Re: Apt feature request / suggestion

Than you for the thoughtful reply. Yes the apt upgrade submit ends there with no further error messages. When moving that source list it proceeds and asks me if i want to install the upgrades. Please help me to understand the MITM scenario. So you're saying an attacker could be able to redirect

Re: Apt feature request / suggestion

On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 01:21:45PM -0700, xaq xaq wrote: > To simplify a frequently seen halt of `apt upgrade` I have this example.. I > had to remove keepsolidinc.list > from /etc/apt/sources.list.d. Then apt update proceeds. Here is the error I > get with that source list in place:

Re: Apt feature request / suggestion

Thanks Paul and David. To simplify a frequently seen halt of `apt upgrade` I have this example.. I had to remove keepsolidinc.list from /etc/apt/sources.list.d. Then apt update proceeds. Here is the error I get with that source list in place: *Hit:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu <h

Re: Apt feature request / suggestion

On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 09:33:28AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, 2022-10-06 at 10:54 -0700, xaq xaq wrote: > > Hi, how do I submit a suggestion to the Apt team? I've tried to > > register on their website (https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt). > > You can report a b

Re: Apt feature request / suggestion

On Thu, 2022-10-06 at 10:54 -0700, xaq xaq wrote: > Hi, how do I submit a suggestion to the Apt team? I've tried to > register on their website (https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt). You can report a bug via the Debian BTS: https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting > - Have an option

Apt feature request / suggestion

Hi, how do I submit a suggestion to the Apt team? I've tried to register on their website (https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt). I have two suggestions/discussions to post. - Have an option to ignore failures in any source.list file. This will allow updates of security repos to proceed. - Have

Re: How to Fix the apt-get install error: “Media change: please insert the disc labeled ...” in Debian 10.

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 04:04:55PM +0800, Edgar Villanueva Jr wrote: > I was amazed by the description that Debian is robust and reliable etc. So > I decided to install it. But when I try to install from terminal "Fix the > apt-get install error: “Media change: please insert th

Re: How to Fix the apt-get install error: “Media change: please insert the disc labeled ...” in Debian 10.

Hi Edgar, Am 19.11.20 um 09:04 schrieb Edgar Villanueva Jr: I was amazed by the description that Debian is robust and reliable etc. So I decided to install it. But when I try to install from terminal "Fix the apt-get install error: “Media change: please insert the disc labeled ...” appea

How to Fix the apt-get install error: “Media change: please insert the disc labeled ...” in Debian 10.

I was amazed by the description that Debian is robust and reliable etc. So I decided to install it. But when I try to install from terminal "Fix the apt-get install error: “Media change: please insert the disc labeled ...” appears. I can't also install software thru discover. I really need

Re: Using apt-get after Debian installation

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 7:24 PM Nathanael Skrepek wrote: > I want to offer a suggestion, because i was a little bit puzzled by the > following. Please file a report about this so the installer team can work on fixing it: https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch05s04#submit-bug -- bye,

Using apt-get after Debian installation

Hello! I want to offer a suggestion, because i was a little bit puzzled by the following. After the installation of Debian I wanted to install `texlive` by typing `apt-get texlive-full` in the terminal (i think the actual packages doesn't really matter but anyway), but then there came

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On 21/05/2016 8:03 AM, Hakan Peker wrote: > You looking for a technical solution to a social problem. sources.list > exist for the very purpose that repositories can be added to the system. > A system where this facility don't exist or restricted is a form of > walled garden. > > Adding an update

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On 05/20/2016 10:35 PM, Vincent Danjean wrote: Le 19/05/2016 19:20, Hakan Peker a écrit : On 05/19/2016 06:18 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: From a technical perspective, can we do more to prevent users being surprised by packages putting new entries in /etc/apt/sources.list.d? Please

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Adam Borowski wrote: > This looks wrong to me: a vast majority of machines these days have a single > user, thus pwning root gives you little additional gain. Getting further into a system (user -> root -> GRUB -> MBR -> boot firmware -> peripheral firmware)

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 01:47:41PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > > More and more frequently I'm encountering systems where third-party > > repositories have been added into /etc/apt/sources.list or > > /etc/apt/sou

