Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Søren Boll Overgaard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: mlmmjadmd
Version : 0.3
Upstream Author : Soeren Boll Overgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://soren.overgaard.org/cgi-bin/index?t=mlmmjadmd
* License : GPL
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 18:26, Søren Boll Overgaard wrote:
>
> mlmmjadmd is a TCP based server that allows clients to remotely
> administer an mlmmj installation. Currently, almost all mlmmj tunables
> and actions are supported. mlmmjadmd makes it easy to construct
> synchronous adminitratitive UI'
On 6/20/06, Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Marc Haber
| On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:51:04 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| wrote:
| >Useful patches and comments are always welcome.
|
| The apache maintainers' "reaction" to #349716, #349709, #349708 and
| #366124 (the latter
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 11:37:22AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> How are others supposed to be aware of that if you don't tell them?
Uhm, did you read the thread you're replying to? Or are you just
rehashing the complaints over and over again to get more attention?
Michael
--
Michael Banc
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > I received #370387 claiming that I should version my libgnutls-dev dep
>> > because libgnutls11-dev provides libgnutls-dev and this can cause
>> > multiple versions of libgnutls to b
Chris Halls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 19 June 2006 01:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Howdy. Just wondering if anyone knows the whereabouts of two maintainers:
>>
>> Otavio Salvador (apt-proxy)
>
> Otavio has asked me to maintain apt-proxy again and I am in the process of
> preparin
On 6/20/06, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 11:37:22AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> How are others supposed to be aware of that if you don't tell them?
Uhm, did you read the thread you're replying to? Or are you just
rehashing the complaints over and over a
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[Don suggested to use the tags _and_ the versioning information in a
>transitional period; I'm not 100% sure what this buys us, except that I'm
>not sure how well britney would cope without.]
> 4. Run a script over the archive (like t
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:45:09 +0100, James Westby
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On (19/06/06 16:04), Marc Haber wrote:
>> One other is that
>> GnuTLS seems to fail if used twice inside the same address space, such
>> as receiving messages via SMTP over TLS and doing lookups via ldaps if
>> both exim a
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 05:34:55PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> Please test these packages! There was quite a lot of code change in
> some of these patches, and the more users we have to test the sooner
> we can resolve any problems before this is an official security
> release.
bookmarks.html fi
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 11:38, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to merge this with apt-cacher and combine your
> skills and time? They do seem awfully similar in what they do if not
> how they do it.
Well, when apt-cacher started out, it needed an apache installation to work
an
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 05:15:02PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Since our default development suite is unstable, IMHO, does make sense
>> to see bugs in previous versions that are solved in unstable.
>
> Well, what do you propose as criteria
Chris Halls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 20 June 2006 11:38, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be better to merge this with apt-cacher and combine your
>> skills and time? They do seem awfully similar in what they do if not
>> how they do it.
>
> Well, when apt-cacher started
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:38:13PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Chris Halls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Monday 19 June 2006 01:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Howdy. Just wondering if anyone knows the whereabouts of two maintainers:
> >>
> >> Otavio Salvador (apt-proxy)
> >
> >
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 07:02:50PM -0300, Damián Viano wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've seen cgiirc[1] in a bad state for some time now, I tried to contact
> the maintainer (Mario Holbe) more than a month ago, offering my help and
> my work[2]. No answer so far.
Mario and I were busy. And I was tryin
On 6/20/06, Elrond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 07:02:50PM -0300, Damián Viano wrote:
> I've seen cgiirc[1] in a bad state for some time now, I tried to contact
> the maintainer (Mario Holbe) more than a month ago, offering my help and
> my work[2]. No answer so far.
M
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 01:18:11PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> In cases where a security bug is being fixed, you usually try to
> upload the package as soon as possible. If your sponsor is on
We did. 0.5.4-6sarge1 was on s.d.o as soon as possible. Since there were
no newer version in unst
"Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 01:18:11PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
In cases where a security bug is being fixed, you usually try to
upload the package as soon as possible. If your sponsor is on
We did
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, I see the confusion (or maybe have some of my own). I am not talking
> about a GPL application that has been modified to use libssl. I am
> talking about a GPL application that uses a library, and that library
> could or could not link to libssl - t
Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:21:59AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> You cannot distribute GPL'd source which has been modified to link to
>> a GPL-incompatible library when the only way the source would be
>> useful is if it is, in fact, linked to that
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> If the GPL'd source is only useful with GPL-incompatible libfoo, then
> you and the shipper of libfoo are combining to ship a program which
> contains incompatible licenses, and this is not allowed.
