On Thursday 23 June 2005 07:17, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, it is, if every suggestion for improvement is a poor one. Lack
of good ideas does not justify bad ones; not having any good ideas does
not invalidate or in any way reduce the value of pointing out the bad
On Friday 17 June 2005 22:06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if someone can change the cache of data written by prelink then why
couldn't they also change the program that does the md5 checks to make it
always return a good result?
They can, but I've never seen a rootkit with
On Sunday 19 June 2005 08:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
If you don't want to accept mail from users, for whatever reason, you
don't have to. But Debian requires that uploads have a valid email
address: and that means one that accepts
On Sunday 19 June 2005 08:24, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
An email address with such blocking on it is therefore not suitable
for the Maintainer: field of a Debian package.
What anti-spam measures do you consider acceptable for a Debian
On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:07, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I perfectly understand what SMTP is, and I perfectly *don't* understand
why having a 30 minutes delay or even a 2 or 3 hours delay in some
conditions is tolerable.
Why is it tolerable to receive 200 spams in a day? On a
On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:33, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you didn't read one of my first posts : when the mail you receive
comes from a big big big MX, and that they see a greylisted domain,
since the time is sometimes 5 minutes, somtimes 10 and sometimes 20,
they choose to
On Thursday 16 June 2005 23:48, Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do _not_ want to have my debian.org mail forwarding go through a
greylisting service. I've had to deal with one too many user
complaints due to greylisting. If it is a configurable service, then
fine, other people may
On Monday 20 June 2005 18:09, Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why would it be such a problem if you use a non-Debian email address for
Debian correspondence? As far as I recall I have never used my Debian
email address in the From: field
On Monday 20 June 2005 18:17, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have any evidence to support yout claim that big mail servers
are configured to handle gray-listing servers differently from other
mail servers?
I do. I know personnaly some admins of big MX (not necessarily
On Monday 20 June 2005 18:20, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know that, but it does not (IMHO) justify the use of greylising for
everybody by default. I prefer to receive spam (and I do a lot through
my @debian.org address, despite the fact that it's quite recent) that
is filtered
regarding prelink
On Thursday 16 June 2005 08:18, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the points of the md5sum verification is to ensure that the
binaries haven't been tampered with. If one can tamper with the binaries
by modifying some file in /var/cache instead, doesn't that
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 02:32, Darren Salt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ISTM that a non-standard disk format (21 sectors per track and/or more
tracks) would help - or would this just cause too many problems?
AFAIK it's not possible for the BIOS to boot from a 21 sector track.
I have heard of
On Sunday 12 June 2005 19:54, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
El Domingo 12 Junio 2005 01:24, Russell Coker escribió:
wrote:
What about switching from getty to mingetty? Is there any reason to use
getty by default?
Is there any reason to change?
Then I discovered
On Friday 10 June 2005 09:58, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since d-i currently puts the initrd that reads the second floppy (or
other USB media) on the boot floppy with the kernel, we either have to
shoehorn that initrd, which is currently 644k, onto the same floppy,
reducing its size by
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 19:31, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What about switching from getty to mingetty? Is there any reason to use
getty by default?
Is there any reason to change?
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 19:12, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:47:12AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jun 07, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- _No_ bugs in base packages (well, at least no old bugs). Base system
should be
On Sunday 12 June 2005 08:38, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 12 June 2005 00:24, Russell Coker wrote:
New laptops tend to ship without floppy drives and desktop machines
will surely follow soon. Plans for future hardware support should not
involve floppy disks.
Please, we
On Sunday 12 June 2005 09:14, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some older BIOSes don't allow booting from CD-ROM, let alone netbooting or
It's easy to solve the problem of a BIOS that doesn't support booting from
CD-ROM. You have a boot loader on a floppy disk that loads the kernel and
The current Debian kernels have SE Linux compiled in, but not in a form that
is usable.
The option CONFIG_AUDIT needs to be enabled to allow SE Linux access denials
to be logged, without this it is impossible to use SE Linux. While making
such changes enabling the option CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL
On Monday 30 May 2005 06:01, Laszlo Boszormenyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(*) I don't have time to take on another package at the moment. But I
would be happy to help someone who wants to package auditd.