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Samstag, 21. Mai 2016 10:53:34 CEST Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 21 mai 2016 10:24 +0200, Martin Steigerwald : > > Still, the turn around time between upstream and debian release would be > > quite high for Debian stable users, but maybe part of such a > > collaboration

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Samstag, 21. Mai 2016 11:13:41 CEST Lars Wirzenius wrote: > On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:07:43AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > I wonder about a landing page for upstreams interested in working with the > > Debian project to provide packages within the official Debian repos. > > Is

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

❦ 21 mai 2016 09:40 +0200, Ole Streicher  : >>> Providing a proper Debian source package is also a lot more work than >>> writing some kind of ad-hoc build system that spits out a .deb or >>> three. >> >> Totally agree. Our standards are far too high for many upstreams. > >

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

❦ 21 mai 2016 10:24 +0200, Martin Steigerwald  : > Still, the turn around time between upstream and debian release would be > quite > high for Debian stable users, but maybe part of such a collaboration could be > to also provide newer releases via backports. Also… if

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:07:43AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > I wonder about a landing page for upstreams interested in working with the > Debian project to provide packages within the official Debian repos. Is https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide the kind of page you mean? It is not

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Samstag, 21. Mai 2016 10:24:22 CEST Martin Steigerwald wrote: > I wonder about some kind of adopt an upstream within a Debian team kind of > approach. A landing page and mailing list where upstream can write in for > getting help and advice and voicing their needs. And when there are people >

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Samstag, 21. Mai 2016 10:24:06 CEST Lars Wirzenius wrote: > Et cetera. Debian has one set of quality factors it particularly cares > about, and some upstreams think differently. Yes, I seen all those reasons you mentioned. I just wonder how about if upstreams can learn easily how to work

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

Hello Paul, On Samstag, 21. Mai 2016 14:07:53 CEST Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > Totally agree. Our standards are far too high for many upstreams. > > I don't understand the disconnect here. Are upstreams not interested > in software quality to the

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

Vincent Bernat writes: > ❦ 19 mai 2016 18:04 +0100, Ian Jackson  : >>> b) many upstreams appear frustrated about getting their package >>> officially supported in Debian. Sometimes there is good reason their >>> package doesn't belong in

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 02:07:53PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > > Totally agree. Our standards are far too high for many upstreams. > > I don't understand the disconnect here. Are upstreams not interested > in software quality to the extent

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

❦ 21 mai 2016 14:55 +0800, Paul Wise  : >> For some languages, embedded copies are a pattern. Notably Go. But there >> is also the omnibus stance: the embedded copy could not be in the >> source, but could be in the shipped artifact. This includes Go, JS and >> Java (when using

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > A meta tool "package me this" would be interesting. There is debdry but it got orphaned. > many of those tools are too complex for many upstreams because they > don't want to package each dependency one by one. For example, >

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

❦ 21 mai 2016 14:07 +0800, Paul Wise  : >> Totally agree. Our standards are far too high for many upstreams. > > I don't understand the disconnect here. Are upstreams not interested > in software quality to the extent we are? Many of them don't consider packaging quality as

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > Totally agree. Our standards are far too high for many upstreams. I don't understand the disconnect here. Are upstreams not interested in software quality to the extent we are? > I am always flabestered by the popularity of fpm to build

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > testing is not suitable for most people because: > > 1. no security support This can be mitigated by adding unstable to your sources.list and using a wrapper around debsecan to automatically pull in packages from unstable when there are

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > More and more frequently I'm encountering systems where third-party > repositories have been added into /etc/apt/sources.list or > /etc/apt/sources.list.d, usually put there by some .deb package that a > user installed from some

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

Hi Daniel, Le Thu, May 19, 2016 at 05:18:28PM +0200, Daniel Pocock a écrit : > > From a technical perspective, can we do more to prevent users being > surprised by packages putting new entries in /etc/apt/sources.list.d? maybe you are looking for an Apt option that would only install

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

Le 19/05/2016 19:20, Hakan Peker a écrit : > On 05/19/2016 06:18 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> From a technical perspective, can we do more to prevent users being >> surprised by packages putting new entries in /etc/apt/sources.list.d? >> > Please no. The system is work

