On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:47:17 -0400,
Jon Bernard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: upload sponsored by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
another best packaging practice
--
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian developer
PGP key (key ID F464
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Package name: passivetex
Version : 1.18
Upstream Author : Sebastian Rahtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
URL : http://users.ox.ac.uk/~rahtz/passivetex/
License : BSD like (see below)
Description : Macros to process XSL formattin
This an alternative solution to the -Bsymbolic/-Blocal approach that I
exposed before. It doesn't require any loader/linker code modifications
but requires more work by the library maintainers and is better done
with upstream consensus (but this isn't strictly necessary).
First, we must define ver
Both problems can be solved by simply writing the version scripts so
that only a version tag is mentioned in each:
libpng2.ver:
LIBPNG_2.0 {global: png_*);
libpng3.ver:
LIBPNG_3.0 {global: png_*);
However, we'll still get a warning message if versioned binaries are
used with unversioned libraries
> Still, breaking bind's access to root name servers is particularly
> troublesome because it may tend to break all net access. It may be
> worthwhile to remove db.root from the list of configuration files.
> Especially, because this list isn't something anyone should need to
> change.
I beg to d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 21 August 2002 2:57 pm, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Torsten Landschoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Today I was convinced by Stephen Frost that I can just enable SSL support
> > in the OpenLDAP packages I maintain. No problem so far, but:
>
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-22
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: anubis
Version : 3.4.0
Upstream Author : Wojciech Polak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://anubis.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
Description : An outgoing mail processor.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 06:39:55PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 21-Aug-02, 15:10 (CDT), Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It would help to have an example.
>
> I could have sworn I had a footnote about /etc/cron.allow, with a
> reference to the appropriate manpage :-). Okay, it's
Yes, unfortunately that situation triggers an assert... what a great
feature :(
So apart from the need to remove the unversioned-uses-versioned error,
we also to produce unversioned binaries.
The simplest way to this is is IMHO to add a /usr/lib/dev directory and
make it the first directory searc
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 07:32:04PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 04:23:16PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 07:06:22PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > _Any_ program whose default (Debian) configuration file specifies
> > > options which are diffe
I forgot to consider what happens when a Debian-built versioned binary
is used with a non-Debian no-versioned library.
Here is Drepper's explanation:
The last case is if the object with the references uses symbol
versions but the object with the definitions has none. In this case a
matching symbo
On 21-Aug-02, 15:10 (CDT), Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would help to have an example.
I could have sworn I had a footnote about /etc/cron.allow, with a
reference to the appropriate manpage :-). Okay, it's not the *best*
example, because I don't actually ship a cron.allow, but th
On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 00:11, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> > This is an another problem that would be easily and compatibly solved by
> > my ELF extension (until the library gets properly fixed upstream).
>
> Yes and no. Versioned symbols are here
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 04:23:16PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 07:06:22PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > _Any_ program whose default (Debian) configuration file specifies
> > options which are different from the compiled-in defaults.
> >
> > For specific examples, see al
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 07:06:22PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:49:19PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
>
> > For example...
>
> _Any_ program whose default (Debian) configuration file specifies options
> which are different from the compiled-in defaults.
>
> For specific
On Wednesday, August 21, 2002, at 09:08 PM, Marc Singer wrote:
Without a single example, I don't see how installing a configuration
file where there is none can have *any* affect on the system.
Admittedly, replacing a configuration file may be undesirable.
In addition to the example of configuratio
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:49:19PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> For example...
_Any_ program whose default (Debian) configuration file specifies options
which are different from the compiled-in defaults.
For specific examples, see almost any program on your system with a global
config file.
--
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:12:37PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:21:39PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 01:10:29PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > > It would help to have an example. However, even if there is an
> > > example I don't see how db.root f
Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Without a single example, I don't see how installing a configuration
> file where there is none can have *any* affect on the system.
> Admittedly, replacing a configuration file may be undesirable.
>
There might be (and surely are) programs, that will, gi
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:21:39PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 01:10:29PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > To be, perhaps, a little more explicit: there are programs for which
> > > the existence of an empt
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> This is an another problem that would be easily and compatibly solved by
> my ELF extension (until the library gets properly fixed upstream).
Yes and no. Versioned symbols are here NOW and can be used NOW, and they fix
the issue cleanly without drawbacks
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 10:21:17PM +0200, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:49:19PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:42:53PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > > > Sounds like you want dpkg --force-confmiss.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't expect that since the docum
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:44:54PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Description: Dummy library package for Kerberos4 From KTH.
> > This is a dummy package. It should be safe to remove it.
