Work-needing packages report for Nov 25, 2005

The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the last week. Total number of orphaned packages: 182 (new: 1) Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 90 (new: 2) Total number of packages requeste

Installation directory for modules

When I run the Makefile below it installs the module in : /lib/modules/$(KERNELRELEASE)/extra As far as I can find out, this is the expected behaviour from the kbuild Makefiles. However, modprobe looks for modules in /lib/modules/`uname -r`. How can I get the modules to install in this direct

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:28:04PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > Of course, with current state of technology, there can't be a digital > signature that directly says that "installation of this package will > not cause any harm". But this doesn't mean that we should give up > completely. Mmm. I'd

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:13:45AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > While the point about "you can no longer just use md5sum" is useless (you > need gpg, other "special" tools won't make it any more difficult, especially > since they are gzip and ar), The problem is that using gzip and

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 07:47:58PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 09:18:40PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Use 1: I have this deb in my apt-move mirror and I want to know if it > >>was compromised on yesterdays breakin > >>

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 10:43:38AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:37:05PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > Personally, I think it's cryptographic sn

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:44:37PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 03:48:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 02:31:22PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > I think the final judgment in this issue is going to come down to personal > > > taste and needs

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 07:39:57AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > > >Uh, packages not uploaded to the official Debian archive can do whatever > > >they want. > > It would, however, be convenient to be able to upload a package to > > Debian and to be able to u

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Michael Banck wrote: > 1. Please drop the `secret' immediately. Unless you really want to call > http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd `secret'. That your mail got resent > with the this subject to debian-devel-announce is already stressing it > *a lot*, IMHO. I did the forward

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 07:39:57AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > >Uh, packages not uploaded to the official Debian archive can do whatever > >they want. > It would, however, be convenient to be able to upload a package to > Debian and to be able to use the same package for different things. As far as

Re: possible freetype transition; improved library handling needed for all C/C++ packages

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 03:12:46PM +0100, Daniel Schepler wrote: > Le Jeudi 24 Novembre 2005 14:43, Peter Eisentraut a écrit : > > Steve Langasek wrote: > > > * Use Debian's libtool. > > I took one affected package (kmldonkey) from your list, relibtoolized > > it as described, and rebuilt it, whic

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

* Florian Weimer [Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:28:04 +0100]: Hi, > AFAIK, binary NMus aren't announced on debian-devel-changes. Binary-only uploads are announced in the appropriate debian-devel-$ARCH-changes list. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian De

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

* Goswin von Brederlow [Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:51:24 +0100]: Hi, > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's > > diverged a bit from the code you're maintaining. > Then he should send patches and bug reports to the debian >

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's > > diverged a bit from the code you're maintaining. > > Then he should send patches and bug reports to the d

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:44:42PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:50:11PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild > >> (the cvs, not deb) > > > > P

Re: Remove

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:54:12PM +, paddy wrote: > I though a robots.txt thingy on the list web archive is coming to the > rescue ? Huh? Isn't having the lists searchable generally a good thing? Or has it been decided that it causes more harm than it's worth with cases like this one? -- Ch

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 10:48:39PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > Yes, I have been doing things wrongly in the past, but this is not the > case anymore. The Changed-By fields are correct now. See, for instance, > my last upload: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2005/11/msg01

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said: > Isaac Clerencia wrote: > > On Thursday, 24 November 2005 22:36, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > > > > > Policy violations are RC by definition. > > > > According to policy "should"'s are not RC. > > Policy 5.6.4 has no "should". It also has no must or c

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

On Thursday 24 November 2005 22:54, Thomas Weber wrote: > > Second, I'm a member of the debian-installer team. I never say > > uploads with such entries. > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2005/11/msg01337.html Wrong example. The changelog for that version is: base-installer (1.37)

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

* Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-24 15:51]: > First, what is DOG, I never heard about it. The Debian Octave Group (http://pkg-octave.alioth.debian.org) -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

Isaac Clerencia wrote: > On Thursday, 24 November 2005 22:36, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > > I can see arguments against it, but none that make > > > it an RC bug. > > > > Policy violations are RC by definition. > According to policy "should"'s are not RC. Policy 5.6.4 has no "should". Thiemo --

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

* Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-24 21:42]: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:26:17PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: > > This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said: > > > Btw, about this simple-minded test: > > > 299 of those are maintained by the Debian Install System Team, and > > > no

Re: Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

Hi > First, what is DOG, I never heard about it. "In the debian/changelog for octave2.9 (and all other packages maintained collectively by the Debian Octave Group, the DOG)" Start of Thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg01378.html > Second, I'm a member of the debian-i