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

❦ 20 mai 2016 08:59 -0300, Antonio Terceiro  : >> testing is not suitable for most people because: >> >> 1. no security support > > That's not true. Proper security fixes will get into testing after 2 > days in unstable if everything goes right as long as the maintainer,

testing is a tool for the release team (Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 02:40:56PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: > This behavious may be useful for a development platform, but for an end > user this is just inacceptable. This is why we keep saying that testing is a tool for the release team and not a suite ment for users. Despite that it is

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

Antonio Terceiro writes: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 07:26:28AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: >> 2. packages can disappear at any time > > If they are broken. In my book that a feature and not a bug. >From the user's perspective, they are also often *not* broken. Just take the

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

]] Bas Wijnen > Debian stable is for users who want a rock solid system. It is out of date by > the nature of how it is built. Users who want to get the newest versions of > their software should not be running stable; testing is probably better for > them. This often isn't what users want,

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On 2016-05-20 at 07:59, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 07:26:28AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > >> ❦ 19 mai 2016 16:39 GMT, Bas Wijnen : >> >>> Debian stable is for users who want a rock solid system. It is >>> out of date by the nature of how it is

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 07:26:28AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 19 mai 2016 16:39 GMT, Bas Wijnen  : > > > Debian stable is for users who want a rock solid system. It is out of date > > by > > the nature of how it is built. Users who want to get the newest versions of >

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

Le Fri, May 20, 2016 at 07:34:59AM +0200, Vincent Bernat a écrit : > > I am always flabestered by the popularity of fpm to build Debian > packages (and by the increasing popularity of pleaserun by the same > author on the same concepts). It provides a way to easily build a Debian > package from a

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

❦ 19 mai 2016 18:04 +0100, Ian Jackson  : >> b) many upstreams appear frustrated about getting their package >> officially supported in Debian. Sometimes there is good reason their >> package doesn't belong in Debian but sometimes it is more about inertia >> in

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

❦ 19 mai 2016 16:39 GMT, Bas Wijnen  : > Debian stable is for users who want a rock solid system. It is out of date by > the nature of how it is built. Users who want to get the newest versions of > their software should not be running stable; testing is probably better for

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 04:39:24PM +, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > Hell, teams packaging Mozilla-soft and PostgreSQL are DDs maintaining > > *external archives* because it's easier. > > This indicates that our procedures are too hard. That needs to be fixed. > Maybe people from those teams are

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

Paul Tagliamonte writes ("Re: third-party packages adding apt sources"): > [cc'ing devel, since this is a rant that involves technical topics, and > god knows I only go on so many rants a year these days] I think you may have only BCC'd -devel, or something. > > Sometime

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

Bas Wijnen writes ("Re: third-party packages adding apt sources"): > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 07:15:01PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > Another thing comes to mind: making sure that even if the user > > explicitly allows some other repository, they are protected from pack

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

Daniel Pocock <dan...@pocock.pro> writes: > Another thing comes to mind: making sure that even if the user > explicitly allows some other repository, they are protected from package > updates that come along and replace other things like apt itself, libc, > bash, gnupg, ...

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

Daniel Pocock writes ("Re: third-party packages adding apt sources"): > On 19/05/16 19:04, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Debian proper has a very high bar for inclusion. Obviously there are > > perhaps some packages which are close to suitable for inclusion, but > &

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

ace other things like apt itself, libc, > bash, gnupg, ... I don't think we want to prevent that. If they want to install a package that does that, they can. However, I think it is reasonable to warn them that they should get ready for trouble when installing a package that isn't from Debian, an

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On 05/19/2016 06:18 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: More and more frequently I'm encountering systems where third-party repositories have been added into /etc/apt/sources.list or /etc/apt/sources.list.d, usually put there by some .deb package that a user installed from some third party site. Hey

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On 19/05/16 19:04, Ian Jackson wrote: > Daniel Pocock writes ("third-party packages adding apt sources"): >> b) many upstreams appear frustrated about getting their package >> officially supported in Debian. Sometimes there is good reason their >> package doesn't

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

Daniel Pocock writes ("third-party packages adding apt sources"): > b) many upstreams appear frustrated about getting their package > officially supported in Debian. Sometimes there is good reason their > package doesn't belong in Debian but sometimes it is more about

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On 2016-05-19 17:39, Bas Wijnen wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:46:53AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: [cc'ing devel, since this is a rant that involves technical topics, and god knows I only go on so many rants a year these days] You didn't

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:46:53AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > [cc'ing devel, since this is a rant that involves technical topics, and > god knows I only go on so many rants a year these days] You didn't actually do this. > > Sometimes there

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 08:45:09AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I don't think we can provide that inside Debian, at least without some > pretty significant changes to how we handle stable releases that are > contrary to some of our goals for stable. I think I heard someone saying "PPA" or such…

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

[cc'ing devel, since this is a rant that involves technical topics, and god knows I only go on so many rants a year these days] On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 05:18:28PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: > b) many upstreams appear frustrated about getting their package > officially supported in Debian.