> > installed-size: 76
> > source: krb4
If you mean the spacing is different, that is my fault (I use vim
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Brian May wrote:
> I ran dpkg-scanpackages on it myself, and haven't updated anything
> since (besides, if I had updated something, the MD5sum check would fail
> wouldn't it?)
Nope.
> Description: Dummy library package for Kerberos4 From KTH.
> This is a dummy package. It
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 11:18:09AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> If you do apt-cache show kerberos4kth1 after installing and look very
> carefully you will see that the two listed 1.1-11-2 stanzas are subtly
> different. The problem is that your package file does not
> accurately reflect the cont
Hi,
I'm seeking for co-developers who have some interests in the
sympa mailing list manager. I'm currently not using it but
I know very well about the package so I think I can still
be helpful in maintaining future versions.
People who
1/ are running Sympa on their servers (***)
2/
(d-devel please cc me, I'm not subscribed)
On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 13:03, Steven Gardner wrote:
> I am checking to see if you are planning to fix the package bug with
> xmmsarts and when you think you would have the fix done.
I'm a little stuck for bandwidth / a machine that isn't on KDE 3 yet
(i.e
Hello,
> libphp-adodb (a php database abstraction layer, required for 'acidlab')
I'll like to adopte the libphp-adodb package from you.
I have created the packages with the new upstream version. You can
download it from:
ftp://jade.viastore.de/debian/pool/main/libp/libphp-adodb/
All cur
Thank you for submitting your information to Delta Dallas. Your resume
or
request for information has been forwarded to the appropriate person.
If, after review, it is determined that there is a good match between
your
skills and any current opportunities one of our Recruiters will be in
contact wi
On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 19:13, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > Just explain why it is the right thing to do. And I would like to stay
> > binary compatible with RedHat etc. if at all possible.
>
> Well, apps like to be able to use libsasl, and
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 01:10:29PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > To be, perhaps, a little more explicit: there are programs for which
> > the existence of an empty configuration file means something completely
> > different than a m
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:49:19PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:42:53PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > > Sounds like you want dpkg --force-confmiss.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't expect that since the documentation states:
> > >
> > > confmiss: Always install a missing con
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 21-Aug-02, 14:42 (CDT), Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:32:00PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > > How could it be dangerous to install a *missing* configuration file?
> >
> > If the default c
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 10:04:28PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:49:19PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > > > > Sounds like you want dpkg --force-confmiss.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't expect that since the documentation states:
> > > >
> > > > confmiss: Always install a mi
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:49:19PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > > > Sounds like you want dpkg --force-confmiss.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't expect that since the documentation states:
> > >
> > > confmiss: Always install a missing configuration
> > > file. This is dangerous, sinc
On 21-Aug-02, 14:42 (CDT), Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:32:00PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > How could it be dangerous to install a *missing* configuration file?
>
> If the default configuration data in the file do something you don't want.
>
To be, perha
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:42:53PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > Sounds like you want dpkg --force-confmiss.
> >
> > I wouldn't expect that since the documentation states:
> >
> > confmiss: Always install a missing configuration
> > file. This is dangerous, since it means n
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:32:00PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > > I'm confused by the behavior of apt-get install --reinstall. I found
> > > out yesterday that the /etc/bind/db.root file was missing on my name
> > > server. I was able to recover by linking to an old copy and
> > > restarting bin
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 08:24:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:09:57PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > I'm confused by the behavior of apt-get install --reinstall. I found
> > out yesterday that the /etc/bind/db.root file was missing on my name
> > server. I was able to
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:09:57PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> I'm confused by the behavior of apt-get install --reinstall. I found
> out yesterday that the /etc/bind/db.root file was missing on my name
> server. I was able to recover by linking to an old copy and
> restarting bind9. However, wh
I'm confused by the behavior of apt-get install --reinstall. I found
out yesterday that the /etc/bind/db.root file was missing on my name
server. I was able to recover by linking to an old copy and
restarting bind9. However, when deleted the link and performed the
--reinstall command, the db.roo
On Aug 21, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Now that we have crypto in main, I think we should have fewer -ssl
>packages, not more.
Agreed.
--
ciao,
Marco
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why is it that /bin/login seems to hang around for the duration of the user's
> session on other distributions but not on Debian?
Traditional Unix does it the we way do; login exec's the user's shell, etc.
Other distributions seem to come with whiz-ban
Hi all,
I'll be travelling in Italy for a few weeks this September and I
thought it might be fun to meet some Debian developers there for
coffee and keysigning. Reply off-list if interested. Thanks!
-- Brett
pgplcBE5su1fw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Marc Leeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> And yes, I am in trouble, most of the packages that ITP (mostly video
> related) depend on lame.
