On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:06:55AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:40:48PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:37:29AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > > Why? What if I prefer to have something from inetd only when necessary
> > > instead
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 20:16, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Would you please contribute your suggestions (either improve bits at that
> > page or somewhere else) of how to improve things. Thanks.
>
> What makes you think I have any?
A lack of familiarity with your posts?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 03:58:52PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > It's supported just fine if you take backups at the appropriate
> > moment. I can't think of any useful way in which it could be more
> > supported than that.
>
> You should be careful when using your imag
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 05:06:45PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2005 16:25, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:23:33AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > > To begin with we can all go back and review:
> > >
> > > http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?ReleaseProposa
On 2005 June 07 Tuesday 06:09, David Goodenough wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2005 09:26, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:10:13 +0200, David Goodenough wrote:
> > > Another item that might be worth considering for laptops is a
> > > networking equivalent of the pmount group. People in
JFSP> - Separate runlevels: 2 for multi, no net, 3 for multi no X, 4 for X, 4=5
Why? Display manager as a normal service that can be started and stopped
like other services is very natural. No need to confuse the users with
more runlevels since there's not much point in differentiating them
nowada
JFSP> - inetd begone! -> xinetd (better mechanism to control DoS, privilege
JFSP> separation, etc.)
Privilege separation etc is nice, but have a look at xinetd source and
reconsider. I have tried to fix a DoS-like problem (a timing-related bug
that caused temporary disabling of services) in xine
On 2005 June 07 Tuesday 06:04, David Goodenough wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2005 09:26, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:10:13 +0200, David Goodenough wrote:
> > > Another item that might be worth considering for laptops is a
> > > networking equivalent of the pmount group. People in
On Jun 07, Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In my wishlist there is NO support of 2.4 kernels
> Hmm. I've never verified this myself, however until recently it was often
> claimed that 2.6 is still quite a bit worse than 2.4 for some workloads -
This does not make it true.
> >
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:33:02AM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> If we're gonna change this, could we please use the LSB definition [1]?
>
> [1]
> http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_2.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/runlevels.html
Sure, that's my goal, but my notes were tak
> > - Better package search mechanism (tags?) allowing free text search
> > in package management interfaces: "I want a program that does X"
>
> Doesn't 'apt-cache search X' do exactly that?
[ Here's the in-depth answer from my POV ]
Think of a *end* user that wants to find the most popular mu
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:57:50PM -0400, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> My impression was that firewall setting is generally a messy business,
> because there's too many packages that mess with it, usually assuming
> they're the only ones who touch it. This was, I think part of the
> reason why /
* Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050607 16:00]:
> You should be careful when using your imagination as the guideline for
> what is useful or not. It might not be a very accurate source of
> information.
>
> RPM got rollback support, and it is very useful. I recommend reading
> some of
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> No way. Debian has always avoided mindlessly dictating what runlevels
> must be used for. There's no reason to destroy this feature now. And
> there's no advantage to consuming an entire runlevel just to say
> "/etc/init.d/xdm stop" or "/etc/init.d/networking stop", which i
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 01.47, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 07, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my wishlist there is NO support of 2.4 kernels
Hmm. I've never verified this myself, however until recently it was often
claimed that 2.6 is still quite a bit worse tha
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 01.03, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> [ End user improvements ]
- better support for displaying as many languages as possible without
having to search for corresponding font packages. From what I can see
gnome is slightly better than KDE in replacing missing ch
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 11:40:55AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> The ability to have multiple versions of a package installed at the same
> time.
(Sorry Olaf, for getting this twice, my fingers work too fast)
No, dear $DEITY. This "feature" is the major thing I hate about
rpms. It's so easy t
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:37:29AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:32:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:03:12AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a
>> > wrote:
>> > > - inetd begone! ->
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:40:48PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:37:29AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > Why? What if I prefer to have something from inetd only when necessary
> > instead of constantly running daemons everywhere?
>
> Why on earth would you? It's
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 16:25, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:23:33AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > To begin with we can all go back and review:
> >
> > http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?ReleaseProposals
>
> I reviewed it and it still all falls into two groups:
>
> - Hopele
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:03:31AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
> > This sounds like a good idea, but will need very careful logic.
> > For instance, some older (APM-based) Toshiba laptops work well with the
> > toshiba module and the toshset package where newer (ACPI-based) laptops
[Andrew Suffield]
> It's supported just fine if you take backups at the appropriate
> moment. I can't think of any useful way in which it could be more
> supported than that.
You should be careful when using your imagination as the guideline for
what is useful or not. It might not be a very accur
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:37:29AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:32:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:03:12AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a
> > wrote:
> > > - inetd begone! -> xinetd (better mechanism to control DoS, privilege
Frans Pop wrote:
> This sounds like a good idea, but will need very careful logic.
