On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:09:31 -0700, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu November 16 2006 18:23, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:40:20 -0700, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>> > On Thu November 16 2006 11:06, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> >> The problem is that
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 07:43:20AM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> I guess that depends on what a user's definition of a directory being
> readable means.
There is just one definition for that: whether open(...,
O_RDONLY|O_DIRECTORY) succeeds or not.
> And it sounds a lot like security by obs
John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I need to make some local customizations, and it seemed like a good
> idea, while I'm in there, to use flock() instead of fcntl(), if there
> are no conflicts.
It's almost always a bad idea to use flock() instead of fcntl().
fnctl() locking is effectively
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 01:11:26PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> Sounds like the wrong definition.
There is no choice as it is enforced by the kernel: if you can open()
the directory, then you can list its contents, otherwise not.
> So what is the purpose of using 751 (besides security throu
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 07:43:20AM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
I guess that depends on what a user's definition of a directory being
readable means.
There is just one definition for that: whether open(...,
O_RDONLY|O_DIRECTORY) succeeds or not.
Sounds like the wrong
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:14:21 +, Roger Leigh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's almost always a bad idea to use flock() instead of fcntl().
>fnctl() locking is effectively deprecating flock()
I heard it was the other way around. Please explain ...
>If you look at SUSv3/POSIX, you'll see that
This one time, at band camp, Olaf van der Spek said:
> Yes, do you think 750 or 751 should be used?
> Consider the case where a user wants an easy way to ensure that none of
> the files in his home directory are world-readable.
I feel like this conversation is starting to take on the usual Debian
On Nov 17, Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brainfuck is a known programming language but that
> should not make any difference here from the debian
> perspective. So "fuck" also occurs in other names and/or
> package descriptions (here its not even "fuck") as a part of a name
> but its not
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 01:11:26PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Sounds like the wrong definition.
There is no choice as it is enforced by the kernel: if you can open()
the directory, then you can list its contents, otherwise not.
It's like 'it's unreadable when the ke
Hi all,
I'd like to ask for advice on something that is not in any DD best-
practice documentation.
In the last few years some of my packages have accumulated work-
arounds for issues on upgrade from old versions. This makes
maintainer scripts big and difficult to maintain.
Since Debian do
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 07:06:33AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Hi,
> Could we have something like this after release:
[...tracking unique IP addresses that connect to Fedora mirrors...]
Doing it that way (checking for people running 'apt-get update' or
similar) isn't going to be possible
Hello Developers,
I took over the source code of "ssmtp" and included code, that
it use 'putsms' (package "smstools") if I send a message like
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and use my attached Cellphone instaed of SMTP.
The code is only BETA but it works quiet well.
Now the problem comes with iMode capabl
Hi,
* Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-17 14:44]:
> On Nov 17, Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Brainfuck is a known programming language but that
> > should not make any difference here from the debian
> > perspective. So "fuck" also occurs in other names and/or
> > package de
On Nov 17, Luigi Gangitano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since Debian doesn't support, nor test, upgrades from versions older
> than the stable-1 version is it correct to remove upgrade checks for
> versions older than the one in stable-1?
It depends on how much important is your package and wh
Hello,
With the advent of cdrskin [1] for writing CD-R/W in a cdrecord's
command-line-compatible way and already having several dvd burner
applications, I'd like to propose the addition of at least two more virtual
package names to the `Authoritative list of virtual package names' [2] -
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 01:02:15PM +, John Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:14:21 +, Roger Leigh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It's almost always a bad idea to use flock() instead of fcntl().
> >fnctl() locking is effectively deprecating flock()
>
> I heard it was the other way a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciao Marco,
Il giorno 17/nov/06, alle ore 15:19, Marco d'Itri ha scritto:
On Nov 17, Luigi Gangitano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since Debian doesn't support, nor test, upgrades from versions older
than the stable-1 version is it correct to remove u
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006, George Danchev wrote:
> Using alternatives mechanism -- currently I don't think that using
> alternatives mechanism would be a benefit as a whole, but I might be blind of
> course.
Check /usr/bin/sensible-* in debianutils. They rely on alternatives
and environment
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 04:22:51PM +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> * `cd-burner' -- could be provided by wodim, cdrskin, (cdrdao ?)
[...]
> Another set of possible names would be `cd-recorder', `dvd-recorder' and so
> on, but these are a little longer, while the clarity remains the same.