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

Isaac Clerencia wrote: > On Thursday, 24 November 2005 22:03, Stephen Gran wrote: > > But the .dsc is. This stuff is easily traceable, if we want to. I can > > see the benefit of having the same name in the Maintainer field and in the > > changelog for some. I can see arguments against it, but n

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

On Thursday, 24 November 2005 22:36, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > I can see arguments against it, but none that make > > it an RC bug. > > Policy violations are RC by definition. According to policy "should"'s are not RC. -- Isaac Clerencia at Warp Networks, http://www.warp.es Work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

On Thursday, 24 November 2005 22:03, Stephen Gran wrote: > But the .dsc is. This stuff is easily traceable, if we want to. I can > see the benefit of having the same name in the Maintainer field and in the > changelog for some. I can see arguments against it, but none that make > it an RC bug.

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said: > > Stephen Gran wrote: > > > This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said: > > > > Btw, about this simple-minded test: > > > > 299 of those are maintained by the Debian Install System Team, and > > > > nobody there felt comp

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said: > Stephen Gran wrote: > > This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said: > > > Btw, about this simple-minded test: > > > 299 of those are maintained by the Debian Install System Team, and > > > nobody there felt compelled to put [EMAIL PROTECTED] i

Re: There must be bug. But where?

Am Donnerstag, den 24.11.2005, 19:53 +0100 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: > Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Am Mittwoch, den 23.11.2005, 21:21 +0100 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: > >> Let me just make the suggestion to better use reprepro. > > > > That's not an alternative. It has

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:26:17PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said: > > Btw, about this simple-minded test: > > 299 of those are maintained by the Debian Install System Team, and > > nobody there felt compelled to put [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the changelog >

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said: > > Btw, about this simple-minded test: > > 299 of those are maintained by the Debian Install System Team, and > > nobody there felt compelled to put [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the changelog > > for whatever reason. > > What is the d

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said: > Btw, about this simple-minded test: > 299 of those are maintained by the Debian Install System Team, and > nobody there felt compelled to put [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the changelog > for whatever reason. What is the difference betwen this: Maintainer

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

Stephen Gran wrote: [snip] > And we are in danger of allowing policy to drive practice, rather than > vice versa. > > The problem is, there are many packages currently being group > maintained. These groups generally have some sort of group contact > email address: > grep-dctrl -n -s Maintainer

Re: Automated testing - design and interfaces

Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Automated testing - design and interfaces"): > On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 06:22:37PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > This is no good because we want the test environment to be able to > > tell which tests failed, so the test cases have to be enumerated in > > the test metadata

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If such a signature mechanism is implemented, dinstall could also append > a copy of the filelist, with updated md5sums. I'm not familiar with the > ar format, but can one restore the old md5sum when you unpack the deb, > remove the additional signature,

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

Stephen Gran wrote: [snip] > > > > "The maintainer name and email address used in the changelog should > > > > be the details of the person uploading this version. They are not > > > > necessarily those of the usual package maintainer." > > [snip] > > > I think that are two distinct c

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

Stephen Frost writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"): > *I* don't bounce much of anything. Talk to Ian about wanting to > generate bounces, it wasn't my idea. What I want is for him to bounce > it himself if he feels it needs to be bounced, not make master do it. What I want is fo

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I personally see the packages in unstable as something good for > > end-users who want to use it, or understand how the system works; but > > for Debian's purposes, it's not optim

Re: There must be bug. But where?

Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Am Mittwoch, den 23.11.2005, 21:21 +0100 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: >> Let me just make the suggestion to better use reprepro. > > That's not an alternative. It has no easy incoming mechanisms for remote > systems. > > Regards, Daniel And apt-ftparc

Re: Remove

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 12:31:51PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > Hello, > > Frank Maffia wrote: > > >I have also asked to be removed from 'Call Wave'. I am also on Comcast > >broadband but my Visa card is still being billed. > > You have reached the Debian project. As such, we are not affiliate

Bug#340631: ITP: culmus-fancy -- Type1 Fancy Hebrew Fonts for X11

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Lior Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: culmus-fancy Version : 0.0.20051018 Upstream Author : Maxim Iorsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://culmus.sourceforge.net * License : GPL Description : Type1 Fancy He

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said: > Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > [Please, Cc: to me, I am not currently subscribed to debian-devel.] > > > > * Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-24 02:13]: > > > > > Stephen Gran wrote: > > > > FWIW, Rafael, at first blush I have to say I a

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

Anthony Towns writes: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 09:18:40PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Use 1: I have this deb in my apt-move mirror and I want to know if it >>was compromised on yesterdays breakin >> Boot a clean system with debian keyring and check all deb >> signatures. >

