.0. AFAIK pdftotext is included in xpdf - it's not part of gs 5.5. The differences between 5.10 and 5.50 are not that big and I do not want to risk a stable

Re: Packages removed from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Miquel van Smoorenburg
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 03:56:51PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote: >> Package: transproxy (debian/main). >> Maintainer: Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 56998 transproxy: daemon does not start > >What needs to be done to

spamblocking the lists

2000-03-08 Thread Joe Block
Jules Bean wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 10:45:07AM +0100, Nils Jeppe wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > > > > > Can we please close the list from non-member submissions? > > > > > > NO! > > > I, like many users of Debian, post from different mail addresses. Lists

RE: 2.1r5 Master file

2000-03-08 Thread Jim Westveer
On 08-Mar-2000 Jim Westveer wrote: Anyone know how to get a message to Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??? his package w3-el-e20 in slink, needs to be updated for 2.1r5. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- .forwards to [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- bad email addr --

PHP4 Beta 4

2000-03-08 Thread Klaus Reimer
Hi, I have a question concerning the meaning of "Beta", "stable" and "frozen" and all that stuff. The current Potato tree contains the PHP4 Beta 3 Package. The woody tree contains the PHP4 Beta 4 PL1. Does that mean, that Potato will stay on Beta 3? Or is there a chance that Potato will contain th

Re: magnetic synchronous motor water pumps

2000-03-08 Thread Josip Rodin
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 02:43:37PM +0100, Nils Jeppe wrote: > > One possible technique we could employ is to require that the list > > address appear visibly in the headers (to: or cc:). This would > > prevent Bcc'ing the lists which is a shame (and care would need to be > > taken with -private, w

Re: Bug#59907: emacs19: Unable to update to latest release

2000-03-08 Thread Martin Schulze
Michael Stevens wrote: > Package: emacs19 > Version: 19.34-21 > > Hi. > Unable to update to latest stable release -- typescript > of failure attached. > > Script started on Wed Mar 8 11:43:42 2000 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# aapt-get upgrade > Reading Package Lists... 0%Reading Packa

mod_perl unhappy with libxml-parser-perl

2000-03-08 Thread Robert Coie
I have noticed a conflict between the versions of Expat in apache-perl 1.3.9.10-1.21-6 and libxml-parser-perl 2.27-6 that causes memory corruption. I assume that the DSO apache-1.3.9/libapache-mod-perl 1.21 in potato is similarly affected, as I first started getting segfaults when running under th

Re: magnetic synchronous motor water pumps

2000-03-08 Thread Tomasz Wegrzanowski
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 07:55:49AM +0100, Nils Jeppe wrote: > > Can we please close the list from non-member submissions? This is not > the first spam that's come over debian-devel recently. Or set up that : - reply to thread can be done from anyone - new thread can be started by a) member b) non

Re: Packages to remove from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Ben Armstrong
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Isn't it that to decrypt 1024 key takes double the amount of > CPU time than decrypting 1023 key, as long as there is no other > method than brute-force method of trying every combination. > > IMO It is a serious security issue, when the system is half a

Re: Packages removed from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Michael Meskes
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 03:56:51PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote: > Package: transproxy (debian/main). > Maintainer: Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 56998 transproxy: daemon does not start What needs to be done to get this back into frozen? I've still got a machine running this. Or is there any

Re: Packages to remove from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Junichi Uekawa
In Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:10:11 -0500, de profundis Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritas scribat mstone> Are you really convinced that the security of a 1023 bit key is so much mstone> worse than the security of a 1024 bit key that any amount of effort mstone> necessary to transition to a ne

Re: Packages to remove from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Michael Stone
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 09:18:06AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Use the Source, Luke. Quit whining and start coding. Why? On hosts where this is an issue, f-secure's ssh does the job just fine. (Not to mention that I don't live in a free country and can't work on ssh...) -- Mike Stone pgp

Re: Packages to remove from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Michael Stone
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 08:56:34AM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote: > Eh, well, it is correct[1] behavior to toss out an error message in this > case since it's notifying you of a *security* problem. In fact, it's > telling you that the server key is half as secure as the server claims > it is. But

Re: aptitude

2000-03-08 Thread Kenneth Scharf
Just take my comments as a wish list for the future, I know this stuff is still alpha grade (but still very usefull). Nice thing about debian is that it not only has a bullet resistant package manager (not bullet proof as per some of the slink->potato upgrade horror stories I've been reading), but

Re: Packages removed from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Martin Schulze
Richard Braakman wrote: > I removed these packages from frozen today. > Package: xexec (debian/contrib). > Maintainer: Zed Pobre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [Also removed from unstable] > 56762 xexec: GPLed software linked against non-compatible Qt2 According to this short description it needs to be

Packages NOT removed from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Richard Braakman
I decided against removing the following packages because of unwelcome consequences. This list does not include packages that were not removed because they were fixed. Package: emacs19 (debian/main). Maintainer: Mark W. Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 57636 gnus under emacs19 opens files in /tmp in

Re: Packages NOT removed from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Ben Collins
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 03:53:13PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 11:59:41AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > > > If we drop perl-5.004, is there a good reason why we do need to rename > > > an essential package? (from perl-base

Re: Packages to remove from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Nathan E Norman
On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 11:26:12PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 03:13:36PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > > Michael Stone wrote: > > > Not very backward-compatible, is it? In some environments it's desirable > > > to have the software behave the same on every platform; even if i

Re: Packages NOT removed from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Santiago Vila
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 11:59:41AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > If we drop perl-5.004, is there a good reason why we do need to rename > > an essential package? (from perl-base to perl-5.005-base). > > > > I understand this was made to be able to ins

Re: Packages to remove from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Branden Robinson
On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 11:26:12PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > How is it right to spit out an error message on every connection that > adds nothing to most people's use of the product? Especially when there > exists a verbose mode for people who want lots of gory details about the > efficacy of t

Re: Consistant Keyboard Configuration (was Re: Another packages wishlist)

2000-03-08 Thread Branden Robinson
On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 04:40:12PM +, Jules Bean wrote: > The problem in fact turned out to be that the stuff in > /etc/X11/Xsession which groks the /etc/X11/Xresources directory is > relatively new, ^^ Time to break out the flashlights and the moving trains. This transition occ

Re: magnetic synchronous motor water pumps

2000-03-08 Thread Jules Bean
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 02:43:37PM +0100, Nils Jeppe wrote: > On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Jules Bean wrote: > > > Making valid and useful actions impossible is not the way to fight > > spam. To fight spam, our spam-masters work quite hard to block open > > relays, etc. > > Alright, I really don't care a

Re: aptitude

2000-03-08 Thread Daniel Burrows
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 08:26:00AM -0500, Daniel Burrows was heard to say: > > What gets me is that aptitude, apt-get, deselect, and gnome-apt all > > seem to give slightly different info on which packages > > are broken, will be deleted, or are on hold. Are the > > dependancy rules interperted di

Re: magnetic synchronous motor water pumps

2000-03-08 Thread Nils Jeppe
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Jules Bean wrote: > Faking mail is not something which should be undertaken trivially. Well call it "fudging", if you will. ;) > Making valid and useful actions impossible is not the way to fight > spam. To fight spam, our spam-masters work quite hard to block open > relays,