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

Daniel Pocock writes: > b) many upstreams appear frustrated about getting their package > officially supported in Debian. Sometimes there is good reason their > package doesn't belong in Debian but sometimes it is more about inertia > in Debian or the upstream isn't aware

third-party packages adding apt sources

More and more frequently I'm encountering systems where third-party repositories have been added into /etc/apt/sources.list or /etc/apt/sources.list.d, usually put there by some .deb package that a user installed from some third party site. There are a few things going on here: a) the .deb

Processed: soap_use_proxy problem still exists with apt-listbugs

USE_SOAP_PROXY, or it should be standardized Unarchived Bug 399706 Unarchived Bug 396304 reassign 399706 apt-listbugs 0.1.3 Bug #399706 {Done: akira yamada ak...@debian.org} [project] soap4r should not request USE_SOAP_PROXY, or it should be standardized Bug #396304 {Done: akira yamada ak...@debian.org

Private/authenticated APT

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Has there ever been any interest in supporting private/authenticaed APT repositories (possibly by using oAuth or BasicAuth in the HTTP transport)? I've recently become interested in being able to do this, but I'm not sure it's possible with APT

Re: Private/authenticated APT

Hi Stephen, On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 21:32, Stephen Paul Weber singpol...@singpolyma.net wrote: Has there ever been any interest in supporting private/authenticaed APT repositories (possibly by using oAuth or BasicAuth in the HTTP transport)? I've recently become interested in being able to do

Looking for SoC mentor for apt-checkpoint project

Hello! There's apt-checkpoint project listed at Debian Wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2007/AptCheckpoint But there's no mentor listed as well. I'm interested in this project and i wrote draft version of my application. Maybe someone can be mentor for this project and discuss

Re: APT copyright

Dear Heidi, * Heidi Nicewander [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070309 20:04]: I was wondering if you have a copyright for APT. The Department of Human Services for Michigan wants to use APT (Adoptive Parent Training) as a part of a new program. No, we don't have a copyright on the term APT itself, so

Re: APT copyright

On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 02:24:22PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 02:04:45PM -0500, Heidi Nicewander wrote: Hello, I was wondering if you have a copyright for APT. The Department of Human Services for Michigan wants to use APT (Adoptive Parent Training

APT copyright

Hello, I was wondering if you have a copyright for APT. The Department of Human Services for Michigan wants to use APT (Adoptive Parent Training) as a part of a new program. Thanks for your time, Heidi Nicewander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe

Re: APT copyright

On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 02:04:45PM -0500, Heidi Nicewander wrote: Hello, I was wondering if you have a copyright for APT. The Department of Human Services for Michigan wants to use APT (Adoptive Parent Training) as a part of a new program. Thanks for your time, Heidi Nicewander I

apt

Hello, I just received a mail from one friend of mine, he reported aptitude retrieves updated package list from servers (included in /etc/apt/sources.list) by diffs, i.e. does not download the whole list, but only modifications (like patches). Sorry if I cannot epxress clear. Please approve

Re: apt

Igor Bogomazov wrote: I just received a mail from one friend of mine, he reported aptitude retrieves updated package list from servers (included in /etc/apt/sources.list) by diffs, i.e. does not download the whole list, but only modifications (like patches). Sorry if I cannot epxress clear

Thank you for apt!

First off i would like to say i love Debian greatly. I love apt as well. 15,000+ packages is simply amazing and its the main reason why I used Debian. I would like to suggest some very simple features that i feel would greatly improve apt. When you are setting up a new system you have

Re: Thank you for apt!

