Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Smedegaard
* Package name: sipwitch
Version : 0.10.1
Upstream Author : David Sugar
* URL : http://www.gnu.org/software/sipwitch/
* License : GPL-3+
Programming Lang: C++
Description : secure peer-to-peer Vo
#include
* Paul Wise [Tue, Mar 15 2011, 08:58:47AM]:
> What was the reason for adding InRelease anyway?
I guess (repeating: *guess*) the main reason is that GPG signature needs
to be verified for the exact file contents. If you put them into two
files then you have a certain window where they ar
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Seeing how many mirrors are affected, either the apt change should be
> reverted or the list of mirrors should be updated to pinpoint those that
> are known to work correctly ; or both.
What about this: apt downloads both Release/Release.gpg
Same problem now also at {http,ftp}.us.debian.org?
W: Failed to fetch
bzip2:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-i386_Packages
Hash Sum mismatch
W: Failed to fetch
bzip2:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/http.us.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_source_Sou
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Francisco Manuel Garcia Claramonte
* Package name: trac-ldapplugin
Version : 0.6.0
Upstream Author : Emmanuel Blot
* URL : http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/LdapPlugin
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Python
Description
On Mar 14, James Vega wrote:
> The mirror isn't using the current version of the update script, as
> described on the debian-mirrors list[0]. It should only be a transient
> problem that occurs if you "apt-get update" while the mirror is in the
> middle of a sync. Once the mirror has finished t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Smedegaard
* Package name: librdf-trine-node-literal-xml-perl
Version : 0.16
Upstream Author : Kjetil Kjernsmo
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/RDF-Trine-Node-Literal-XML/
* License : Artistic or GPL-1+
Progra
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 02:04:30PM +, Hector Oron wrote:
> the package is not optimal, but once we got multiarch support, it should
> be renamed to `binutils-armel' (or similar name) and use linux and eglibc
> libraries and headers provided by multiarch.
Please note that building such a packag
On 2011-03-14, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Seeing how many mirrors are affected, either the apt change should be
> reverted or the list of mirrors should be updated to pinpoint those that
> are known to work correctly ; or both.
Or the InRelease could be dropped temporarily.
Kind regards
Philipp Kern
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 01:17:02PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> No, I don't think there's a way to do that programmatically. You would
> just have to try capset and then chmod u+s.
instead of chmod, you would actually want something that checked/respected
dpkg-statoverride, rather than hard-codi
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:05:37AM -0400, James Vega wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Svante R Signell wrote:
> >> Sorry, but the problem persists, since a few days by now!
> >
> > The problem seem to be continuing: apt-get update on any computer and
> > distribution from ftp.se.debian.o
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Svante R Signell wrote:
>> Sorry, but the problem persists, since a few days by now!
>
> The problem seem to be continuing: apt-get update on any computer and
> distribution from ftp.se.debian.org is showing the Hash Sum error!
>
> W: Failed to fetch
> bzip2:/var
Hi,
2009/11/2 Mark Hymers :
> On Mon, 02, Nov, 2009 at 12:43:42PM +, Philipp Kern spoke thus..
>> Of course it is a sane approach but very special care needs to be taken when
>> releasing to ensure GPL compliance. So what we should get is support in the
>> toolchain to declare against what so
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 09:17 +0100, Sebastian Harl wrote:
> [...]
>> > > Would it be fine to do that in postinst?
>> >
>> > It must be done in postinst, and you may need to fall back to setuid if
>> > the filesystem does not support setcap.
>>
Sebastian Harl writes:
> Imho, setting the file capability is a nicer approach than setting the
> setuid bit.
Do you know about any lurking bugs (in udev, dbus, etc?) that could
allow one to escalate CAP_NET_RAW to full root privileges in regular
squeeze installations?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
> Sorry, but the problem persists, since a few days by now!
The problem seem to be continuing: apt-get update on any computer and
distribution from ftp.se.debian.org is showing the Hash Sum error!
W: Failed to fetch
bzip2:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/ftp.se.debian.org_debian_dists_testing_main_so
On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 09:17 +0100, Sebastian Harl wrote:
[...]
> > > Would it be fine to do that in postinst?
> >
> > It must be done in postinst, and you may need to fall back to setuid if
> > the filesystem does not support setcap.
>
> Do you know of a way to find out if the filesystem supports
On 12/03/2011 12:51, Benjamin Drung wrote:
pull-debian-source (?)
apt-get source $src ?
Not really, because for "apt-get source $src" you need an entry in your
sources.list. With "pull-debian-source $src experimental" you get the
experimental package, with "pull-debian-source $src lenny" you
> Contacting the current maintainer should IMO always be the (obvious) first
> step - if you feel the package is neglected, ask if he would mind if you'd
> take over.
The reason I think it's been abandoned is that there's been a more recent
upstream
version for about two and a half years now.
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 08:37:53PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 20:56 +0100, Sebastian Harl wrote:
> > the new upstream version of one of my packages tries to set the
> > CAP_NET_RAW (permission to use RAW and PACKET sockets) file capability
> > during "make install" (us
20 matches
Mail list logo
