Bug#1870: /usr/bin/perl: cannot execute binary file
I just installed 0.93R6 base system. Everything seemed to go well. When I tried 'adduser', it failed with the message bash: /usr/bin/perl : cannot execute binary file dpkg complained too when I tried installing vim. cheers partha
Bug#1872: wu-ftpd in CPU loop
Package: wu-ftpd Version: 2.4-16 >From ps guaxww: USER PID %CPU %MEM SIZE RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND ... ftp 23724 85.6 0.1 164 24 ? R12:51 670:04 (wu-ftpd) ... >From ps glaxww: FUID PID PPID PRI NI SIZE RSS WCHAN STAT TTY TIME COMMAND ... 011 23724 16311 17 0 164 24 0 R ? 670:10 (wu-ftpd) ... >From top: 1:55am up 3 days, 5:14, 2 users, load average: 1.10, 1.10, 1.07 35 processes: 33 sleeping, 2 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped CPU states: 15.8% user, 84.0% system, 0.0% nice, 0.2% idle Mem: 18720K av, 16596K used, 2124K free, 3360K shrd, 6744K buff Swap: 47280K av, 9488K used, 37792K free PID USER PRI NI SIZE RES SHRD STAT %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND 23724 ftp 30 0 164 24 172 R83.2 0.1671:38 (wu-ftpd) 31687 root 20 0 104 332 348 R16.6 1.7 0:00 top ... Ian.
checkdescriptions.pl
Here's the script I use to check the presence and format of packages'
extended descriptions.
Would anyone like to take over maintaining it, running it, and
reporting bad or missing descriptions as bugs ?
Ian.
#!/usr/bin/perl --
$/="";
while (<>) {
next if m/^Status:/ && !m/^Status:.* installed$/mi;
m/^Package:\s*(\S+)\s*$/mi || die "no package name >$_<";
$lpname= $pname= $1; $lpname =~ y/A-Z/a-z/;
m/^Maintainer:\s*(\S.*\S)\s*$/mi || die "no maintainer >$_<";
$maint= $1;
$bad='';
if (m/^Description:.*\n(?![ \t])/mi) {
$bad= 'No extended description'; $badn=6;
} elsif (m/^Description:.*\n(\t| [ \t])/mi) {
$bad= 'Start of extended description is indented'; $badn=4;
} elsif (m/^Description:.*\n .*\t/mi) {
$bad= 'Extended description contains tabs'; $badn=5;
} elsif (m/^Description:.*(\n .*)*\n[ \t]+\n/mi) {
$bad= 'Extended description contains whitespace-only lines - very bad';
$badn=2;
} elsif (m/^Description:.*\n \.?\n/mi) {
$bad= 'Extended description starts with empty line'; $badn=3;
} elsif (m/^Description:.*(\n .*)*\n.*\S +\S.*\S +\S/mi) {
$bad= 'Extended description appears to be right-justified'; $badn=5;
} elsif (m/^Description:\s*(\S+)/mi && (($w1=$1) =~ y/A-Z/a-z/, $w1 eq
$lpname)) {
$bad= 'Summary description starts with package name'; $badn=5;
} elsif (m/^Description:.*\n \S/mi) {
$bad= 'Extended description provided and looks good'; $badn=0;
} elsif (!m/^Description:/mi) {
$bad= 'No description at all'; $badn=3;
} else {
die ">$_<";
$bad= "Urgle $pname"; $badn=-1;
}
$v='';
if (m/^Version:\s*(\S+)$/mi) {
$v= " (".$1;
if (m/^(?:Package-)?Revision:\s*(\S+)$/mi) { $v .= "-$1"; }
$v.= ")";
}
$this= sprintf("%-40s %-35.35s",$pname.$v,$maint);
$badness{$this}= $bad;
$badindex{$badn,$bad}= $bad;
}
print "Summary of number of packages in each category:\n";
for $k (sort keys %badindex) {
$count= 0;
for $p (sort keys %badness) {
next if $badness{$p} ne $badindex{$k};
$count++;
}
printf "%6d %s\n",$count,$badindex{$k};
$count{$k}=
}
for $k (sort {
$count{$a} != $count{$b} ? $count{$a} <=> $count{$b} : $a cmp $b
} (keys %badindex)) {
print "\n$badindex{$k}:\n";
for $p (sort keys %badness) {
next if $badness{$p} ne $badindex{$k};
print " $p\n";
}
}
Re: Revised resorted bugs list
Ian Murdock writes ("Re: Revised resorted bugs list"):
> I looks like I need to do a little editing of the noverrides file,
> too--I've given away several packages that haven't been updated (a
> few of the base packages, for example).
Right.
> I also need to mark a few
> bug reports "forwarded", now that we are capable of tracking that.
NB that I was a bit premature when I added the description of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED]' address to the documentation; Bruce
hasn't had time to set that up yet, and it's not well-tested for the
obvious reason.
The `forwarded' and `notforwarded' commands to debian-bugs-request
will work though.
Ian.
Warning people off 1.0 (was Re: Unidentified subject!)
Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: Unidentified subject!"):
> Matthew Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I don't know if this is a good news or bad news.