I have a little time and would like to package auditd. There are two
problems I am
On Thursday 19 May 2005 12:26, Camm Maguire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings! It seems that we are in need of a 'big usermem' kernel
patch in Debian, so I am considering contributing such a package. It
appears there are two approaches on the net, both in various
incarnations of redhat:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:50, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
On fedora-devel
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 02:18, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and
having the same directory names used across distributions provides real
benefits (copying config files
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
I believe that there are LILO patches for /boot on LVM. There's no reason why
GRUB and other boot loaders couldn't be updated in
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 00:55, GOMBAS Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
(I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:39, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
I
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
On fedora-devel Bill Nottingham suggested having /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64 for
programs that care about such things and /usr/libexec for programs
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:47, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/ on LVM allows for snapshot backups which are the most convenient method
of backup.
Except that the kernel freezes the device because the DM lock and
device node updating deadlock.
Might work with udev or
On Monday 09 May 2005 17:17, Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In principle, there could be files which can be used as both a shared
library and an internal binary. Where would you put such files?
Anything that's a shared object has to be in a directory that ldconfig knows
about.
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and having
the same directory names used across distributions provides
On Friday 22 April 2005 21:28, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
SE Linux also has a list of device names for initially labelling a file
system. Neither devfs nor devfs device names will work with SE Linux.
That's fine. But regular packages should not limit themselves
On Sunday 27 March 2005 00:26, Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
The SE Linux kernel code doesn't and won't support devfs. Devfs is on the way
out and there is no interest in
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 10:46, David Härdeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o Especially on laptops, it might be interesting to also encrypt all of
/home and/or other parts of the harddrive to make the data unusuable
without the USB key. But how to integrate this with the other
requirements?
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 09:32, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that the release team now sees the light at the end of the
tunnel for the release of sarge means that now is the time we need to
begin planning for etch. Allowing unstable development to pick back up
after a release
On Thursday 14 April 2005 20:05, Gerrit Pape [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
automatically starting a screen session at startup?
While I think that user specific services are useful, I don't think cron
is the right place for that. The init system should support user-owned
services and an interface
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 23:20, Klaus Ethgen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Di den 12. Apr 2005 um 15:01 schriebst Du:
Though, rather than having a seperate package for this, it'd probably be
better to add it to some other package of small toys.
Maybe not as it is like fakeroot a preload
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2005 23:40:00 +1000
Source: portslave
Binary: portslave
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2005.04.03
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: high
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Russell Coker [EMAIL
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 22:14, David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Just that it is not lost: SELinux soft support (patched utilities available
in main). There seems to be a repository that mostly works (I'm not in the
loop about currentness though) and it'd is probably an important step
On Monday 28 February 2005 14:26, sean finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i came up with the number by totalling the mailbox sizes of a 3000 user
mail system, and then dividing by the total number of messages in these
mailboxes. this generated a number around 13k average message size.
i had to
On Thursday 24 March 2005 03:40, Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the free software fanatics succeed in kicking non-free from being
supported by Debian assets, such that the FSF documentation were no
longer available, I'd probably end up agreeing with you and probably
would do what
On Monday 31 January 2005 16:16, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
1) - a community where people are pleasant to each other, where
disagreements are discussed politely, and where people who are unable to
be civil are not glorified for their behaviour.
This isn't too far from the
On Monday 31 January 2005 02:03, Andreas Rottmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For those of you who don't know Rusty has a fine collection of flames
(and other silly messages) written to some very skillful Linux
programmers. You can write excellent code
On Sunday 30 January 2005 07:47, Helen Faulkner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those of you who don't know Rusty has a fine collection of flames
(and other silly messages) written to some very skillful Linux
programmers. You can write excellent code and be nice and still get
flamed a lot.
On Sunday 30 January 2005 08:58, Helen Faulkner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
neither childish nor unreasonable, though it is possibly not actually
much fun for Rusty and others.
Receiving a flame that you can display at a conference dinner is something to
be proud of!
Some people are (in)famous
On Tuesday 25 January 2005 11:26, Helen Faulkner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not believe that being thick-skinned enough to cope with people who
are very agressive or insulting should be a requirement for involvement
in Debian. Sadly, it seems to me that this is effectively the case.
On Tuesday 25 January 2005 12:21, Helen Faulkner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the point of view of behaviour in Debian lists that is
intimidating to newcomers and especially people who are shy or not very
thick-skinned, the most troubling post to this thread, in my opinion,
The most shy
On Monday 24 January 2005 21:01, SR, ESC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and don't bother replying, i've unsubbed from this list. get on with
your lives and ignore this if you can't/won't deal with it - i don't
want to deal with people that will waste my time for their petty little
politics.