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > >> Well, assuming .changes is not snake-oil, then why should in-deb sigs be >> called snake-oil? After all, according to you they essentially do the same >> job. > > Not exactly. .changes files say that the a

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > >> deb after upload would make it much more difficult to check the deb was >> what was uploaded -- you can no longer just use md5sum, you've instead >> got to use special tools. > > So? Is that so bad? > > Also so far nothi

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

Anthony Towns writes: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 02:31:22PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: >> Then there's the opposite argument about "why not do that inside the .deb?". > > Simple answers: unnecessary bloat, unwarranted feeling of security > leading to bad decisions. Where do you have an unwarr

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

Anthony Towns writes: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 09:09:21AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: >> 2) A signature from dinstall saying "this package was installed in the >> Debian archive" would provide a means of automatic "assurance" of the source >> of a binary package, when I'm putting together custo

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's > diverged a bit from the code you're maintaining. Then he should send patches and bug reports to the debian package. This split between the user/developer visible sbuild and the sec

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:50:11PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild >> (the cvs, not deb) > > Patches for the Debian package are welcome, of course. > > > Michael Do you know

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

* Anthony Towns: > Personally, I think it's cryptographic snake oil, at least in so far > as it relates to Debian. I remain interested in seeing any realistic > demonstration of how a Debian user could reasonably rely on them for > any practical assurance. The assurance doesn't come from the sign

Bug#340624: ITP: sendcard -- web-based virtual greeting card (e-card) software

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: sendcard Version : 3.2.3 Upstream Author : Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.sendcard.org * License : Artistic License or QPL (contacted author to

Re: ITP: kat -- desktop search environment for KDE

On Thursday 24 November 2005 16:35, Fathi Boudra wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Fathi Boudra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Package name: kat > Version : 0.6.4 > Upstream Author : Roberto Cappuccio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * URL : http://kat.mandriva.com >

ITP: kat -- desktop search environment for KDE

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Fathi Boudra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: kat Version : 0.6.4 Upstream Author : Roberto Cappuccio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://kat.mandriva.com * License : GPL Description : desktop search environment fo

Re: ssl/crypto

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:43:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > libgnutls-dev is a suitable substitute for libssl-dev when one wants > > libssl. > > > However, libssl-dev provides *two* libraries; the other is libcrypto. > > Is there a GPL-c

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

Hi, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: Well, assuming .changes is not snake-oil, then why should in-deb sigs be called snake-oil? After all, according to you they essentially do the same job. Not exactly. .changes files say that the archive should be changed. If the archive were to accept a

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > [Please, Cc: to me, I am not currently subscribed to debian-devel.] > > * Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-24 02:13]: > > > Stephen Gran wrote: > > > FWIW, Rafael, at first blush I have to say I agree with you. A > > > maintainer address in Debian is just a

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 02:21:27PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > * Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-24 10:21]: > > And the autobuilders get this value from where? They use the common way > > by looking into the changelog. > They get the correct entity, which is in the changelog (in t

Bug#340607: ITP: libclass-c3-perl -- A pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algortihm

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: libclass-c3-perl Version : 0.07 Upstream Author : Stevan Little, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Class/Class-C3-0.06.tar.gz * Lic

Bug#340606: ITP: libsub-name-perl -- Assigns a new name to referenced sub

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Krzysztof Krzyzaniak (eloy)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: libsub-name-perl Version : 0.02 Upstream Author : Matthijs van Duin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://search.cpan.org/~xmath/Sub-Name-0.02/ * License : Per

Re: possible freetype transition; improved library handling needed for all C/C++ packages

Le Jeudi 24 Novembre 2005 14:43, Peter Eisentraut a écrit : > Steve Langasek wrote: > > * Use Debian's libtool. > > I took one affected package (kmldonkey) from your list, relibtoolized > it as described, and rebuilt it, which failed spectacularly. Then, I > took another one (rekall), relibtoolize

Re: possible freetype transition; improved library handling needed for all C/C++ packages

Steve Langasek wrote: > * Use Debian's libtool. I took one affected package (kmldonkey) from your list, relibtoolized it as described, and rebuilt it, which failed spectacularly. Then, I took another one (rekall), relibtoolized it, rebuilt it, and that failed with a strikingly similar pattern. k

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

* Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-24 10:21]: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > As regards the copy of this information into the Changed-By field of the > > changes file, we are already requiring that the developers of the DOG > > use the -e optio

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote: > You can already use release signatures for this. Further, changing the > deb after upload would make it much more difficult to check the deb was > what was uploaded -- you can no longer just use md5sum, you've instead > got to use special tools. While th