Wh
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 07:06:33AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Could we have something like this after release:
> [...tracking unique IP addresses that connect to Fedora mirrors...]
>
> Doing it that way (checking for people running 'apt-get update' or
> s
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:42:21 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 01:02:15PM +, John Kelly wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:14:21 +, Roger Leigh
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >It's almost always a bad idea to use flock() instead of fcntl().
>> >fn
6335137 6261608 411557 6 1030081 3725400
7 4 5 838 13 1 5 4
8 2 3 25 8 8 1 8 3 7
6 7 8 533665 1 8 1 6 6268880
2 6 4 2 5
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 07:35:14PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Your scripts shouuld really just use whatever POSIX mandates
> > ls has. Just like it should use whatever POSIX mandates test has.
>
> Ok, so this means so
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am of two mind with that. On the positive side it removes the promise
> to the users that the system works with _any_ POSIX-compliant /bin/sh, which
> is something we never actively tested.
>
> On the other hand, it more or less mandates that /bin/sh
6210635 8744557 012403 8 4032834 6617815
0 6 4 400 10 5 2 8
6 3 0 70 8 0 5 8 6 0
7 0 4 330412 4 8 1 7 6557435
2 5 8 6 4
Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripts specifying /bin/sh as their command interpreter (shell) must
> only use SUSv3[1] features or the following exceptions:
>
> - echo -n[2]
> - [ x -a y ] [3]
> - ...[4]
>
> Thus, the only shells allowed to be /bin/sh are those which are
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 16:28 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> At that point, I suggested and still suggest that we change Policy to
> restrict /bin/sh to a specific set of shells, rather than just any
> "Posix-compatible shell".
I think this could be s
3674225 7082788 252272 5 2604187 4107823
7 1 0 270 10 8 2 4
3 1 7 86 1 3 6 1 0 5
2 4 1 536233 3 3 5 6 3150151
5 5 6 8 1
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 02:06:17PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 07:06:33AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Could we have something like this after release:
> [...tracking unique IP addresses that connect to Fedora mirrors...]
>
> Doing it that way (checkin
6720284 0821018 041822 3 1861126 6241243
2 8 4 506 18 8 3 2
4 3 3 38 5 7 7 5 0 6
1 2 4 406214 1 3 3 7 7182286
7 8 2 6 2
7473385 5344113 651164 2 3543674 1850076
8 7 1 057 48 2 4 0
3 1 6 66 6 5 6 2 5 8
1 2 4 365737 1 5 3 2 6201450
8 2 8 6 7
0136010 7031564 128637 0 2850615 6288077
3 2 8 865 10 6 0 2
2 5 4 82 7 1 2 7 5 4
8 3 8 505547 0 1 4 3 5254246
0 1 0 2 0
Tool was just wondering if you are "below" average "below" the waiste?
If so follow me:
domain: hslp.net
*Cut and Paste Domain into browser
Stop bugging me:
hslp.net/r.php
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 03:37:56PM +, John Kelly wrote:
> I'm discussing flock() with the debain sendmail package and the linux
> 2.6 kernel.
>
> Or does that annoy you too?
To be honest, I don't see why this should concern all other Debian
developers, yes.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 11:24:34AM -0800, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, John Kelly wrote:
>
> >I don't need NFS with sendmail. Surely flock() is not *still* broken
> >in 2.6 kernels?
>
> I doubt that flock is *still* broken - that was quite some time ago...
>From the flock manp
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:33:10 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 03:37:56PM +, John Kelly wrote:
>> I'm discussing flock() with the debain sendmail package and the linux
>> 2.6 kernel.
>>
>> Or does that annoy you too?
>
>To be honest, I don't see why this
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:09:33 +0100, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Anyway, from the linux/Documentation/locks.txt file:
>1.2.1 Typical Problems - Sendmail
>-
>Because sendmail was unable to use the old flock() emulation
I believe flock() *emulation* is no
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, John Kelly wrote:
Then I have to wonder why sendmail is still configured to use fcntl()
when running on linux. Sounds like the modern kernel implementation
of flock() would be better.
The most general solution wins ... and that is fcntl() !
afaict, flock() *still* does n
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 06:27:13PM +, John Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:09:33 +0100, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Anyway, from the linux/Documentation/locks.txt file:
> >1.2.1 Typical Problems - Sendmail
> >-
> >Because sendmail was una
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:54:13 +0100, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I actually see no good reason to want to use flock() over fcntl().