> For instance, some older (APM-based) Toshiba laptops work well with the
> toshiba module and the toshset package where newer (ACPI-based) laptops
> need the toshiba-acpi module which does not work with toshset.
>
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Which architecture do you refer to? All architectures supported by
> debian are supported much better by 2.6 thn by 2.4, in fact none of
> them is supported anymore upstream except for important bugfixes.
Be that as it may, my feeling from reading a great many installat
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:32:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:03:12AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a
> wrote:
> > - inetd begone! -> xinetd (better mechanism to control DoS, privilege
> > separation, etc.)
>
> xinetd begone. There is no justification for u
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:03:12AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> - inetd begone! -> xinetd (better mechanism to control DoS, privilege
> separation, etc.)
xinetd begone. There is no justification for using anything resembling
inetd on a modern system.
> - Better OS backup manag
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:23:33AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> To begin with we can all go back and review:
>
> http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?ReleaseProposals
I reviewed it and it still all falls into two groups:
- Hopelessly unworkable or silly ideas. ("Don't release", "Release no
ma
* Joey Hess
| Planned, and ground already laid in tasksel (and indeed, it does do it
| for some easy things like language tasks). One thing I really want to
| see happen is a laptop task. The big missing peice is some simple
| program tasksel can call out to, like
|
| if this_is_a_laptop; then
|
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
Ok, so sarge has been released! We should all thank the Release Team for
their hard work in putting this major release together. But... how about we
start discussing about what major release goals we want to set for Etch?
I'd like to see:
The ability to ea
On Jun 07, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since (at least) potato, Debian has always supported more than one major
> line of kernels. I don't see why we suddenly would need to change that
> now.
We did it because of the need to support doorstops, not because it's a
good idea.
2.4 ker
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 09:26, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:10:13 +0200, David Goodenough wrote:
> > Another item that might be worth considering for laptops is a networking
> > equivalent of the pmount group. People in these groups would be allowed
> > to edit the network files (in
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:04:26PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Obviously. What I meant is, we shouldn't throw out "doorstop
> architectures" (sic) because they still want 2.4.
Which architecture do you refer to? All architectures supported by
debian are supported much better by 2.6 thn by 2.4
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 09:26, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:10:13 +0200, David Goodenough wrote:
> > Another item that might be worth considering for laptops is a networking
> > equivalent of the pmount group. People in these groups would be allowed
> > to edit the network files (in
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:18:47AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 11:12:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:47:12AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > 2.4.x kernels are already obsolete by now except that for some doorstop
> > > architectures, I d
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:10:13 +0200, David Goodenough wrote:
> Another item that might be worth considering for laptops is a networking
> equivalent of the pmount group. People in these groups would be allowed
> to edit the network files (in particular /etc/network/interfaces) and bring
> interface
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 01:10:15 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
wrote:
> Ok, so sarge has been released! We should all thank the Release Team for
> their hard work in putting this major release together.
Yes. Thanks to everyone involved for the many, many hours they devoted to
getting sarge
What about switching from getty to mingetty? Is there any reason to use getty
by default?
Regards,
César
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 11:12:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst 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
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 upgraded to latest upstream (forward patches!) this includes
> > PAM,
On 2005-06-07 04:57, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-06 at 01:03 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > - Separate runlevels: 2 for multi, no net, 3 for multi no X, 4 for X,
> > 4=5
>
> Do we really need that? I thought I could always
> enable/disable/install/remove [xgk]d
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 01:03, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Feel free to add some new items or add (hopefully new) information to
> the ones I list below:
>
--
[ Overall improvements ]
- Implement some package reorga
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 08:56, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2005 03:21, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Planned, and ground already laid in tasksel (and indeed, it does do it
> > for some easy things like language tasks). One thing I really want to
> > see happen is a laptop task. The big missing pei
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 03:21, Joey Hess wrote:
> Planned, and ground already laid in tasksel (and indeed, it does do it
> for some easy things like language tasks). One thing I really want to
> see happen is a laptop task. The big missing peice is some simple
> program tasksel can call out to, lik
On Tue, 2005-07-06 at 01:03 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> [ Installation improvements ]
> - Firewall configuration during installation (ala Fedora Core or SuSE):
> module for d-i. Currently, the system is exposed just during installation
> on some systems (empty root password?
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> [ Installation improvements ]
> - Firewall configuration during installation (ala Fedora Core or SuSE):
> module for d-i. Currently, the system is exposed just during installation
> on some systems (empty root password?)
This has not really been discuss
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 upgraded to latest upstream (forward patches!) this includes
> PAM, modutils...
In my wishlist there is NO support of 2.4 kernels, so moduti
201 - 247 of 247 matches
Mail list logo