> > but I think there is a big misunderstanding about debian-0.93 and debian-1.0
> > I really forsee the need to do this
> >
> > debian-0.93
> > release -> debian-0.93
> > development/debian-1.0
> > NOTICE: NO LINK
> > development/trial-packages (or some such instead of inside private/project)
The problem with this is that moving directories is a pain for the
mirror sites. We had this already when we released 0.93; we don't
want to have to physically move 1.0 when we release it.
> Perhaps this is part of the problem:
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 1 debian2982 Oct 27 02:55 README.DEBIAN
> drwxrwxr-x 6 1 debian 512 Nov 17 04:36 debian-0.93
> lrwxrwxr-x 1 1 debian 11 Nov 17 04:55 debian-0.93R6 -> debian-0.93
> drwxrwxr-x 6 1 debian 512 Nov 17 04:36 debian-1.0
> lrwxrwxr-x 1 1 debian 10 Nov 17 04:55 development -> debian-1.0
>
>
> DEBIAN.README predates the 0.93 vs. 1.0 split, and there's no info in
> there about what the difference between 0.93 and 1.0 is or which is
> appropriate to download for what purpose. The only hint that 1.0 is
> bleeding edge is the fact that there's a symlink named "development"
> pointing to it.
I've added/edited various README's and .message files. Take a look at
what you see now; I think it's pretty hard to miss ...
Ian.
-chiark:~> ncftp debian
NcFTP 2.1.0 (July 15, 1995), by Mike Gleason, NCEMRSoft.
Current local directory is /u/ian/download.
Trying to connect to ftp.debian.org...
**
WELCOME TO
C E N T R A L M I C H I G A N U N I V E R S I T Y
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
**
Hello, user at chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk.
You are currently user 13 out of a possible 150 in your class.
If you experience problems with this archive or if you have comments or
questions about this archive, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anonymous users: Please use a real e-mail address as your password,
not "root", "Netscape", "WWWuser", etc., and please keep the number of
connections to one. If this becomes a problem, we will deny access to
your machine, or even to your entire domain.
The official Debian GNU/Linux archive is located on this machine in the
directory /debian.
NOTE: This site allows the .tar.gz convention, but please note that 99%
of the files on this site are already compressed. Therefore, .gz
should not be used, as it creates unnecessary load on the server.
Guest login ok, access restrictions apply.
debian:/> cd /debian
The current version of Debian GNU/Linux is 0.93 Release 6,
in the debian-0.93 directory here.
For more information about Debian GNU/Linux, please visit the World
Wide Web page http://www.debian.org/.
Please read the file README.DEBIAN
it was last modified on Thu Oct 26 22:55:35 1995 - 23 days ago
Please read the file README.USE-0.93
it was last modified on Sat Nov 18 11:23:29 1995 - 0 days ago
Please read the file README.mirrors
it was last modified on Thu Oct 26 22:55:35 1995 - 23 days ago
debian:/debian> dir
total 1188
-rw-rw-r-- 1 3969 debian 201 Nov 18 16:26 .message
-rw-r--r-- 1 0 debian 0 Nov 9 04:34 .notar
-rw-r--r-- 1 3969 debian 140303 Nov 18 04:54 Packages-Master
-rw-r--r-- 1 3969 debian 39553 Nov 18 04:56 Packages-Master.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 1 debian2982 Oct 27 02:55 README.DEBIAN
-rw-rw-r-- 1 3969 debian 210 Nov 18 16:23 README.USE-0.93
-rw-r--r-- 1 1 debian2438 Oct 27 02:55 README.mirrors
drwxrwxr-x 6 1 debian 512 Oct 3 21:29 contrib
drwxrwxr-x 6 1 debian 512 Nov 18 04:34 debian-0.93
lrwxrwxr-x 1 1 debian 11 Nov 18 16:27 debian-0.93R6 -> debian-0.93
drwxrwxr-x 6 1 debian 512 Nov 18 16:35 debian-1.0
drwxrwxr-x 4 10003 debian 512 Jun 24 02:15 debian-bugs
lrwxrwxr-x 1 1 debian 10 Nov 18 16:27 development -> debian-1.0
drwxrwxr-x 2 1 debian 512 Nov 9 05:46 doc
drwxrwxr-x 2 1 debian 512 Oct 27 03:52 info
drwxrwxr-x 2 1 debian 512 Sep 26 17:51 kernel
-rw-r--r-- 1 1 debian 384614 Nov 18 04:34 ls-laR
drwxrwxr-x 5 1 debian 512 Oct 3 21:29 non-free
drwxrwx--x 3 0 daemon 512 Nov 9 04:34 private
drwxrwxr-x 5 1 debian 512 Sep 28 16:09 project
lrwxrwxr-x 1 1 debian 13 Nov 18 16:27 stable -> debian-0.93R6
drwxrwxr-x 2 1 debian 512 Sep 28 16:09 tools
debian:/debian> cd debian-1.0
*** WARNING! THIS IS UNRELEASED ALPHA SOFTWARE. ***
The currently released version of Debian GNU/Linux is 0.93.
You can find Debian 0.93 in ../debian-0.93.