First off, thank you for your compliments, Michael! When you are setting up a new system you have to install a number of new pieces of software. It would be nice if you could run more than once instance of apt. This is a wish often voiced by our users. So far, we have not really found

Re: dynamic partial mirror, apt-get fails

on the fly when the clients request them. That's such a great idea, that it has already been implemented ;-) You may want to have a look at apt-cacher. -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE

Re: APT 0.6: let's get started

Michael Banck wrote: On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 05:50:18PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: I am not in the position to complain at this stage in the game, but I think it would have been nice for you to quickly announce the location of continuation of this discussion here... It's the APT

Re: Take APT 0.6 discussion public!

domainname advertised, than please say so, but don't start throwing your sandbox moulds at others who work. And, please accept it from me: I am _really_ disappointed. I brought the issues open with apt 0.6 up in public in hope to get to a solution, but you managed to convert it into a flamewar

Re: APT 0.6: let's get started

* martin f. krafft: Florian: what's the status? Can we get started? There's already a discussion on the deity mailing list. At this stage, we have to identify potential showstoppers, then we can decide on which things we should work first. It's certainly necessary to check if APT frontends

Re: APT 0.6: let's get started

On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 05:50:18PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: I am not in the position to complain at this stage in the game, but I think it would have been nice for you to quickly announce the location of continuation of this discussion here... It's the APT development list, so it's what

Take APT 0.6 discussion public! (was: Bits from the DAMs)

that the broad public gets the impression that, in fact, you do not exist. Yay for public development. Let's keep discussion about APT 0.6 visible to everyone! Sorry for creating the list in the first place. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft

Re: Take APT 0.6 discussion public!

also sprach Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2005.02.16.1541 +0100]: Yes. If we weren't we might wake up one day and mistakenly think it might be possible to have discussions on Debian lists that didn't involve gratuitous insults. I described the situation as perceived by numerous (if not

Re: Take APT 0.6 discussion public!

. Krafft. Martin's valid question stands. Someone has advised Martin to plan his APT work in the full glare of the lists. Whether this is good advice to Martin, I do not know; but all Martin wants to know is, if the advice is good for the APT team, then why not for ftpmaster? It is a fair

Re: Take APT 0.6 discussion public!

Thaddeus H. Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When have you ever seen Martin F. Krafft gratuitously insult anyone? Well, almost everytime i read one of his posts to the lists. Marc -- $_=')(hBCdzVnS})3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$(rellac(=_$({pam(esrever })e$.)4/3* )e$(htgnel+23(rhc,u(kcapnu ,nioj

Re: Take APT 0.6 discussion public!

On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:03:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: martin f krafft wrote: If you are not busy with sarge, tell us what you are doing for Debian that makes you have no time for the above tasks! My apologies, Sir, it appears I must have mislaid my employment contract; I

Re: Take APT 0.6 discussion public!

also sprach Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.02.16.2334 +0100]: When have you ever seen Martin F. Krafft gratuitously insult anyone? Well, almost everytime i read one of his posts to the lists. I'll refrain from gratuitously insulting you. This thread is not about me nor any

Re: Take APT 0.6 discussion public!

is not about me nor any particular person. It's about developers and ftpmasters. It was suppposed to be about APT 0.6, which has absolutely *nothing* to do with ftpmasters. It's amazing how quickly discussions in Debian can devolve into role bashing. Cheers, aj, mmm, rolls -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Re: Take APT 0.6 discussion public!

martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2005.02.16.1703 +0100]: Or, wait, perhaps you aren't my boss, and you've got absolutely no business demanding that I account for my time? Doesn't the position of a delegate bear a certain amount of responsibility and duties,

Bits from the ftpmasters (was: Take APT 0.6 discussion public!)

also sprach Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2005.02.17.0025 +0100]: Honestly, I'd love to talk about these sorts of things more publically; Why have you not done so in the past? but I'm not willing to do that in an environment that's actively hostile. The stage is yours. The thread is

the delegate's job (was: Take APT 0.6 discussion public!)

also sprach Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2005.02.17.0036 +0100]: No, it does not. You have a debian.org address; presumably you read the constitution as part of that. Please see 2.1.1: shall i scream insult now? 1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to

Re: Debian Sarge does not have either version of apt-proxy

On Mon 11 Oct, Florian Weimer wrote: * Chris Bell: The earlier 1.3.x version may not be perfect, but it does work for me, and I have not found any other software that does the same job. AFAIK, apt-proxy 1.9 is only required if you have apt 0.6 somewhere on your site. apt-proxy 1.3