On
On Monday 17 January 2005 20:34, Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so unless Debian wants to stay with stoneage kernels you're better of
starting to fix D-I. That beeing said D-I people have been told
repeatedly that basing an installer on devfs is a bad idea long time
ago, but let's
On Friday 07 January 2005 10:03, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem with spam filtering is that it's always a matter of
trade-offs. If there is too much spam then when deleting all the spam you
will accidentally delete some non
On Wednesday 05 January 2005 03:34, Darren Salt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I demand that Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo may or may not have written...
El lun, 03-01-2005 a las 21:35 +1100, Russell Coker escribió:
[snip]
Human lives are much more important than email. The discussion is over
On Wednesday 05 January 2005 15:13, Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, it's clear that trying to discuss thing swith you is a pointless
excercise in frustration, so I guess it doesn't matter one way or
another if you stop; hopefully others can continue the discussion in a
more
On Friday 07 January 2005 06:01, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You cannot justify the bad consequences your actions just by saying
that they are the only way to get the good goals you desire.
The problem with spam filtering is that it's
On Friday 31 December 2004 06:22, Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 08:43:32 +1100, Russell Coker
Everyone who has a legitimate cause to send me email
knows to use English.
Your arrogance is remarkable.
Why is it arrogant?
If you see anything I have written
On Sunday 02 January 2005 18:32, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Way OT, but what the heck. If you must, flame me privately:]
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What is this, you go to war
On Wednesday 05 January 2005 07:58, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Save for the fact that it was Rumsfeld who said this, not Bush or bin
Laden:
It's the same thing.
References to Goebbels will invoke Godwin's law...
But I
On Monday 03 January 2005 09:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
the deaths of hundreds
On Saturday 06 November 2004 02:57, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
debian doesn't GIVE users that choice [remember the adamantix
bun-fight, anyone?] and instead settles for about the lowest possible
common denominator - no consideration to modern security AT ALL!
On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any anti-spam measure that gets any large portion of the spam will have
some false positives.
What is this, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you
want
On Sunday 02 January 2005 18:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any anti-spam measure that gets any large portion
On Sunday 02 January 2005 20:19, Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 08:03:48PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
That's not the point. The point was that you are comparing the actions
of a scumbag (I am being nice) who deliberately caused the needless
deaths
On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
the deaths of hundreds of people. Certainly deaths are worse, but I
wasn't comparing false positives to deaths.
I was explaining why your style of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 03:23:00 +1100
Source: selinux-policy-default
Binary: selinux-policy-default
Architecture: source all
Version: 1:1.18-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
On Thursday 09 December 2004 14:06, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're coming very late to the conversation. A District
Attorney angling for higher office or someone in the Morality
Police (think Saudi Arabia) or a petty member of the CCP might not
care about there will be conflicts
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 07:42, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Fortunately, though, pictures of naked dogs are *not* considered
to be appealing to prurient interests. Unless, *maybe*, a hyper-
horny 13 year old boy is seeing a picture of dogs copulating, and
not in the
On Tuesday 07 December 2004 11:22, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 10:01 +1100, Brian May wrote:
So are you saying I should take my web pages of my naked dogs down?
Depends on who's prurient interests are appealed to by your naked
dogs.
Fortunately, though,
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 01:09, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fortunately, though, pictures of naked dogs are *not* considered
to be appealing to prurient interests. Unless, *maybe*, a hyper-
horny 13 year old boy is seeing a picture of dogs copulating, and
not in the context
On Friday 03 December 2004 16:19, Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
2) can not be sexist
Bad idea. We should avoid subjective criteria.
3) has to be able to be mirrored by all mirrors based on the laws of the
location of the server
Bad idea. Some countries have stupid laws and we should
On Thursday 02 December 2004 20:00, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The internet community that Debian is apart of would consider this
fairly tame, considering what a mistyped search engine address seems
to pop up on the screen.
A few years ago I visited a sex museum in
On Friday 03 December 2004 02:25, Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Amazingly, not all women believe that any depiction of the naked human
body is automatically pornography and offensive.
As an example see some of the books of advice for pregnant women. They have
LOTS of photos of
On Friday 03 December 2004 05:46, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(btw, is gay porn demeaning to women?)
or femdom porn (if so I'd _really_ like to hear the reasoning behind that
verdict)
Some people say that in B-D the submissive controls the dominant. I've never
been
On Friday 03 December 2004 04:07, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
They are confusing somethings when compares sexual discrimination
with any other kind of. Be a women is not a religion choice and is
not a the same thing than choose a Desktop Manager. You are
argumenting against
On Friday 03 December 2004 03:20, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Then distributing of porn journals in Iran to destabilize the
Gouvernement...