Marc ask in -legal.
Christian
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Brian May wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 11:19:13PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > apt-get knows that it has to get the file from:
> > >
> > > deb http://snoopy.apana.org.au/~ftp/debian woody main
> > >
> > > and the md5sum of the Packages file from this source, as q
> razor ('needed' by spamasassin; needs updating)
I've check out the bug list and the package and I'd like to take this
on unless some more qualified wants it.
--
B. Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://people.debian.org/~mako/
pgpMmajL0klnq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 18 August 2002 20:36, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 06:09:18PM +0200, Luca Barbieri wrote:
>> For example, how about calc.cx KDE 3.0 packages that are obviously
>> necessary for any KDE user? I don't see any mention of GCC 3.2 on their
>> text file so I assume that they a
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> Just explain why it is the right thing to do. And I would like to stay
> binary compatible with RedHat etc. if at all possible.
Well, apps like to be able to use libsasl, and libldap. They also like to
use libc. And libc uses nss, which often adm
Hi Henrique,
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:16:38PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > Today I was convinced by Stephen Frost that I can just enable SSL support
> > in the OpenLDAP packages I maintain. No problem so far, but:
>
> What can I
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:52:12PM +0200, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> Hi Torsten :-)
Hi Oliver :)
> I would suggest that you make an extra -ssl package, along the lines of
> eg. fetchmai{,-ssl}l. It reduces dependencies and solves your problem. Maybe
> people want ldap, but not ssl.
I also like that
Thank you for your e-mail message to MSN webmaster. We would like to assist you with your question and request you go to the appropriate link below for the product you are inquiring about. The link will take you directly to that product’s online help with instructions on how you may contact us d
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I do wonder though why there is a fetchmail/fetchmail-ssl, is there
> some good justification for keeping them seperate now that we have
> crypto-in-main?
Just the fact that I have all but orphaned it and will not spend time
joining the two package
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> Today I was convinced by Stephen Frost that I can just enable SSL support
> in the OpenLDAP packages I maintain. No problem so far, but:
What can I do to convince you that you need to help me convince the SASL
maintainer to have versioned symbols so
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 16:19:48 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Exim is GPL, so the author currently does not allow the distribution of
> binaries which also contain OpenSSL code.
Quoting the NOTICE file from the Exim 3.36 source:
:Copyright (c) 1999 University of Cambridge
:
:This program is free
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:05:48PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:52:12PM +0200, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:18:38PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > > So - what should I do to handle this? Can the priority of libssl0.9.6 be
> > > easily changed?
Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As far as I know, exim is the only package with priority: important that
> depend on libldap2.
Exim is GPL, so the author currently does not allow the distribution
of binaries which also contain OpenSSL code.
--
Florian Weimer[EMAI
> But you will lose a lot of fonctionnalities. This is the main reason
> I've never did an ITP for ffmpeg.
Yep, it's the same with nvrec. But I discussed this with my mentor, and
we're still not clear on this: if a package needs linking with some
troublesome package, does this break the DFSG?
I g
This is a proposal (including patches) for a GNU extension to the ELF
executable format that adds a flag that causes the dynamic loader to
start searching for symbols referenced by modules with the flag set from
the module itself and its immediate dependencies. If the symbol is not
found in this wa
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:52:12PM +0200, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:18:38PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > So - what should I do to handle this? Can the priority of libssl0.9.6 be
> > easily changed? Or should I rather provide libldap2{,-ssl}? Technically
> > it would n
* Oliver Kurth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:18:38PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > - libldap2 is Priority: important
> > - this change will make it depend on libssl0.9.6
> > - libssl0.9.6 is Priority: standard
>
> I would suggest that you make an extra -ssl package
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:04:40AM +0200, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 23:56, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 23:28, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> >
* Torsten Landschoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Today I was convinced by Stephen Frost that I can just enable SSL support
> in the OpenLDAP packages I maintain. No problem so far, but:
>
> - libldap2 is Priority: important
> - this change will make it depend on libssl0.9.6
> - libssl0.9.6 is Pri
Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Today I was convinced by Stephen Frost that I can just enable SSL support
> in the OpenLDAP packages I maintain. No problem so far, but:
>
> - libldap2 is Priority: important
> - this change will make it depend on libssl0.9.6
> - libssl0.9.6 is Pri
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:18:38PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> Hi *,
Hi Torsten :-)
>
> Today I was convinced by Stephen Frost that I can just enable SSL support
> in the OpenLDAP packages I maintain. No problem so far, but:
>
> - libldap2 is Priority: important
> - this change will mak
Hi *,
Today I was convinced by Stephen Frost that I can just enable SSL support
in the OpenLDAP packages I maintain. No problem so far, but:
- libldap2 is Priority: important
- this change will make it depend on libssl0.9.6
- libssl0.9.6 is Priority: standard
So - what should I do to handle thi
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:10:05PM +0200, Marc Leeman wrote:
> > Are you aware that ffmpeg need lame ?