Re: Evolution 2.4 in Sid

Am Mittwoch, den 23.11.2005, 21:27 -0600 schrieb Ron Johnson: > Where can I go to discover it's status? The evolution packagers are organized here: https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-evolution/ Maybe ask on their mailinglist: https://alioth.debian.org/mail/?group_id=30664 -- Noèl Köthe

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:37:05PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > Personally, I think it's cryptographic snake oil, at least in so far > > A signed deb has a seal of procedence and allows one

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:02:36AM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild > > (the cvs, not deb) > > Which sbuild CVS repo? It's actually a subversion repository, and it's at

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

* Matthew Palmer [Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:54:58 +1100]: > Sorry, that was a massive typo on my part. I thought "buildd output", and > wrote "buildd logs" when I meant "buildd .changes files". My question, as > amended, though, still holds -- are the .changes associated with the upload > of autobuilt

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:38:45AM -, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Thursday, November 24, 2005 11:17 AM, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 02:11:45PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > [...] > >> On that score, the description for d-d-c says that it includes

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:02:36AM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild > > (the cvs, not deb) > > Which sbuild CVS repo? It is a SVN repo now, the one used by the buildd infra

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Thursday, November 24, 2005 11:17 AM, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 02:11:45PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: [...] >> On that score, the description for d-d-c says that it includes >> buildd logs, > > Then that description is wrong. It never did include bui

Re: Remove

Hello, Frank Maffia wrote: I have also asked to be removed from 'Call Wave'. I am also on Comcast broadband but my Visa card is still being billed. You have reached the Debian project. As such, we are not affiliated in any way with them, however Google shows our pages as especially relevant

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 02:11:45PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:54:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:37:05PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > Personally, I think it's cryptogr

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:51:55 +, Roger Leigh > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Marc Haber writes: So, most of the DD's do not care about security at all. >>> >>> I think that DD's do not use dpkg-sig and debsi

Re: There must be bug. But where?

Am Mittwoch, den 23.11.2005, 21:21 +0100 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: > Let me just make the suggestion to better use reprepro. That's not an alternative. It has no easy incoming mechanisms for remote systems. Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "un

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild > (the cvs, not deb) Which sbuild CVS repo? I'll be happy to merge the changes into the official sbuild package (buildd-tools

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:51:55 +, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Marc Haber writes: >>> So, most of the DD's do not care about security at all. >> >> I think that DD's do not use dpkg-sig and debsigs because they believe them >> to be hard to us

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Marc Haber writes: >> So, most of the DD's do not care about security at all. > > I think that DD's do not use dpkg-sig and debsigs because they believe them > to be hard to use and not supported by the infras

Re: Conffiles and possible conffiles

"cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So you can for example have 4 config sets (each in its own location): > - one with the upstream default values > - one with overrides for upstream settings by maintainer > - one with cdd-overrides for the settings > - one with admin-overrid

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 12:56:15AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > > I will fill a whishlist bugreport against debuild to support dpkg-sig > > side by side with debuild. > There is already #247825. #247824 is the wishlist bug for > dpkg-buildpackage support. Indeed, I spotted them just afte

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > As regards the copy of this information into the Changed-By field of the > changes file, we are already requiring that the developers of the DOG > use the -e option of debuild (cf the DOG Guidelines, at And the autobuilders get

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

[Please, Cc: to me, I am not currently subscribed to debian-devel.] * Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-24 02:13]: > Stephen Gran wrote: > > FWIW, Rafael, at first blush I have to say I agree with you. A > > maintainer address in Debian is just a way to get in touch with someone > > whe

Re: GPG keysigning in Bangalore, India, next month

Quoting John Walther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > If any Debian developers or prospective developers would like to have > their GPG keys signed, I will probably be in Bangalore next month. > > The keysigning will probably be at the Bangalore LUG meeting, but other > arrangements can be made. Email me.

Re: possible freetype transition; improved library handling needed for all C/C++ packages

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 01:25:07AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Don't use other *-config tools. > > While many libraries these days use pkg-config, there are also other > > libs which ship their own tools for querying library and header include

Re: I am still on the keyring. With my old key.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:01:25 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> According to the reports of another member of the ftp-master team, the >> situation was cleared up, but Mr. Troup re-enabled the check that >> breaks dpkg-sig on purpose aft

Re: ssl/crypto

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:43:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >> libgnutls-dev is a suitable substitute for libssl-dev when one wants >> libssl. > >> However, libssl-dev provides *two* libraries; the other is libcrypto. >> Is there a GPL-compat