* Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> Can I put in version something like libselinux1_1.6-0.1-bp.mps_i386.deb
> instead of libselinux1_1.6-0.1_i386.deb?
Well, if 1.6-0.1 will be in our next stable release, your backport
will not be replaced with the version from stable.
I'd suggest using libselinux1_1.6-0.0
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 01:22:17PM -0500, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
We could offer a second Mozilla package, leaving the current on in place
for compatibility sakes.
I'd rather see just one package. A new package doesn't do anything to
fix the existing security problems. I don't care at all whi
* Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> Can I put in version something like libselinux1_1.6-0.1-bp.mps_i386.deb
> instead of libselinux1_1.6-0.1_i386.deb?
Well, if 1.6-0.1 will be in our next stable release, your backport
will not be replaced with the version from stable.
I'd suggest using libselinux1_1.6-0.0
Greetings,
Am Donnerstag, 11. März 2004 19:22 schrieb Phillip Hofmeister:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 at 12:24:15PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > This introduces a whole new set of problems, given Mozilla's upgrade
> > history (not preserving user configuration data, breaking compatibility
> > with d
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 01:22:17PM -0500, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
We could offer a second Mozilla package, leaving the current on in place
for compatibility sakes.
I'd rather see just one package. A new package doesn't do anything to
fix the existing security problems. I don't care at all which v
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 at 12:24:15PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> This introduces a whole new set of problems, given Mozilla's upgrade history
> (not preserving user configuration data, breaking compatibility with
> dependent applications, etc.)
We could offer a second Mozilla package, leaving the
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 04:32:30PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> There's no obvious solution. If Debian sticks to 1.0 on principle,
> there's nothing we can do. It's unlikely we'll find a volunteer who
> backports all those fixes to 1.0. I haven't found any commercial
> distributor who still s
Greetings,
Am Donnerstag, 11. März 2004 19:22 schrieb Phillip Hofmeister:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 at 12:24:15PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > This introduces a whole new set of problems, given Mozilla's upgrade
> > history (not preserving user configuration data, breaking compatibility
> > with d
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 at 12:24:15PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> This introduces a whole new set of problems, given Mozilla's upgrade history
> (not preserving user configuration data, breaking compatibility with
> dependent applications, etc.)
We could offer a second Mozilla package, leaving the
Jan Lühr wrote:
> > AFAIK, 1.4 is the more stable branch, and fixes are still backported to
> > it (at least by MandrakeSoft 8-).
>
> Is that your campaign?
> http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/ticker/article.php?mid=1183
Well, sort of, but it's a bit out of control now.
There's no obvious solution.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 04:32:30PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> There's no obvious solution. If Debian sticks to 1.0 on principle,
> there's nothing we can do. It's unlikely we'll find a volunteer who
> backports all those fixes to 1.0. I haven't found any commercial
> distributor who still s
Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> * Sven Hoexter wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:48:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> [...]
> > > Okay, if that's the case, I'm going to start a campaign for
> > > including Mozilla 1.4 (plus fixes) in stable.
> >
> > Well why just include 1.4 and not 1.6? I know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greetings,
Am Mittwoch, 10. März 2004 22:39 schrieb Florian Weimer:
> Sven Hoexter wrote:
> > > Okay, if that's the case, I'm going to start a campaign for including
> > > Mozilla 1.4 (plus fixes) in stable.
> >
> > Well why just include 1.4 and not 1
Jan Lühr wrote:
> > AFAIK, 1.4 is the more stable branch, and fixes are still backported to
> > it (at least by MandrakeSoft 8-).
>
> Is that your campaign?
> http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/ticker/article.php?mid=1183
Well, sort of, but it's a bit out of control now.
There's no obvious solution.
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:14, "Milan P. Stanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:42:52PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > If you copy all files related to a package intact then you don't have to
> > make such changes.
> >
> > If you make any changes at all (even re-compiling with
Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> * Sven Hoexter wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:48:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> [...]
> > > Okay, if that's the case, I'm going to start a campaign for
> > > including Mozilla 1.4 (plus fixes) in stable.
> >
> > Well why just include 1.4 and not 1.6? I know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greetings,
Am Mittwoch, 10. März 2004 22:39 schrieb Florian Weimer:
> Sven Hoexter wrote:
> > > Okay, if that's the case, I'm going to start a campaign for including
> > > Mozilla 1.4 (plus fixes) in stable.
> >
> > Well why just include 1.4 and not 1
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:42:52PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> If you copy all files related to a package intact then you don't have to make
> such changes.
>
> If you make any changes at all (even re-compiling with a different compiler
> and/or libc) then you must update the changelog appropr
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:40, "Milan P. Stanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:02:50AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > If someone needs them I can put it on the net or post somewhere, or
> > > maybe help if the help is needed.
> >
> > If you could establish an apt repository
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:14, "Milan P. Stanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:42:52PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > If you copy all files related to a package intact then you don't have to
> > make such changes.
> >
> > If you make any changes at all (even re-compiling with
- Original Message -
From:
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 7:57 AM
Subject: information
> what does it mean?
> pidä matoset viestisi!
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:02:50AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > If someone needs them I can put it on the net or post somewhere, or
> > maybe help if the help is needed.
>
> If you could establish an apt repository for it then that would be very
> useful. Brian's SE Linux packages haven't bee
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:42:52PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> If you copy all files related to a package intact then you don't have to make
> such changes.
>
> If you make any changes at all (even re-compiling with a different compiler
> and/or libc) then you must update the changelog appropr
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:40, "Milan P. Stanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:02:50AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > If someone needs them I can put it on the net or post somewhere, or
> > > maybe help if the help is needed.
> >
> > If you could establish an apt repository
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 7:57 AM
Subject: information
> what does it mean?
> pidä matoset viestisi!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTEC
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:02:50AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > If someone needs them I can put it on the net or post somewhere, or
> > maybe help if the help is needed.
>
> If you could establish an apt repository for it then that would be very
> useful. Brian's SE Linux packages haven't bee
26 matches
Mail list logo