>
> If the GPL'd source is useful with var
On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 13:18 -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> Who told you that the sarge fix would propagate?
>
> Packages don't *propagate* from stable. If you want a package that
> was uploaded to stable to go to unstable, an upload is needed. You
> should have asked for a sponsor.
Well, a
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 01:18:11PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> >> This is a sponsored uploaded package that only had 1 upload, and
> >had a
> >> DSA[3] issued which is still not fixed outside of sarge.
> >We made that DSA happen.
> >And we were told more than once, that the sarge fix
Hire,
i am he!re sitting in the ainternet caffe. Found your email and
decided to write. I might be cominga to your place in 14 days,
so I decided to email you. May be we can meet?! I am 25 y.o.
girl. I have a picture if you want. No need to reply! here as
this !is not my email. Write me at [EMAIL
hi dudes!
Some packages need libssh2[1]. We have a pending RFS[2]. Somebody know
what happened?
luciano
[1] http://www.libssh2.org/
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
shouldn't pmount-hal & hald respect something like
true
or
true
for removable storage devices for example?
I'm not sure which would be the correct one. Anyway, apparently there's
currently no way to get removable devices with acl mounted by hald.
Any comments?
--
Johannes
--
T
Ted T'so wrote:
> The d-l list has a problem which is shared by many Debian mailing
> lists (including debian-vote and debian-devel, and I'm sure it's not
> limited to them) which is that far too many people subscribe to the
> "last post wins" school of debate.
I've seen relatively little of this
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:49:37 +0200
Johannes Zellner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> shouldn't pmount-hal & hald respect something like
>
> type="bool">true or
> type="bool">true
>
> for removable storage devices for example?
> I'm not sure which would be the correct one. An
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 10:45:27PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 13:18 -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > Who told you that the sarge fix would propagate?
> >
> > Packages don't *propagate* from stable. If you want a package that
> > was uploaded to stable to go to unst
* Martin Spoehrle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 05:34:55PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > Please test these packages! There was quite a lot of code change in
> > some of these patches, and the more users we have to test the sooner
> > we can resolve any problems before this i
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:44:40PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >[Don suggested to use the tags _and_ the versioning information in a
> >transitional period; I'm not 100% sure what this buys us, except that I'm
> >not sure
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 23:01, Luciano Bello wrote:
> hi dudes!
Hi,
> Some packages need libssh2.
The ITP I filed was against libssh[1] made by Aris Adamentiadis, not the
libssh2 you mention.
Maybe we should do something about the name, since it seems some people get
confused.
> We have
* Thomas Bushnell BSG
| If the GPL'd source is useful with various equivalent libraries, some
| GPL-incompatible, some not, then the shipper of the GPL'd source is
| not breaking any rules, because they are not necessarily intending to
| combine their code with the incompatible code.
|
| If you
Am Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2006 00:56 schrieb Tollef Fog Heen:
> Is this allowed? If not, why not? Would it be allowed if the package
> stanza for libfoo read:
>
> Package: libfoo
> Depends: libbar-ssl | libbar, libc6
Is this actually supported by the linker? If yes, why do we care about
transitive
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 12:56:44AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG
> | If the GPL'd source is useful with various equivalent libraries, some
> | GPL-incompatible, some not, then the shipper of the GPL'd source is
> | not breaking any rules, because they are not necessarily i
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unfortunately, it still doesn't answer the question I asked about
> transitive linking, where there is no shared library dependency from the
> GPL application to a GPL incompatible library.
Yes, it does.
It is not allowed to ship a binary which includ
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: foo
> Depends libfoo, libc6
>
> Package: libfoo
> Depends: libbar | libbar-ssl, libc6
>
> Package: libbar
> Depends: libc6
>
> Package: libbar-ssl
> Depends: libc6, libssl
>
> (Assume that foo, libfoo and libbar are all licenced under the GPL,
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Torsten Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Debbugs-CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: otrs2-doc
Version : 20060620
Upstream Author : OTRS GmbH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.otrs.org/
* License : GFDL,
Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I understand it, there is no good reason to have s.d.o in
> my sources list, as the packages in there are for sarge, and may not be
> compatible with the current sid ABI.
This is nonsense. If this should really be the way you understand it,
please ask your
39 matches
Mail list logo