Maybe because the fcntl()
>interface follows the completely stupid semantics of System V and
>IEEE Std 1003.1-1988 (``POSIX.1'') that require that all l
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 06:12:44PM +, John Kelly wrote:
> Heil Hitler!
QED.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:09:54 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 06:12:44PM +, John Kelly wrote:
>> Heil Hitler!
>QED.
Godwin's law only applies when the comparison is unfair.
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 07:03:00PM +, John Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:54:13 +0100, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I actually see no good reason to want to use flock() over fcntl().
>
>
> Maybe because the fcntl()
>
> >interface follows the completely stupid semanti
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 03:41:53PM +0100, Luigi Gangitano wrote:
> Il giorno 17/nov/06, alle ore 15:19, Marco d'Itri ha scritto:
> >On Nov 17, Luigi Gangitano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Since Debian doesn't support, nor test, upgrades from versions older
> >>than the stable-1 version is it cor
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> But hardly practical, IIRC there are some commonly used shell features
> supported by dash but not busybox.
busybox sh has improved a lot in recent years, I can't currently think
of any gotchas in using it for shell scripts that were originally
written for #!/bin/sh in debian
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 18:08 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 16:28 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > At that point, I suggested and still suggest that we change Policy to
> > restrict /bin/sh to a specific set of shells, rather than
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 02:23 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> As I said before, this is not an exercise in debating, or
> coming up with clever little corner cases where policy can be
> gleefully misinterpreted. If you really think that debian policy
> means that maintainer scripts ma
* Luigi Gangitano ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061117 14:20]:
> Since Debian doesn't support, nor test, upgrades from versions older
> than the stable-1 version is it correct to remove upgrade checks for
> versions older than the one in stable-1?
You can remove them. If it is worth depends of course o
* Jari Aalto ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061117 17:40]:
> I'm sure someone can rephrase the above better, my idea being:
>
> - /bin/dash is the measure (the minimum)
I disagree to that.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jari Aalto ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061117 17:40]:
> > I'm sure someone can rephrase the above better, my idea being:
> >
> > - /bin/dash is the measure (the minimum)
>
> I disagree to that.
Care to share your thoughs a little in depth? Any specific oob
Still banging (g)irls with a small (d)ick?
Why not bang them with something they like.
Website Domain: hslp.net
*Cut and Paste the Website Domain into your browser
Stop bugging me:
hslp.net/r.php
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think, as Andi said earlier, we have come to a rough
> consensus here. Or close enough, for me. Russ, please go ahead and
> create the new version of the patch for your proposal, as you
> mentioned in your mail with
> Message-ID: <[EMA
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 10:55:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> What you are saying, in essence, is that we have not been
> treating autoconf transitions with the care we devote to other
> transitions; and as a result people have started shipping
> intermediate files.
>
> Wh
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 18:08 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> I'm sure someone can rephrase the above better, my idea being:
>
> - /bin/dash is the measure (the minimum)
>
> - It is encouraged that maintainers accept patches and seek ways to
> generalize scripts (= pay attention to lintian warnings)
> Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that posh was
> created for the purpose of providing a shell which supports a minimum
> of functionality required by policy against which scripts could be
Not exactly a minimum. For example, posh implements a POSIX pwd
builtin. If it wer
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 17:57 -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that posh was
> > created for the purpose of providing a shell which supports a minimum
> > of functionality required by policy against which scripts could be
>
> Not exactly a minimu
> Why not ls?
Judging by the lack of wishlist bugs requesting it and my
own feeling of revulsion at the idea, I'd say that it's because
no one wants it.
A builtin ls might be a good idea for disaster recovery shells,
though zsh-static does not have it. posh is not intended to be
such a shell, no
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 18:15 -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> A builtin ls might be a good idea for disaster recovery shells,
> though zsh-static does not have it. posh is not intended to be
> such a shell, nor to be particularly useful interactively.
> Since I cannot think of a legitimate reason for an
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: mongrel
Version : 0.3.13.4
Upstream Author : Zed Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/
* License : Same as Ruby (GPL + Artistic-like)
Programming L
Hallo. I'm new here, let me in, please.
xfsprogs debian's maintainer left SGI and i don't know if he announced
anything about debian. Version in unstable is .11, while in upstream
it's already .16.
util-linux maintaining as in upstream as in debian isn't good, also.
Last one i'll try to update. A
60 matches
Mail list logo