> yes and no:
>
> yes I am aware of that
> and
> no not "need"
>
> --enable-mp3lame) mp3lame="yes"
> (the default is "no")
>
> but since nvrec requires mp3lame I am trouble anyway ;)
We
Marc Leeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are you aware that ffmpeg need lame ?
> yes and no:
> yes I am aware of that
> and
> no not "need"
> --enable-mp3lame) mp3lame="yes"
> (the default is "no")
But you will lose a lot of fonctionnalities. This is the main reason
I've never did an IT
Hello.
I noticed that buildd doesn't build brltty since 2.98-2.
Well, I know I originally just had i386 in the architecture field, but
I am currently working with the upstream maintainer to
fix alot of different architectures, and it would be nice
if buildd could build brltty again on all archs
> Are you aware that ffmpeg need lame ?
yes and no:
yes I am aware of that
and
no not "need"
--enable-mp3lame) mp3lame="yes"
(the default is "no")
but since nvrec requires mp3lame I am trouble anyway ;)
--
greetz, marc
We need a licensed electrician to replace the light bulb
> A lot of the code in ffmpeg is within the 'libavcodec' subdirectory,
> and this code has been incorporated by several other projects (xine
> and mplayer are all I can think of right now). I know that the libxine
> source, at least on the debian servers, contains a copy of libavcodec.
> Perhaps a
"Marc Leeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: wnpp
> Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-21
> Severity: wishlist
> * Package name: ffmpeg
> Version : 0.46
> Upstream Author : Fabrice Bellard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/
> * License
Quoting Ivo Timmermans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I would like to take over your ITP for cryptoapi. If noone else wants
> it, I can take kernel-patch-int too.
As discussed yesterday night; they're yours.
Greets,
Robert
--
( o> Linux Generation
Quoting Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Please retitle them to RFP (request for package) rather than closing
> them if you still think they'ld make a worthwhile addition to Debian.
Thanks, good point :)
Greets,
Robert
--
( o> Linux Generation
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-19
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: gatos-drm-source
Version : 1.2.0-14
Upstream Author : Vladimir Dergachev
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gatos
* License : GPL and additional rights
Description : DR
> FYI, Christian Marillat has already some ffmpeg packages at
> http://marillat.free.fr/
Hm,
Christian's package is the same (at least the binary contents) as my
quick solution.
I'll see if we can use his packages (libffmpeg0 and ffmpeg), tnx.
--
greetz, marc
BOFH excuse #73:
Daemons
> FYI, Christian Marillat has already some ffmpeg packages at
> http://marillat.free.fr/
I'll check it out, since this package is not my main interest. If I can
use the existing ones, the better.
--
greetz, marc
BOFH excuse #73:
Daemons did it
pgp Key ID: 0xD3562DE1
Key fingerprin
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:39:56AM +0200, Marc Leeman wrote:
> * Package name: ffmpeg
> Version : 0.46
> Upstream Author : Fabrice Bellard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/
> * License : LGPL
> Description : FFmpeg Streaming Multi
Le mer 21/08/2002 à 09:39, Marc Leeman a écrit :
> * Package name: ffmpeg
> Version : 0.46
> Upstream Author : Fabrice Bellard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/
> * License : LGPL
> Description : FFmpeg Streaming Multimedia Syste
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-21
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: ffmpeg
Version : 0.46
Upstream Author : Fabrice Bellard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/
* License : LGPL
Description : FFmpeg Streaming Multimedia
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 11:19:13PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > apt-get knows that it has to get the file from:
> >
> > deb http://snoopy.apana.org.au/~ftp/debian woody main
> >
> > and the md5sum of the Packages file from this source, as quoted
> > before matches exactly.
>
> Er, the md5su
Petroleum (Special) Trust Fund
Contract Award Committee
National Secretariat
Victoria-Island
Lagos-Nigeria.
Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ATTENTION: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
The Petroleum Special Trust Fund was set up by the
late Head of State General Sani Abacha who died on 8th
June 1998, to manag
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Brian May wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 09:50:21PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > The entires in Packages files and those in the .deb must match exactly
> > (ie byte for byte), otherwise it sees them as different packages. Since
> > dpkg manipulates the status file and
83 matches
Mail list logo
