On 14/01/07 at 14:28 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:45:18 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Some source packages generate binary packages using the same name as
> > another source package. For example, see the 'qd' source package,
> > and the
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:51:22 -, Michael Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Jan 14, 1:10 pm, "Shaun Jackman" wrote:
>> On a stable Debian system, system-wide upgrades can be far
>> between. I prefer to give the user a choice of whether to use the
>> update system provided by the upstream a
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:25:23 +, Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm not sure we'll be able to provide good security support if other
> random things are downloaded.
Users can always download random things. They can download
sources and compile them. They can install third
I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his own
way.The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of
extremists we will be.
Well!
http://info.enokuno.com/
Kginky Blond CUTEGBIRLS Bpabe With Brig Tiits Phosing Nmude
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 05:49:23PM +, Enrico Zini wrote:
> enrico> Just when I wanted to split Maintainer fields my commas, I
> stumble on Maintainer: Adam C. Powell, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
There is no reason to split Maintainer fields, because they should be
nothing to split.
> Thi
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 07:51:22PM -, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Jan 14, 1:10 pm, "Shaun Jackman" wrote:
> > On a stable Debian system, system-wide upgrades can be far between. I
> > prefer to give the user a choice of whether to use the update system
> > provided by the upstream author to upd
Your message dated Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:24:42 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#399331: please define howto set urgency
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Hi,
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:45:18 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Some source packages generate binary packages using the same name as
> another source package. For example, see the 'qd' source package,
> and the 'qd' binary package generated by the kfolding source package
> (in
On Jan 14, 1:10 pm, "Shaun Jackman" wrote:
> On a stable Debian system, system-wide upgrades can be far between. I
> prefer to give the user a choice of whether to use the update system
> provided by the upstream author to update the software before the next
> stable release of Debian.
like i said
Hi,
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:19:24 -0500, Jamin W Collins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> And if the user selected Debian for its software guidelines? Don't
> you feel it's a little disingenuous for them to install an
> application that is DFSG free only to have it upgrade itself to a
> non-DFSG free
Shaun Jackman wrote:
On 1/14/07, Linas Žvirblis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
6. The upstream build may not be DFSG free.
Absolutely not our concern. It is the user's choice as to which
software she wishes to download and run.
And if the user selected Debian for its software guidelines? Don'
On 1/14/07, Linas Žvirblis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Gilbert wrote:
> is there a policy on whether an executable is permitted to update
> itself?
Not sure about The Policy, but I can see a lot of reasons why this
should not be done:
1. T
On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 11:23 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 12:26:15AM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > is there a policy on whether an executable is permitted to update itself? i
> > personally believe that in order to maintain the security of the system, apt
> > and apt alone
This one time, at band camp, Sam Morris said:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 00:26:15 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > is there a policy on whether an executable is permitted to update itself? i
> > personally believe that in order to maintain the security of the system, apt
> > and apt alone should be us
Hi!
* Linas Žvirblis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070114 12:14]:
> Not sure about The Policy, but I can see a lot of reasons why this
> should not be done:
>
> 1. The md5 sums will not match anymore, so one cannot
> verify the integrity of the file.
> 2. The actual version of application will be d
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 00:26:15 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> is there a policy on whether an executable is permitted to update itself? i
> personally believe that in order to maintain the security of the system, apt
> and apt alone should be used to install software updates. recently i
> submitte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Gilbert wrote:
> is there a policy on whether an executable is permitted to update
> itself?
Not sure about The Policy, but I can see a lot of reasons why this
should not be done:
1. The md5 sums will not match anymore, so one cannot
ve
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 12:26:15AM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> is there a policy on whether an executable is permitted to update itself? i
> personally believe that in order to maintain the security of the system, apt
> and apt alone should be used to install software updates. recently i
> su
18 matches
Mail list logo
