Nope, didn't seem to be flagged for install on my end. I would have
suggested keeping the same name and conflicting with the versions of dump
and quota that would have depended on the libraries.
OK. I think I'll change the name back to e2fsprogs, and just make it
conflict with old
Scott Ellis writes:
Nope, didn't seem to be flagged for install on my end. I would have
suggested keeping the same name and conflicting with the versions of dump
and quota that would have depended on the libraries.
OK. I think I'll change the name back to e2fsprogs, and just make it
Scott K. Ellis writes:
BTW, is there a particular reason that e2fsprogs got renamed to
e2fsprogsg? This seems to be the biggest chance to completely screw over
someone's system in all of Debian now.
Yes: e2fsprogs used to contain shared libs, on which dump and quota
depend. Thus, e2fsprogs
On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Yann Dirson wrote:
Yes: e2fsprogs used to contain shared libs, on which dump and quota
depend. Thus, e2fsprogs was assumed to be a package with libc5 libs,
and I could not keep the name, without breaking dump and quota on a
hamm upgrade.
I thought that, e2fsprogsg
On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, David Gaudine wrote:
for at least a year. After installing e2fsprogsg, I'm left with the
following Available Required packages; the very existence of this
section makes me nervous.
I should add that I'm assuming that this is a transitional thing
(that's why it's called
Yann Dirson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, is there a particular reason that e2fsprogs got renamed to
e2fsprogsg? This seems to be the biggest chance to completely
screw over someone's system in all of Debian now.
Yes: e2fsprogs used to contain shared libs, on which dump and quota
On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Yann Dirson wrote:
Scott K. Ellis writes:
BTW, is there a particular reason that e2fsprogs got renamed to
e2fsprogsg? This seems to be the biggest chance to completely screw over
someone's system in all of Debian now.
Yes: e2fsprogs used to contain shared libs,
Greg Stark writes:
We've got be be a little more careful with the Replaces header. I just
installed the libc6 version of comerr, and dpkg helpfully deinstalled
e2fsprogs.
I can see a security problem with this. Lets jump ahead several months
when we have deity working. A user
Brandon Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see a security problem with this.
Absolutely: pre/post inst/rm scripts run as root, this is the security
problem to dwarf all other security problems.
Our defense is a wide audience. The more people we have looking at the
system, the better
On 30 Nov 1997, Greg Stark wrote:
I know i should install a new e2fsprogs, obviously. I was just suggesting we
should find some way to avoid the default action being to deinstall packages
that aren't really being completely replaced. I'm not sure what better to do
though.
In this
Yann Dirson wrote:
Greg Stark writes:
We've got be be a little more careful with the Replaces header.
I just installed the libc6 version of comerr, and dpkg helpfully
deinstalled e2fsprogs.
That's perfectly normal if you previously had e2fsprogs = 1.10-6,
which does contain
Brandon Mitchell wrote:
I can see a security problem with this. Lets jump ahead several months
when we have deity working. A user points deity to several sites, some
providing a bunch of debs that they have created but don't want to be part
of the main distribution. Now they upload a new
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Brandon Mitchell wrote:
I'd also be interested in some kind of verification, so I can accept all
packages put together by some maintainer, and the maintainers on the
debian keyring, but no one else.
I had exactly the same idea in the previous KDE/virtual package
On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
The default keyring would probably be the developers keyring. The
sysadmin could then add new keys of persons/organziations which he/she
trusts to that keyring.
Comments?
Err... yes.
Am I the only one seeing a bit of a problem here? (Or am I
Christian Schwarz wrote:
I suggest that we add a new control field to our packages called
Origin: (or similar). This could either be set to SPI or
Debian, for example. Then, all Debian packages should be signed
with some PGP key (either only one key for the whole system or by
the
On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Am I the only one seeing a bit of a problem here? (Or am I missing
something I should know?) That is, PGP is non-US. To be able to put PGP
in the main distribution, the master FTP site has to be moved off the US.
I don't have a problem with
Greg Stark writes:
We've got be be a little more careful with the Replaces header. I just
installed the libc6 version of comerr, and dpkg helpfully deinstalled
e2fsprogs.
That's perfectly normal if you previously had e2fsprogs = 1.10-6,
which does contain libcom_err !
You should
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Yann Dirson wrote:
Greg Stark writes:
We've got be be a little more careful with the Replaces header. I just
installed the libc6 version of comerr, and dpkg helpfully deinstalled
e2fsprogs.
That's perfectly normal if you previously had e2fsprogs = 1.10-6,
It occurs to me that one avenue for a safe upgrade to hamm might be
a jumbo-package.
This would basically be a hand crafted .deb that contained (and
provides) all the relevant sensitive packages.
The downside is that this approach is laborious to implement. The
upside is that this
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Yann Dirson wrote:
Greg Stark writes:
We've got be be a little more careful with the Replaces header. I just
installed the libc6 version of comerr, and dpkg helpfully deinstalled
e2fsprogs.
That's perfectly normal if you previously had e2fsprogs = 1.10-6,
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
BTW, is there a particular reason that e2fsprogs got renamed to
e2fsprogsg? This seems to be the biggest chance to completely screw over
someone's system in all of Debian now.
It wasn't just renamed, it was split into e2fsprogsg and e2fslibsg.
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, David Gaudine wrote:
It wasn't just renamed, it was split into e2fsprogsg and e2fslibsg.
I meant to add I think. The above is what I see from the descriptions
that dselect shows me. dselect also lists the old package as
required base, which was a bit unnerving when I
Yann Dirson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Stark writes:
We've got be be a little more careful with the Replaces header. I just
installed the libc6 version of comerr, and dpkg helpfully deinstalled
e2fsprogs.
That's perfectly normal if you previously had e2fsprogs = 1.10-6,
which
23 matches
Mail list logo
