Le 29/08/2017 à 14:51, Mario Castelán Castro a écrit :
> I suggest you write to the maintainer of that Debian package.
Thanks for the suggestion. In the meantime, I found a bug report that I
missed : https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=867166
This is give me the exact answer I need.
On 29/08/17 02:22, Adrien CLERC wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since the announce of grsecurity to go to a complete non-free (as in
> beer) model (see https://grsecurity.net/passing_the_baton.php), I was
> wondering if there is any future for those packages.
I suggest you write to the maintainer of that Debian
Hi,
Since the announce of grsecurity to go to a complete non-free (as in
beer) model (see https://grsecurity.net/passing_the_baton.php), I was
wondering if there is any future for those packages.
I am really grateful for the maintainer who did this. This is a great
job, since it allowed me to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 04:04:50PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why doesn't someone develop a similar protocol to Microsoft's network
neighborhood and smb for Linux.
Well, all SMB does is handle network file systems and network
printers. Both
Why doesn't someone develop a similar protocol to Microsoft's network
neighborhood and smb for Linux. So when you join a NIS like system that
it will automatically authenticate you on your Linux network with your
currently logged in user name and password. This way people that are
esOn Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 04:04:50PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why doesn't someone develop a similar protocol to Microsoft's network
neighborhood and smb for Linux. So when you join a NIS like system that
it will automatically authenticate you on your Linux network with your
Hi,
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-22 23:04]:
Why doesn't someone develop a similar protocol to Microsoft's network
neighborhood and smb for Linux. So when you join a NIS like system that
it will automatically authenticate you on your Linux network with your
currently logged
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:04:50 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why doesn't someone develop a similar protocol to Microsoft's network
neighborhood and smb for Linux. So when you join a NIS like system
that it will automatically authenticate you on your Linux network
with your currently logged
Davide Bolcioni [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The concept seems very interesting to me, although I wonder if it is
within the scope of LSB; I had the notion that its effort was
concerned with standardizing existing development approaches.
Probably it's not [it being TenDRA]. On the other hand,
Bruce Stephens wrote:
Davide Bolcioni [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we say a library is a collection of functions which have a
signature and an implementation, the notion of change becomes: 1 -
an implementation change which preserves the signature; 2 - a
signature change (which may be
Christopher Hassell wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 1998 at 10:11:31AM +0100, Davide Bolcioni wrote:
]
] ...
] This is so that every app doesnt install their own version of python
] just in case. That could be extended to all interpreters and some
] libraries probably and a farmed out approach
At the risk of reviving a very quickly-quiet thread... I've still an
interest and have acquired some opinions around our software house.
On Thu, Nov 12, 1998 at 01:37:05PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
]Glibc is good, but what about wide char, unicode etc.. etc.. etc.. ad biggum.
] Glibc does wide
Okay, I just got a bit more info from our main locale-issues developer
(Jon Trulson):
The multi-byte functions *are* there in glibc. He knows they are there.
They just are not reliable enough, powerful enough, to stick with in our
new products. (i.e. setlocale() doesn't apparently do
On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Andy Tai wrote:
Compilers are also an issue I feel strongly about. I think gcc and egcs
are awsome, but no match (yet) for commercial compilers.
Don't even think of trying making some commerical compilers part of the Linux
standard, if they's what you are thinking.
Davide Bolcioni [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we say a library is a collection of functions which have a
signature and an implementation, the notion of change becomes: 1 -
an implementation change which preserves the signature; 2 - a
signature change (which may be construed as a deletion
---BeginMessage---
Alan Cox wrote:
What else will the lsb cover? Or has there been a decision about that
yet?
The only other stuff covered at the meeting was X11. The good work XFree
does is a big help there as their binary interfaces and the X specification
API's are both
Badlandz wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
I think it is unwize at this point to make LSB conserned with X11R6
standards. Of course it should/could comply with what X11R6, but I
libX11.so.* is Xlib is X11, as are the X packages. Other stuff like
themed widget sets sit on X11 (ie another library that you
You can guess what I'll say I suppose?
Glibc is good, but what about wide char, unicode etc.. etc.. etc.. ad biggum.
X is the main site where that is being taken care of (i.e. fonts, keymaps,
input managers for asia etc..).. and that is not now standard in any great
and good way, very
Alan Cox wrote:
...
This is so that every app doesnt install their own version of python
just in case. That could be extended to all interpreters and some
libraries probably and a farmed out approach would IMHO be good.
This is a notion of software contract, if I understand correctly: a
Glibc is good, but what about wide char, unicode etc.. etc.. etc.. ad biggum.
Glibc does wide char, ncurses seems to imply it does (I've not
checked yet).
toward. Is there any interest in what we have thus far at Xi?
Well I know the currnt KDE doesnt handle 16bit Glyphs, Im not sure about
I was overjoyed at the appearance of the lsb, but now I am somewhat
dismayed at the lack of discussion on the mailing list... so to anyone
listening LETS START SOME!
First, I believe that the FHS is probably one of the most important
steps in bridging linux compatibility. What, if any, is
steps in bridging linux compatibility. What, if any, is the consensus on
the FHS 2.0... do the distributions that are part of the lsb agree to
use it?
It was discussed at and shortly after the LI meeting when Bruce presented
the whole cunning plan. FHS 2.0 is a big help but it might need some
On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
steps in bridging linux compatibility. What, if any, is the consensus on
the FHS 2.0... do the distributions that are part of the lsb agree to
use it?
It was discussed at and shortly after the LI meeting when Bruce presented
the whole cunning plan.
UDI is irrelevant. The existing UDI semantics cannot express the Linux
resource management or driver layering. Its also out of the lsb standard
area completely (indeed conceptually you could probably hack freebsd
around and produce a LSB compliant freebsd) since we care about services
at the
What else will the lsb cover? Or has there been a decision about that
yet?
The only other stuff covered at the meeting was X11. The good work XFree
does is a big help there as their binary interfaces and the X specification
API's are both stable. Motif has been raised as a question, as
25 matches
Mail list logo