Re: Debian Sarge does not have either version of apt-proxy

* Chris Bell: The earlier 1.3.x version may not be perfect, but it does work for me, and I have not found any other software that does the same job. AFAIK, apt-proxy 1.9 is only required if you have apt 0.6 somewhere on your site. apt-proxy 1.3 is fine with apt 0.5, but much too often

Debian Sarge does not have either version of apt-proxy

Hello, The current Sarge has neither the stable version of apt-proxy nor the development version 1.9.18 currently only in Sid. Is there a reason why neither version is included in the current Sarge-testing? I feel that it would be a mistake to omit both versions from Sarge when it is released

Re: Debian Sarge does not have either version of apt-proxy

On Thu 23 Sep, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On 23-09-2004 15:50, Chris Bell wrote: |The current Sarge has neither the stable version of apt-proxy nor the | development version 1.9.18 currently only in Sid. Is there a reason why | neither version is included in the current Sarge-testing

Re: Debian Sarge does not have either version of apt-proxy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23-09-2004 18:42, Chris Bell wrote: | On Thu 23 Sep, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: | | |On 23-09-2004 15:50, Chris Bell wrote: | ||The current Sarge has neither the stable version of apt-proxy nor the || development version 1.9.18 currently only

Re: Debian Sarge does not have either version of apt-proxy

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On 23-09-2004 15:50, Chris Bell wrote: |The current Sarge has neither the stable version of apt-proxy nor the | development version 1.9.18 currently only in Sid. Is there a reason why | neither version is included in the current Sarge-testing

Re: Debian Sarge does not have either version of apt-proxy

On Thu 23 Sep, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23-09-2004 15:50, Chris Bell wrote: |The current Sarge has neither the stable version of apt-proxy nor the | development version 1.9.18 currently only in Sid. Is there a reason why | neither

Re: Debian Sarge does not have either version of apt-proxy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23-09-2004 15:50, Chris Bell wrote: |The current Sarge has neither the stable version of apt-proxy nor the | development version 1.9.18 currently only in Sid. Is there a reason why | neither version is included in the current Sarge-testing

Re: [OT] Re: A freak (but not so freak) idea: User space apt-get install

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:48:32PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: Neither of those two documents say that we will keep all postings on the archives, or that we will remove them, they just say that we will if we want to. [...] seem to address your doubts... No, they don't really. In case of

Re: [OT] Re: A freak (but not so freak) idea: User space apt-get install

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:48:32PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: I would still apply the second paragraph I just re-quoted - We are not under obligation to remove it. Now, if someone posted a list of valid WinXP license numbers to our lists, the listmasters would probably delete it. And if someone

Re: [OT] Re: A freak (but not so freak) idea: User space apt-get install

On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:10:33PM +, Colin Watson wrote: Of course, they will apply their personal criteria in order to do so, and they will not be able to remove it from external archiving sites. You do know that the person you're replying to is a listmaster, right? (Just checking,

Re: [OT] Re: A freak (but not so freak) idea: User space apt-get install

Pascal Hakim dijo [Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:39:39PM +1100]: This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial use, duplication and distribution. --- This email is non-DFSG. We need to remove it from the list archives.

Re: [OT] Re: A freak (but not so freak) idea: User space apt-get install

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:26:51PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: Pascal Hakim dijo [Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:39:39PM +1100]: This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial use, duplication and distribution. --- This

Re: [OT] Re: A freak (but not so freak) idea: User space apt-get install

Neither of those two documents say that we will keep all postings on the archives, or that we will remove them, they just say that we will if we want to. Ummm... All emails sent to the lists are distributed both to the list subscribers and copied to the public archive, for people to

HELP, PLEASE!! Apt-Get update Errors

I think I read somewhere that there is a problem with one of the libraries causing APT-GET UPDATE to fial. I keep getting the same error; UNABLE TO PARSE PACKAGE FILE /VAR/LIB/DPKG/STATUS (1). I would really appreciate someone telling me how to resolve this. I am running the testing (with some

Re: apt-get upgrade

On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 13:00, ..::jdb78::.. wrote: hi, i was just wondering why apt-get update /apt-get upgrade wont update ANY files since lets say about 2 months? are there new source.lists or is there no update anymore? I presume apt-get updzte reported some errors. What did they say

  1   2   >