What is this about? Can you provide some URLs that give background
information on it?
If you are in Iran/Saudi Arabia/Myanmar/any other
On Thursday 02 December 2004 23:38, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. I would like some Raphael budes, yes. and some studies by
michelangelo too. Oh, you think that is not porn?
I think calling the hot-babe package and images 'art' is a bit
farfetched.
Do you consider pictures
On Thursday 02 December 2004 19:21, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for violent games religion, the question *does* need to be
asked: how far will D-Ds bend their mostly libertarian/Leftist
views in order to ensure that Debian *disks* can be possessed in
as much of the world as
On Wednesday 01 December 2004 18:41, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You could. However there is no sign of a repeat of that now so it's less
of an issue. The actions of the crusaders bear many similarities to what
is happening
On Thursday 02 December 2004 07:07, Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Are you claiming that there are NOT, at this time, plenty of people
killing random innocents, and waving the Islamic Crescent to justify it?
Random innocents? No, I don't see any evidence of that.
Killing targetted
On Thursday 02 December 2004 09:15, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I would not like to be in the position of panderingf to such
insanity. Hmm, if we flood iran with enough pr0n, perhaps they'll
all kill each other off, and we can inject some sanity into the
country.
I think
On Thursday 02 December 2004 04:30, Everton da Silva Marques
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's pure anti-speech insanity leading the way
to socialism.
That's an amusing statement. Please learn what socialism is before re-joining
the discussion.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA
On Thursday 02 December 2004 04:54, Michelle Konzack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was already on time 17 and another time 3 month in prison...
...for nothing ! I do not like to continue this in Iran.
The solution is to not live in Iran.
I know it sounds harsh, but we can't adapt the rest of the
On Thursday 02 December 2004 11:38, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 02:38:54AM +0100, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
I can volunteer to provide some naked photos of myself, but I guess they
will be more suitable for section fun than section erotic.
There was
I am willing to give up fcron if someone is interested in taking it over. I
have done everything I wanted to do with this package, I put SE Linux support
in it, I updated it to the latest upstream version, and I worked with
upstream to fix all the bugs that seemed significant to me.
Now I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 02:03:00 +1100
Source: fcron
Binary: fcron
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.9.5-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 02:31:00 +1100
Source: policycoreutils
Binary: policycoreutils
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.18-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Russell Coker
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 02:08, Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
i'm forwarding this to debian devel for people's attention because
it would appear that debian has lost a quite large opportunity -
by not having selinux available.
I thought Russell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:47:00 +1000
Source: checkpolicy
Binary: checkpolicy
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.16-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Russell Coker [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:14:00 +1000
Source: selinux-policy-default
Binary: selinux-policy-default
Architecture: source all
Version: 1:1.16-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:51:00 +1000
Source: libselinux
Binary: libselinux1-dev selinux-utils libselinux1
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.16-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:12:00 +1000
Source: libselinux
Binary: libselinux1-dev selinux-utils libselinux1
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.16-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:48:00 +1000
Source: policycoreutils
Binary: policycoreutils
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.16-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Russell Coker
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:23:00 +1000
Source: policycoreutils
Binary: policycoreutils
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.14-6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Russell Coker
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:12:00 +1000
Source: libselinux
Binary: libselinux1-dev selinux-utils libselinux1
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.14-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 22:26:00 +1000
Source: checkpolicy
Binary: checkpolicy
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.14-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Russell Coker [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 22:39:00 +1000
Source: policycoreutils
Binary: policycoreutils
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.14-5
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Russell Coker
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 17:28:00 +1000
Source: selinux-policy-default
Binary: selinux-policy-default
Architecture: source all
Version: 1:1.14-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 17:50:00 +1000
Source: policycoreutils
Binary: policycoreutils
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.14-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Russell Coker
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:56:00 +1000
Source: policycoreutils
Binary: policycoreutils
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.14-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Russell Coker
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:32:00 +1000
Source: selinux-policy-default
Binary: selinux-policy-default
Architecture: source all
Version: 1:1.14-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:35:00 +1000
Source: setools
Binary: setools
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.4.1-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:05:00 +1000
Source: libselinux
Binary: libselinux1-dev selinux-utils libselinux1
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.14-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 12:54:00 +1000
Source: setools
Binary: setools
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.4.1-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED
501 - 600 of 1109 matches
Mail list logo