Please read the file README.DO-NOT-USE
it was last modified on Sat Nov 18 11:23:2
Re: aout-* packages
David Engel writes ("Re: aout-* packages"):
> This brings up a good question. Do we really want to provide new,
> a.out versions of *all* development packages, even if they don't
> contain any shared libraries? Not doing so might be a good way to
> encourage all development to switch to ELF.
We have to provide a.out versions of all the development packages
which other Debian packages depend on at build time, since we'll
otherwise be unable to make emergency fixes to 0.93.
Ian.
Re: md5sum passwords
Karl Ferguson writes ("Re: md5sum passwords"):
> I know what you're all saying, but I'd definately like the MD5 in place as an
> optional extra. Isn't that possible? The extra security as an Internet
> Provider is a much needed asset...
As I wrote earlier, MD5 used in this way is not significantly more
secure than traditional crypt. The problem with Unix passwords isn't
the length limit, it's the poor diversity and the ease with which an
attacker can test a guess.
The poor diversity can be protected by making guessing harder; that's
what my proposal is intended to do.
I dread to think what the consequences will be if we try to go through
all of our programs making sure that they cope with longer passwords
and longer encrypted passwords, and in any case there would be little
point since it doesn't solve either of the problems.
I agree with Andrew Fernandes's comments.
Ian.
Re: Warning people off 1.0 (was Re: Unidentified subject!)
I wrote: > I've added/edited various README's and .message files. Take a look at > what you see now; I think it's pretty hard to miss ... I forgot to say that I *didn't* edit README.DEBIAN. Ian M., can you do that ? Ian.
new maintainer for "miscutils"
Jeff Noxon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is taking over the miscutils package. The ones I still have available are: mount - a few outstanding bug reports. procmail - track the upstream maintainer. rspfd - For radio hams only. Track the upstream maintainer. setserial - Track the upstream maintainer. syslinux - Track the upstream maintainer. The Kernel - for an experienced systems programmer only, and takes lots of work. I have some tentative takers for some of these "if nobody else asks". Thanks Bruce -- Visit the "Toy Story" Web Page! http://www.toystory.com
ELF ncurses
I am trying to wrap a new version of the miscutils package for ELF. It depends on ncurses, however, and I can't find debianized ncurses libs that work with the stuff in debian-1.0. Also, the ELF ncurses in the experimental directory seems to use the wrong soname. Is anyone working on this? Thanks, Jeff
Re: ELF ncurses
> "Jeff" == Jeff Noxon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jeff> I am trying to wrap a new version of the miscutils package for ELF. Jeff> It depends on ncurses, however, and I can't find debianized ncurses Jeff> libs that work with the stuff in debian-1.0. Jeff> Also, the ELF ncurses in the experimental directory seems to use Jeff> the wrong soname. Jeff> Is anyone working on this? Sorry, I obviously forgot to cc my reply to Bill Mitchell's message, here it is: [ snip ]--- From: Siggy Brentrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Bill Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: ELF packages Date: Thu, 16 Nov 95 07:04 MET > "Bill" == Bill Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Bill> On Wed, 15 Nov 1995, Ian Murdock wrote: >> [...] For now, I urge everyone to upgrade their copies of gcc, >> libc, etc., as we're going to start wanting to building ELF >> packages fairly soon. Bill> I've started working on mine. The second package build Bill> failed because it uses curses. Sorry for that, see below. Bill> The plan, AFAK, is to junk curses in favor of ncurses. Bill> However, I recall that Bruce put the ncurses package up for Bill> grabs. Would it be possible to get an elf libncurses? I offered to take ncurses when Bruce put it at disposal, but his response got lost as we found out in private email, probably due to problems at my provider's. Sorry for that. Furthermore I am inclined to defer downloading large packages like gcc and the like until next week since I'm changing technology (ISDN) and provider and get another 1Gig :) In case you can't wait, feel free to drop me a note, I'll try to find a solution. Bill> Is the stuff in /usr/include/ncurses to be repositioned to Bill> /usr/include or to remain in /usr/include/ncurses? I'd prefer to leave it in /usr/lib/ncurses (don't like monster directories) but I'm not religious about that. Regs Siggy -- email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // programmer/*nix admin for hire \\ Opinions are strictly my own, voice: +49-251-864978 \\ everything else is GPLed Mime(RFC1521) encoded messages welcome \\ http://coming.soon/
announcement procedures
Considering that 0.93 is considered the stable release, and considering the user confusion that's been seen between 0.93 packages and the elf packeages, does it make sense to be announcing elf package uploads to debian-changes? [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Mitchell)
Bug#1873: dvipsk ignores /etc/papersize!
Package: dvipsk Version: 5.58f-3 The package installs a /usr/lib/texmf/dvips/config.ps file that is setup for A4 paper. Please take pity on the small minority of debian users in the US and give us the install-time option of using "US Letter" size instead. --Mike
Bug#1874: a2ps ignores /etc/papersize!
Package: a2ps Version: 4.3-1 The package is preconfigured for A4 paper. Please take pity on the small minority of debian users in the US and give us the install-time option of using "US Letter" size instead. --Mike
