On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 08:43:35PM -0400, Michael S Gilbert wrote:
> The prototypejs script has been found to be vulnerable to a couple
> security issues [0],[1]. This script is embedded in about 32 other
> - smokeping (embed)
Only the lenny version (2.3.6-3) is affected. The squeeze/
On 11917 March 1977, Brian May wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 02:57:35PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> - statically-linked-binary
> This is not always a bug. e.g. dar-static is supposed to be statically linked!
Thats why its a warning only and can be overridden.
> My packages produce a n
Russ Allbery writes:
> (On vacation with intermittant access, so it may be a while before I see
> responses.)
>
> Ryan Niebur writes:
>
>> this is probably a question more for lintian maintainers, but... what
>> should we do if lintian is buggy and falsely claims our package has
>> one of these
On 11917 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> this is probably a question more for lintian maintainers, but... what
>> should we do if lintian is buggy and falsely claims our package has
>> one of these tags?
> The same as what you would do with any other buggy package in Debian: file
> a bug. I d
Brian May writes:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 02:57:35PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> - statically-linked-binary
>
> This is not always a bug. e.g. dar-static is supposed to be statically linked!
>
> My packages produce a number of lintian errors/warnings that I don't consider
> to be a prob
Hi
Dne Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:21:18 +1100
Brian May napsal(a):
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 02:57:35PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > - statically-linked-binary
>
> This is not always a bug. e.g. dar-static is supposed to be statically linked!
And thus is a perfect candidate for a lintian over
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 07:42:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ryan Niebur writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:03:06PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 03:59:52PM -0700, Ryan Niebur wrote:
>
> >>> I completely disagree with this lintian warning and prefer to use
> >>> "Au
[Luca Niccoli]
> I think Petter meant "upload packages which don't build successfully
> even on a single architecture".[1]
That is exactly what I meant, yes. :) If the source do not compile on
any architecture, I believe it the maintainer must have failed to done
the minimum checks that should be
Le Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 04:26:58PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> Le Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:07:19PM +, Roger Leigh a écrit :
> >
> > While most developers are conscientious enough to make sure their
> > packages build, one does see enough crap packages that IMO this
> > (minimal) bar shoul
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Mathieu Malaterre
* Package name: utfcpp
Version : 2.2.3
Upstream Author : Nemanja Trifunovic
* URL : https://sourceforge.net/projects/utfcpp/
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: C++
Description : A simple, portabl
On 2009-10-28, Charles Plessy wrote:
> By the way, I just realised that binNMUs directly update the binary packages
> in
> Testing, shortcutting the 10 day evaluation period. (See
> http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/amd64/r-cran-epibasix/download for example,
> where r-cran-epibasix was only bin
The time between submitting bugs (or sending messages to control) and the
BTS acting on them is currently much longer than it used to be and, IMHO,
should be. Is this a deliberate change or known issue?
Example: #552576 was submitted 27 Oct 2009 16:26:17 UTC, received by
bugs.d.o 16:26:25 UTC,
On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 10:14 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Luca Niccoli]
> > I think Petter meant "upload packages which don't build successfully
> > even on a single architecture".[1]
>
> That is exactly what I meant, yes. :) If the source do not compile on
> any architecture, I believe it
On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 12:07 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> The time between submitting bugs (or sending messages to control) and the
> BTS acting on them is currently much longer than it used to be and, IMHO,
> should be. Is this a deliberate change or known issue?
>
> Example: #552576 was submitted
2009-10-28, Frans Pop:
> The time between submitting bugs (or sending messages to control) and the
> BTS acting on them is currently much longer than it used to be and, IMHO,
> should be. Is this a deliberate change or known issue?
>
> Example: #552576 was submitted 27 Oct 2009 16:26:17 UTC,
On Oct 28, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 22:27 < dondelelcaro> it averaged around 180K messages per day for the past
> week; today it's already done 190K, and I think the most
> it can handle in a day is probably around 230K
It could be argued that relying on
Brian May wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 02:57:35PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
- statically-linked-binary
This is not always a bug. e.g. dar-static is supposed to be statically
linked!
Lintian intentionally doesn't warn about binaries with names ending -static,
hence the non-appearan
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 06:22:50PM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> Hi, with the current version of texi2html (1.82-1), I'm getting lots of build
> failures like (from diffutils-doc):
[...]
> It looks like it put the html files in diff before, but now it's putting them
> just in the current direc
Hi there.
I'd like to ask you guys for some help.
Here in Moscow State University there is a course "Software
maintenance in Linux Distribution." It is dedicated to general question
of software packaging. As example they use rpm-based community
repository Sisyphus (related to AltLinux distributio
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 03:00:12PM +0300, Alexander GQ Gerasiov wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> I'd like to ask you guys for some help.
>
> Here in Moscow State University there is a course "Software
> maintenance in Linux Distribution." It is dedicated to general question
> of software packaging. As exam
Hello!
Debian Policy 4.9 says about debian/rules:
"It must start with the line #!/usr/bin/make -f, so that it can be
invoked by saying its name rather than invoking make explicitly."
In the VDR and VDR plugin packages, we use something like this:
/bin/sh debian/make-special-vdr.sh
make-spec
On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 16:02 +0100, Tobi wrote:
> [1]:
> http://svn.opensourcefactory.com/svn/vdr/trunk/debian/make-special-vdr.sh
>
>
asks for a password. also nothing in what you said explains why you
can't do what you want using a makefile.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debia
Julien Cristau schrieb:
asks for a password.
Sorry, wrong link:
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-vdr-dvb/vdr/vdr/trunk/debian/make-special-vdr.sh
> also nothing in what you said explains why you
can't do what you want using a makefile.
