Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Pierre THIERRY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: zpb-exif
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : Zachary Beane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.xach.com/lisp/zpb-exif/
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Common Lisp
Des
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 02:34:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Nico Golde writes ("Re: Bits from the Testing Security team"):
> > quoting Adam Heath from #debian-devel:
>
> Thanks for passing that on.
>
> > 2007-10-15 18:07 dpkg's configure has an option for using
> > s
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Today, while browsing through aptitude, I noticed that I had the
> > following bdb versions installed:
>
> > version: # of packages depending on it (apt-cache rdepends)
> > libdb4.2 40
> > libdb4.3 26
>
Hello,
John Plate wrote:
> For a very long time the logcheck-database package cannot update/install
> normally:
>
> # apt-get install logcheck-database
> ...
> The following NEW packages will be installed
> logcheck-database
> 0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
>
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:45:54PM +0400, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> >
> > Does this mean that installing a pkgIndex.tcl into /usr/lib/$package is
> > broken now, and that I should install the module to /usr/lib/tcltk? If so,
> > is a pkgIndex.tcl still required?
>
> No, the Tcl/Tk packages which com
On 10/16/07, Felipe Sateler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> > The new policy tries to be as much as possible backward compatible, but
> > there is at least an aspect which will introduce a breakage with the past
> > (the removing of /usr/lib among $auto_path list [2])
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> The new policy tries to be as much as possible backward compatible, but
> there is at least an aspect which will introduce a breakage with the past
> (the removing of /usr/lib among $auto_path list [2]), mainly introduced to
> solve current performance-impacting sit
Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Today, while browsing through aptitude, I noticed that I had the
> following bdb versions installed:
> version: # of packages depending on it (apt-cache rdepends)
> libdb4.2 40
> libdb4.3 26
> libdb4.4 55
> libdb4.5 64
> libdb4.6 40
> Havin
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:50:14 +0200
Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today, while browsing through aptitude, I noticed that I had the
> following bdb versions installed:
>
> version: # of packages depending on it (apt-cache rdepends)
> libdb4.2 40
> libdb4.3 26
> libdb4.4 55
> li
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Samuel Mimram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: ocaml-ogg
Version : 0.1.0
Upstream Author : Samuel Mimram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://savonet.sf.net/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: OCaml
Description :
Hi Alexander,
* Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-16 19:08]:
> * Dirk Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071015 21:11]:
>
> > > Just name three valid reasons
> > > to start a distribution from scratch.
> > 1. It is the home exercise in "Operating Systems" until next week.
>
> Uhm... Your e
Hi
For a very long time the logcheck-database package cannot update/install
normally:
# apt-get install logcheck-database
...
The following NEW packages will be installed
logcheck-database
0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
...
Unpacking logcheck-database (from
.../
Hi!
* Dirk Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071015 21:11]:
> > Just name three valid reasons
> > to start a distribution from scratch.
> 1. It is the home exercise in "Operating Systems" until next week.
Uhm... Your exercise is to build a complety new Linux Distribution by
next week? Wow... that's
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 05:26:41PM +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2007/10/16, Ana Guerrero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I guess I'm being a bit the advocate of the Devil here, but isn't that
> > > as invasive of their privacy as having direct access to the MIA
> > > database? :P XD
> > >
> >
> > No, a m
On 10/16/07, Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today, while browsing through aptitude, I noticed that I had the
> following bdb versions installed:
>
> version: # of packages depending on it (apt-cache rdepends)
> libdb4.2 40
> libdb4.3 26
> libdb4.4 55
> libdb4.5 64
> libdb4.6
Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (16/10/2007):
> Then, back to the original proposal, wouldn't it make sense to have a
> public binary database stating if a person is MIA or not and just that
> info? It might be quite useful to us, non-DDs, it won't invade
> anyone's privacy and I don't think it wou
Today, while browsing through aptitude, I noticed that I had the
following bdb versions installed:
version: # of packages depending on it (apt-cache rdepends)
libdb4.2 40
libdb4.3 26
libdb4.4 55
libdb4.5 64
libdb4.6 40
Having 5 different versions of one library is just insane imho. Wh
2007/10/16, Ana Guerrero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I guess I'm being a bit the advocate of the Devil here, but isn't that
> > as invasive of their privacy as having direct access to the MIA
> > database? :P XD
> >
>
> No, a mia-query contains private information, stuff like: "started a new job
> pro
Nico Golde writes ("Re: Bits from the Testing Security team"):
> quoting Adam Heath from #debian-devel:
Thanks for passing that on.
> 2007-10-15 18:07 dpkg's configure has an option for using
> shared libraries or static linking
> 2007-10-15 18:08 for gzip, it can do a
On 16/10/2007 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >> Well, I would consider statically linking a non embedded (i.e. a packaged)
> >> library a bug... Are there known cases where this is a required condition?
> >
> > cryptsetup is statically linked against libgcrypt and libgpg-error, as
> > both are in /usr/
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:44:39 +0200, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 2007/10/16, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
>> > Is there any reason why the database containing maintainers MIA
>> > (missing
>> > in action) is available
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:44:39AM +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2007/10/16, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> > > Is there any reason why the database containing maintainers MIA
> > > (missing
> > > in action) is available only for DDs?
"Miriam Ruiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2007/10/16, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
>> > Is there any reason why the database containing maintainers MIA
>> > (missing
>> > in action)
>>
>> It's unlikely to change. If you need to ma
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2007/10/16, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> > > Is there any reason why the database containing maintainers MIA
> > > (missing
> > > in action) is available only for DDs? The developers-refer
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:02:15PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > Anyway having a way to distinguish source-embedded by statically-linked
> > would be useful. IMHO the second case is almost always an error, but
> > for special cases (static linked shell for instance).
> >
> Additionally, pac
Jonas Meurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, I would consider statically linking a non embedded (i.e. a packaged)
>> library a bug... Are there known cases where this is a required condition?
>
> cryptsetup is statically linked against libgcrypt and libgpg-error, as
> both are in /usr/lib, a
2007/10/16, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> > Is there any reason why the database containing maintainers MIA (missing
> > in action) is available only for DDs? The developers-reference.pdf tells to
> > use mia-query for this (chapter 7
27 matches
Mail list logo