Because make-special-vdr.sh needs to modify debian/rul
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> It could be argued that relying only on spamassassin is a wasteful use
> of our hardware.
We don't only rely on spamassassin.
> In my experience and with a very conservative estimate, it is
> reasonable to expect that at least 80% of this traffic can be
On Wed, Oct 28 2009, Tobi wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Debian Policy 4.9 says about debian/rules:
>
> "It must start with the line #!/usr/bin/make -f, so that it can be
> invoked by saying its name rather than invoking make explicitly."
>
> In the VDR and VDR plugin packages, we use something like this:
>
On Wed, Oct 28 2009, Tobi wrote:
> Julien Cristau schrieb:
>
>> asks for a password.
>
> Sorry, wrong link:
>
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-vdr-dvb/vdr/vdr/trunk/debian/make-special-vdr.sh
>
>> also nothing in what you said explains why you
>> can't do what you want using a makefile.
>
> Becau
Because make-special-vdr.sh needs to modify debian/rules itself.
This way debian/rules doesn't get "contaminated" with stuff that
goes beyond the scope of building the regular Debian package -e
except for the shebang line.
Why not so it the other way round, i.e. start two different scripts
(or
Don Armstrong wrote:
> I'm in the process of working with DSA to add additional mail servers
> in front of the bts to handle this issue. (They've configured
> everything, I just need to have about 10 more hours in the day.)
Thanks a lot Don.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@list
2009-10-28, Frans Pop:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > I'm in the process of working with DSA to add additional mail servers
> > in front of the bts to handle this issue. (They've configured
> > everything, I just need to have about 10 more hours in the day.)
>
> Thanks a lot Don.
>
Seconded
(sorr
On Mittwoch, 28. Oktober 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> Thanks a lot Don.
+1
+thanks a lot, DSA too! :-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Hello,
On Wed, October 28, 2009 13:36, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I'm in the process of working with DSA to add additional mail servers
> in front of the bts to handle this issue. (They've configured
> everything, I just need to have about 10 more hours in the day.)
As someone who needs to fight wi
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 09:31:37AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 03:00:12PM +0300, Alexander GQ Gerasiov wrote:
> > Hi there.
> >
> > I'd like to ask you guys for some help.
> >
> > Here in Moscow State University there is a course "Software
> > maintenance in Linux Distribut
Michal Čihař writes:
> And thus is a perfect candidate for a lintian override. Or maybe
> rather filing a wishlist bug for lintian to allow statically linked
> binaries in packages whose name ends with -static.
Already done. Here's the Lintian code.
# Some exceptions: files in /boot, /usr/
Tobi wrote:
> Or should we just add a Linitan override? Or do we really need to use
> "#!/usr/bin/make -f" as the shebang line in debian/rules?
Use make. it is able to do all the things you're doing right now, including to
do different stuff based on an environment setting.
> Personally I would
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 09:31:37AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 03:00:12PM +0300, Alexander GQ Gerasiov wrote:
[..]
> > I'm going to lecture there (2 hours) about Debian project, deb
> > packages, repositories, release cycle etc. So that would be something
> > like "debian dev
> > Personally I would vote for dropping the make requirement from the
> > policy all together. I might be mistaken, but I think none of the
> > build tools calls make explicitly with debian/rules. A debian/rules
> > might even be a Python or Rake script.
[Bernd Zeimetz]
> Oh god, no. And I'm not
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 10:05:51PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> > Can you make a list? I do not think there is a significant number, I
> > only know about vmware.
>
> Well, last time I tried bindv6only=1 on a server running many listening
> daemons.
> Over half of them stopped working properly (
Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Why not so it the other way round, i.e. start two different scripts (or
> the same script with different parameters) from a debian/rules Makefile
> depending on the environment variable?
Might be possible, but it would require major changes to debian/rules, but
our goal
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This is what the make directive 'include' is all
> about. Conditionally, include fileA or fileB. Each file is all
> uncontaminated now.
>
> This is not a technical shortcoming of using Makefiles.
You're right. What we do might be possible from "within
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 22:19 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Well, the issue raised in LKML is that you absolutely should *not* enable
> -fstack-protector-all unless you _really_ know what you're doing, and most
> certainly not by default. It has nothing to do with -fstack-protector, ju
Le Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 04:02:32PM +0100, Tobi a écrit :
>
> Debian Policy 4.9 says about debian/rules:
>
> "It must start with the line #!/usr/bin/make -f, so that it can be
> invoked by saying its name rather than invoking make explicitly."
Dear all,
I also do not understand that rule. There
On Wed, Oct 28 2009, Tobi wrote:
> Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>
>> Why not so it the other way round, i.e. start two different scripts (or
>> the same script with different parameters) from a debian/rules Makefile
>> depending on the environment variable?
>
> Might be possible, but it would require m
On Wed, Oct 28 2009, Tobi wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> This is what the make directive 'include' is all
>> about. Conditionally, include fileA or fileB. Each file is all
>> uncontaminated now.
>>
>> This is not a technical shortcoming of using Makefiles.
>
> You're rig
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 07:05:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28 2009, Tobi wrote:
>
> > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> >> This is what the make directive 'include' is all
> >> about. Conditionally, include fileA or fileB. Each file is all
> >> uncontaminated now.
> >>
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Tim Retout
* Package name: imspector
Version : 0.9
Upstream Author : Lawrence Manning
* URL : http://www.imspector.org/
* License : GPLv2
Programming Lang: C++
Description : instant messenger proxy
IMSpector is
A few days ago i uploaded a package. but
http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html hasn't contained any information
about it. Last package has a date 26 Oct. Is any script hangs up?
- Forwarded message from Archive Administrator
-
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:00:47 +
From: Archive Administ
47 matches
Mail list logo
